### Apollo BBS Archive - December 22, 1991

    _______________________________________
    |                           .         |d 9
    |.       .    .        .           |  |w 1   *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
    |    .          .                 -+- |      |    MERRY CHRISTMAS    |
    | .       .            .      .    |  |      *    FROM APOLLO 8.0    *
    |                  .           .   | .|      +-----------------------+
    |    .       .            .   _____ . |      | Arizona's Oldest BBS! |
    |                            /_____\  |      *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
    |  .      .       .   .     //     \\ |
    |                           || ___ || |
    |     .        .    .    .  || \_/ || |
    |___________________________|| / \ ||_|

    A Child will be  born for us, a Son will be given to us, and the government
    will be on His shoulder, and He will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty
    God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace...And  this is  how you will  know
    Him: you will find a Baby all wrapped up and lying in a manger.

    *=* Main Menu entered *=*

    Main Menu command:U

    $ Rod        Williams   17:49:51 (1200)
    $ Felix      Cat        17:14:33 (2400)
    $ Mike       Carter     16:56:26 (2400)
      Paul       Harris     16:38:03 (2400)
    $ Gordon     Little     15:50:39 (2400)
      Steve      Albany     14:44:09 (2400)
    $ Beauregard Dog        10:07:16 (2400)
    $ Archi      Medes      09:56:51 (1200)
    $ Archi      Medes      09:33:04 (1200)
    $ Ann        Oudin      07:35:47 (2400)
      James      Matlock    06:49:48 (1200)
    $ Mike       McNeill    06:42:18 (2400)
      James      Matlock    06:35:39 (1200)
      James      Matlock    06:01:54 (1200)
    $ Paul       Savage     05:43:26 (1200)
    $ Funky      Alf        05:26:38 (2400)
    $ Nick       Ianuzzi    04:15:26 (2400)
    $ Nick       Ianuzzi    04:10:18 (2400)
    $ Funky      Alf        03:41:40 (2400)
    $ Funky      Alf        03:39:39 (2400)
    $ Mike       Carter     03:13:44 (2400)
    $ Gordon     Little     02:59:16 (2400)
      James      Matlock    02:38:15 (1200)
    $ James      Hawley     00:24:20 (2400)
    $ Rod        Williams   00:12:55 (1200)

    Main Menu command:P

    *=* Post Office entered *=*

    Mail from James Hawley
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 00:27:19

    [A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

    I'm doing fine....  1700 this week.  Of course I had to work a lot in the
    rain, and had to go to Cave Creek tonight, but it could be worse.

    But things change, week to week.
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:How is your mother-in-law's eyes?  I went to Buckeye today to make keys for
     2:a Ford.  68 miles round trip.  I hear we are slipping into a depression.
     3:I like to fuck.
     4:                                Rod
     5:'end
     6:'
     7:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...

    As for the message to which you replied...
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap

    Mail from Steve Albany
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 14:45:43

    [A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

            Ola! Up from Tucson for the XMas thing... Will be in town until
    Friday. If you shoot me yer number I'll buzz ya as soon as I can.. (Lost my
    phone book)...

    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Hi, good to hear from you.  Mr. Green sez HI!  Number is 277-xxxx.
     2:
     3:Solstice parties are fun.
     4:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...

    As for the message to which you replied...
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap

    Post Office command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press [A] to abort

    Message: 1570
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat & Sing
    Subject: D-d-d-d-
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 03:04:27

    And Dire Straits.

    Anyone for Dvorak?

    No, I thought not.  Everyone thinks it's something to do with keyboards...

    Message: 1571
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit-Chat & Sing
    Subject: starts with "D"
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 04:14:29

    Well, there's the Divinyls, but that's a rather touchy subject.

    Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit-Chat & Sing

    Subject:D

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:I don't have a Dire Straits CD but I sure like their music.  The others,
     2:Dvorak and Divinyls, I haven't heard before.  What kind of music do they
     3:play?
     4:
     5:The last CD I purchased was several days ago.  It was the Doors, Morrison
     6:Hotel.  That makes my fourth Doors Album.  I have everything Dylan sang but
     7:I only have 1 Donovan CD.  I have nothing by the Doobie Brothers.
     8:
     9:Tomorror let's do the E's or perhaps we should start with those that begin
    10:with an A.
    11:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 1572

    Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press [A] to abort

    Message: 80756
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Bulletins
    Subject: SSN.TXT
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 02:35:31

            Want to know some interesting things about your Social Security
    Number and how to go about keeping it private?  Read the ASCII file
    SSN.TXT that can be found in the [L]ibrary.  File size is 13K

            This File was [U]ploaded to the system by Beauregard Dog

            If you [D]ownload it in [A]SCII, you can read it on line and use the
    [P]ause key at any time.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 80757
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hic, haec, hoc...
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 03:10:34

    It is "proPter hoc".  I think "procter hoc" is what the Proctor drinks with
    chicken and fish.

    Message: 80758
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Vote
    Subject: Christmas Tree vote
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 03:11:58

    I want to gripe about the Christmas Tree vote.  Not on the grounds of
    wording, but because I gathered from the discussion that people think the
    (A) and (D) choices mean you're going to kill a tree to put a real one in
    your house.  This isn't necessary.  For the past few Christmases we've had a
    live tree in a pot, and planted it outside after Christmas.  These trees are
    still alive and growing very well.  So much for the rape of the earth.

    At my mother's house in England there used to be a Christmas tree that we
    planted outside about thirty years ago.  It grew so enormous that finally
    she *had* to have it cut down because it was smothering the entire back of
    the house.  They carted it down to Hemel Hempstead Town Hall on a big truck,
    decorated it and put it on public display as the town Christmas tree that
    year.  Quite a good sendoff for an old tree.

    Message: 80759
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Gobfrey
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 03:12:37

    Headline in Friday's Republic:

                           YELTSIN SHOWS HIS STRENGTH,
                                 SEIZES KREMLIN

    [Quite a feat.  But how far did he get it off the ground?]

    Message: 80760
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: Aleister Crowley
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 06:20:29

    This guy is hugely entertaining.  There's a picture of him facing page 174
    of L. Sprague de Camp's _Spirits, Stars and Spells_ ,with a sort of magical
    pillow-cushion on his head, and his fists propped against his temples as
    though he were suffering a migraine, that never fails to put me in good
    spirits. The man is a crack-up.  There's a really hilarious passage from his
    _Magic (in theory and practice)_ book which inadvertently does more to
    deflate silly spiritualists who take themselves seriously, than any
    debunking by the _Skeptical Enquirer_ :
       "One must add a word on spiritism, which is a sort of indiscriminant
    necromancy -- one might prefer the word necrophilia -- by amateurs.  They
    make themselves perfectly passive, and, so far from employing any methods of
    protection, deliberately invite all and sundry spirits, demons, shells of
    the dead, all the excrement and filth of earth and hell, to squirt their
    slime over them.  This invitation is readily accepted, unless a clean man be
    present with an aura good enough to frighten these foul denizens of the pit.
    . . . Of all the creatures He [Crowley means himself] ever met, the most
    prominent of English spiritists (a journalist and pacifist of more than
    European fame) had the filthiest mind and the foulest mouth.  He would break
    off any conversation to tell a stupid smutty story, and could hardly
    conceive of any society assembling for any other purpose than 'phallic
    orgies', whatever they may be.  Utterly incapable of keeping to a subject,
    he would drag the conversation down again and again to the sole subject
    of which he really thought -- sex and sex perversions and sex and sex and
    sex again."                    (CONT.)

    Message: 80762
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: CONT.
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 06:38:44

    "This was the plain result of his spiritism.  All spiritists are more or
    less similarly afflicted.  They feel dirty even across the street; their
    auras are ragged, muddy, and malodorous; they ooze the slime of putrefying
    corpses.
    No spiritist, once he is wholly enmeshed in sentimentality and Freudian
    fear-phantasms, is capable of concentrated thought, of persistent will, or
    of moral character.  Devoid of every spark of the divine light which was his
    birthright, a prey before death to the ghastly tenents of the grave, the
    wretch, like the mesmerized and living corpse of Poe's Monsieur Valdemar, is
    a 'nearly liquid mass of loathsome, of detestable putrescence.'
    The student of this Holy Magick is most earnestly warned against frequenting
    their seances, or even admitting them to his presence.
    They are as contagious as syphilis, and more deadly and disgusting.  Unless
    your aura is strong enough to inhibit any manifestation of the loathly
    larvae that have taken up their habitation in them, shun them as you need
    not mere lepers!"

    This of course is the most egregious hypocrisy, coming from Crowley, but
    wonderfully illustrates the fact that he is not above peppering his
    treatises upon the Art of "Holy Magick" with some pot shots at his
    enemies.  Sometimes he even singles out personal acquaintances as targets
    for his bombastic, condescending, childish tirades, and the results are
    usually rather humorous, especially, coming as they do, in the context of
    metaphysical pronouncements of the utmost gravity.

    Message: 80763
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: the de Camp book
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 06:59:06

    It really has some choice stuff in it:

    "MacGregor Mathers called his society the Order of the Golden dawn.  He
    practiced the contemplation of arcane symbols and attracted such followers
    as the fantasy writer Algernon Blackwood and the Irish poet William Butler
    Yeats, who dabbled in occultism with tongue in cheek.  One of the faithful,
    an elderly clergyman, had concocted an Elixer of Life; but he boggled at
    drinking it when a brother alchemist warned him that he would lose his hair
    and nails in the process of becoming immortal.  While he hesitated, alas,
    the precious stuff dried up.
       In the 1890s, Mathers and his wife moved to Paris, where they lived on
    funds provided by a follower.  Yeats, who visited them there, told how he
    once played four-man chess with them.  While Yeats' partner was Mrs.
    Mathers, Mathers' partner was a ghost.  Whenever it was the ghost's turn to
    move, Mathers would stare at the empty chair opposite and solemnly make the
    spirit's move for it.
       Mathers was given to parading around the streets of Paris in Highland
    garb because, as he explained, 'When I am dressed like this I feel like a
    walking flame.'  Yet behind these histrionics, he was so timid that he was
    afraid to have an annoying polyp removed from his nose and so tender-hearted
    that, when he caught mice in a trap, he kept them in a cage and fed them."

    Message: 80764
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Bad idea
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:35:16

    I just read your 4-page answer to my posts, and I hope you will forgive me
    if I sound a little like I lost my bookmark.  I've spent the last two days
    correcting a problem with this modem software I didn't know I had, and I've
    succeeded in getting myself thoroughly distracted.  I'll try to get back on
    point here.

    FS> Your proposal that supposedly would get the gvt out of the currency
    FS> system would inevitably drag it back in.  After all, who is going to
    FS> make sure all those people, banks, businesses issuing "backed" currency
    FS> really have the backing?

    Good point.  But then, that *is* the job of gov't.  I suppose I'd prefer to
    see them getting involved in that than siphoning off the wealth of the
    people with money that isn't backed at all.

    I tend to agree with you generally on the grounds that the system I
    suggested (for discussion only, I remind you) begs too many questions.  The
    system we have now is a known disaster and a known fraud; the system
    compelled of gov't by the Constitution of the United States works and its
    operation is known and its susceptibility to fraud is minimal.  So, the
    Constitutional monetary standard is to be preferred.  It is also to be
    preferred because the Constitution mandates it; any other system is illegal
    until the Constitution is amended to permit it.

    Message: 80765
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Better for whom?
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:36:29

    FS> With a little thought, it is immediately obvious why a "valueless" in
    FS> the absolute sense, currency is actually a "better" currency.

    "Better" for whom?  Certainly not for anyone earning their daily bread from
    the exchange of their labor and skills in the marketplace.  All that person
    can pass on to his children is debt.  A monetary system of intrinsic value,
    on the other hand, permits him to improve his wages, improve his living
    standard at less cost, and pass on his achievements to his children at no
    cost to their living standard.

    FS> And then, as you latter said, we can do pretty much what you want to do
    FS> anyways, if we want to.

    What I am trying to do is bring to your attention the reasons why we should
    want to.  Constitutional principle, for example.  Individual liberty
    guaranteed to us by that Constitution, which is stolen from us by the
    debauchery of our currency.  The violation of all our rights by virtue (?)
    of our "voluntary" use of the fraudulent trappings of this monetary system,
    when in reality it isn't "voluntary" at all.  If it were "voluntary" I would
    be paid my wages in gold or silver coin, as the law requires, and I would
    have no objection if others wished to be paid in substance of no value.

    Message: 80766
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: IRS
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:37:57

    FS> Then you launch off into an attack on the IRS.  Unless your objection
    FS> is simply to the paying of taxes, for whatever reason, I see no basis
    FS> for your attack on the IRS as somehow messing up the system you want.
    FS> All the IRS is going to do is tax you on your income.

    I would be enormously happy if all the IRS did was tax me on my income.
    Unfortunately, they illegally tax me on my wages, too.  Wages are not
    income.  Wages are fair and equal exchange for labor.  And since I have no
    income, but only wages, I consider their illegal appropriation and forced
    embezzlement of my property, which is my labor, to be theft.

    Now, that which I just said is a standard under our Constitution.  However,
    the argument can be made that since my labor is paid for in worthless
    i.o.u.'s (checks) redeemable in worthless pieces of green paper, then I have
    received nothing of value in exchange for my labor.  How can I be taxed on
    something that is worthless?  Whether the IRS has power to tax income
    (profit) only, which is the case, or has the power to tax wages also, which
    it fraudulently claims -- either way, I received nothing of value for my
    wages last year.  Therefore I earned nothing; indeed, along with everyone
    else in this country, I went further into debt.  By what authority, then, am
    I taxed?

    Message: 80767
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: IOU's for IOU's
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:39:20

    FS> If there is (and there is) some current way to equate income in "value"
    FS> to income in FRNs then you can pay your taxes appropriately and aside
    FS> from that one transaction, never have to deal with FRNs.

    Your repeated inference that by dealing in checks and other trappings and
    traps of this illegal economic system, that one is not thereby dealing in
    frns, is ludicrous.  Checks are denominated in frns.  Checks are worthless
    i.o.u.'s payable in worthless i.o.u.'s, and are denominated in debt.

    Furthermore, by rejecting all voluntary law merchant relationships (such as
    bank and credit accounts) it becomes arguable in court, should the need
    arise, that one's use of frns (being the last remaining evidence of
    participation in the scam) is not voluntary at all, but compelled, by virtue
    of the fact that I cannot get a job which pays me as the law requires, in
    gold or silver coin.  I cannot get such a job because such a job is not
    available under the IRS stranglehold on business.

    I might add that those who have attempted to honestly rectify this
    oppression by opening gold and silver exchanges outside the system have been
    harassed, raided, robbed at gunpoint, and their members' savings stolen.
    Gov't doesn't like people being free; it limits the tyranny gov't can
    exercise (which is why we have the U.S. Constitution in the first place, and
    we'd better start compelling gov't to obey it).

    Message: 80768
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Money v. gov't
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:40:30

    FS> Once again, your objections are stated in terms of our currency but
    FS> your real objection remains that fact that the gvt isn't doing things
    FS> exactly the way you think they should,not the currency being use.

    Fred, why do you keep repeating that?  I have agreed over and over again
    that I object to what gov't is doing because what gov't is doing is illegal
    and oppressive and is tyranny, purely and simply, and that what gov't is
    doing with the monetary system is fraudulent, illegal, oppressive, and
    tyrannical, and that if gov't would obey the Constitution my arguments would
    be unnecessary, and if it obeyed the Constitution we would have an honest
    monetary system, and that it debauched our honest monetary system in order
    to make itself free of the Constitution and so it could be fraudulent,
    illegal, oppressive, and tyrannical to its hearts' content.

    I will determine what my "real objection is," and my real objection is
    fraudulent, illegal, oppressive, government tyranny -- and that tyranny
    starts with this fraudulent monetary system and ends when this fraudulent
    monetary system ends.  There may still be some tyranny under a
    Constitutional monetary system, but it then can be dealt with.  Under this
    system justice doesn't stand a chance.

    Message: 80769
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Dizzying naivete
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:41:42

    FS> Why does the gvt disregard "value" in setting "value" for tax purposes?
    FS> What would you have them do?  Force you to sell your house in order to
    FS> establish it's value??

    Oh, Fred.  I get the feeling that everything I say goes straight in one
    eyeball and out the other.  WHAT I WOULD HAVE THEM DO, FRED, IS CONDUCT
    THEMSELVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT IMPOSE PROPERTY OR
    INCOME TAXES, WHICH ARE DIRECT TAXES, AT ALL!

    FS> I'm not sure I understand your complaint!?!?!

    That's obvious.  You don't understand my complaint because you think gov't
    has a divine right to govern, and has a divine right to impose taxes on
    whatever it decides to impose taxes on, and has a divine right to do any
    darned thing it wants to do or the people democratically want it to do, in
    spite of the fact that our system of gov't is *not* supposed to be a pure
    democracy; it is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic where neither
    gov't nor the majority of citizens have the authority or power to infringe
    upon the rights of the individual.  You think anyone who objects to gov't
    tyranny is just a malcontent who wants everything his way regardless of
    principle.  You are wrong.

    Message: 80770
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fairness 1/2
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:42:40

    FS> Fairness requires that everyone be taxed on the same basis and the only
    FS> basis that really is possible to apply to everyone is "current" value.

    Right.  Leave it to someone who has sold his inherited and unalienable
    rights and Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties to the god of wealth to
    expound on what constitutes "fairness."  I don't want your definition of
    "fairness," Fred; I want my inherited and unalienable rights, and I want
    everyone else to have their inherited and unalienable rights.  I even want
    *you* to have your inherited and unalienable rights, Fred, though obviously
    they are meaningless and of no value to you.

    "Fairness" is what gets adjudicated in an equity court.  "Fairness" *is*
    "equity."  And "fairness" means I and every other productive wage-earner in
    this country, and our families, and our descendants, are *forced* at the
    point of a very big gun to "voluntarily" give up our *inherited* and
    *unalienable* *right* to the fruits of our labor in order to support a huge
    batch of good-for-nothing layabouts (and a few worthy genuinely needy souls)
    while the puppet gov't gets huge salaries for raking the bankster's
    percentage off the top and putting us and all our descendents further and
    further in debt.

    I don't want some greedy politician or bankster's idea of "fairness" rammed
    down my throat, Fred.  The only one to benefit from that kind of fairness

    Message: 80771
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fairness 2/2
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:43:27

    is the politician and the bankster.  I want my property lawfully due me and
    I want my rights.  I want my country's Constitution restored to a place of
    respect and honor over government.  I don't want "equity;" I want *law.*  I
    have dedicated my life, my fortune (such as it is) and my sacred honor to
    meeting that challenge.  Maybe that sounds corny to you given your lack of
    respect for anything but "wealth," but it wasn't corny to the founding
    fathers and it isn't corny to me.

    I'm sure you believe you know what "wealth" is:  to you, "wealth" is land,
    buildings, real estate, raw materials, and so you are told by gov't schools
    and your bankster idols.  But you really ought to give a moment's
    consideration to what banksters consider is *their* "wealth":  *Their*
    "wealth" is their ownership and control of people like you.

    Message: 80772
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Gov't affidavit...
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:45:35

    FS> The only part of what you suggest touches on the truth is that the gvt
    FS> requires an affidavit of value form be filed for property tax purposes.

    (Sigh.)  I rest my case, Fred.  If *that* part of what I say touches on the
    truth, then the whole point of my argument is true!  Were it not for the
    illegal monetary standard, which results in illegal and unConstitutional
    taxes on property, which cannot be assessed against property owned at law,
    the gov't would have no damned business sticking its nose into private
    financial transactions, and any gov't dork that tried it would probably be
    met with a bazooka.

    So help me, Fred; any minute I expect you to come out with a comment like
    "Well, then, let them eat cake!"  Your unconscious elitism is astounding.

    Message: 80773
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: frns...?
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:46:24

    FS> In regard to rental agreements, I think most use FRNs for the
    FS> denomination but they don't have to as far as I know.

    C'mon, Fred. I seriously doubt any rental agreement specifies payment in
    "frns."  And they do have to specify something in some way; otherwise
    tenants could pay in cow patties.  What do they specify?  Sure you have some
    rental agreements laying around; take a look.

    Message: 80774
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Tax cheating!!??
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:48:38

    FS> It is my guess (I am not a lawyer and don't give advise) that in that
    FS> situation the only thing that would show up on the Tax returns would be
    FS> the FRN amounts.  The "labor" amounts would not show up on either the
    FS> APt owners forms or the tenants forms.

    Oh!  Cheating on taxes, my goodness!  Tsk, tsk.

    Don't ya just love it?  People love the fraudulent system we have so much
    they defraud it every chance they get.  And when they get caught they get
    slam-dunked because they didn't stand up for principle; they stooped to the
    almighty buck.  And meanwhile they object to doing something about the
    fraudulent system in the first place so they wouldn't have to 'cheat' in
    order to survive or prosper.

    Must be they'd rather be cheats.

    Message: 80775
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Confiscation
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:50:07

    FS> RE:  ownership of gold, etc==> You've gone off the deep end.  I realize
    FS> that you view "ownership" of most things as a fiction due to the
    FS> possiblity of it being sold for taxes, particularly real property.

    On the contrary, when I spoke of that ownership issue, I wasn't even
    thinking of the possibility of it being sold for taxes, though what I said
    applies there too.  I was thinking of the gov't robbery of individuals who
    are traveling with "too much" money and are unwilling to waive their privacy
    by attempting to justify it to someone who has no business knowing about it
    and has no business even stopping someone for interrogation in the absence
    of probable cause of a crime having been committed.

    Nonetheless, it is true.  Under a worthless monetary standard, all rights
    are fiction, not merely the right of ownership, because under a worthless
    monetary standard all courts are equity courts, and rights have no standing
    in equity courts.

    Meanwhile you can think I've gone off the deep end if you want to, but keep
    it in mind if you should decide to do something with more than 3,000 frns in
    cash without letting your IRS surveillance officers know about it and
    getting their permission in advance.  You'll learn a lesson in reality.
    (You might anyway; they get a kick out lying to suckers and then
    slam-dunking them.)

    Message: 80776
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: TEFRA
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:51:16

    FS> As to owning gold, I'm completely lost on that as I see no restriction
    FS> at all on people owning all the gold they want.  In fact, there is less
    FS> restriction since it isn't even subject to continuing tax the way
    FS> property is so you can accumulate all you want with out fear of having
    FS> to sell it to pay the taxes.

    Oh?  Obviously you haven't bought or sold any gold recently -- since the
    middle of Reagan's term, anyway -- at a gov't approved gold dealer.  If you
    had, you would have learned about TEFRA -- Tax Enforcement Financial
    Reporting Act -- which requires a financial transaction form for the IRS,
    the same as if you want to withdraw your own money from a bank, or put your
    own money *in* a bank, or even just exchange your own money for a cashier's
    check or money order.

    Rest assured, if you refuse to complete the form, the IRS has the option of
    taxing your gold at the rate of 100% -- i.e., confiscating it.  And you have
    no recourse, even if you later prove that you came by the frns or the gold
    legitimately.  Wake up and read the newspapers, Fred.  They're doing this
    crap all over the country, and they are doing it now, in the guise of the
    so-called "drug war," which is not a drug war but is a war against *liberty*
    and *rights.*

    Message: 80777
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Trading wheat
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:52:12

    FS> As to not being able to transfer ownership of gold becuase you have to
    FS> use FRNs - that's nonsense.  Nothing compells you to use FRNs to buy
    FS> gold.

    Oh?  What other substance is available to me with which to buy gold?  I
    can't get a job where I am paid in real money (gold) or any other substance
    of intrinsic value, though it is my right and I would dearly like to
    exercise that right.

    FS> Raise wheat and trade if for gold if you want.

    If I can't acquire actual ownership of gold because frns have no intrinsic
    value, then I can't acquire actual ownership of land for the same reason.
    Therefore I cannot acquire actual ownership of wheat grown on that land.
    Therefore I cannot acquire actual ownership of gold by trading wheat.

    FS> I suspect your real objection is that the sale may be subject to a tax.

    No, my real objection is that I cannot acquire superior right, title, and
    interest in property, because I cannot exchange my labor for substance of
    value.  I have no problem with *legal* and *Constitutional* taxes.  I do,
    however, protest *illegal* taxes.  (I guess that makes me an 'illegal tax
    protestor,' doesn't it?)

    Message: 80778
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Scuttle taxes
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:53:23

    FS> You simply are looking for any and all excuses to try and scuttle the
    FS> tax system.

    I sure don't have to look very hard; reasons abound to scuttle the tax
    system -- the main ones being that it is illegal, it is unConstitutional, it
    is oppressive, and it supports the even greater fraud of the monetary system
    backed by worthless paper, in which our labor can no longer be exchanged for
    wealth.  Instead, we are forced to exchange our labor for debt.

    FS> Since the (tax) system treats us all the same ...

    The hell it does!  Are you seriously suggesting that the tax system treats
    people like you the same as it treats people like me?  I wish it did treat
    us all the same and in a Constitutional manner, i.e., no one in this nation,
    regardless of wealth or status, is required to suffer a Direct Tax unless
    apportioned according to the census or enumeration.  Period!

    FS> it seems to me you are just looking for some way to pay less tax on the
    FS> same transaction as others because you DON"T use FRNs and others DO.

    So?  If others want to make themselves subject to a tax on their labor by
    voluntarily accepting worthless paper and debt in exchange for their labor,

    Message: 80779
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Zippety-do-DAH
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 09:54:37

    let them.  I choose to exchange my labor for Constitutional substance of
    intrinsic value and thereby acquire wealth instead of debt.  Of course, I am
    thwarted in that choice, which is a violation of my inherited and
    unalienable rights -- and of yours, though you reject the concept of
    inherited and unalienable rights.

    FS> You want to pretend you are dealing in 1901 value when others are at
    FS> 1991 value.

    Considering the fact that 1901 value was measured in gold dollars, and 1991
    value is measured in zippety-do-dah, I'm surprised you don't join me in that
    effort.  I thought you *liked* real wealth.  I would expect you to seek
    completely superior right, title, and interest in real wealth, instead of
    letting gov't keep you on as a manager only so long as you're a good little
    boy and pay the protection money.

    Message: 80780
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Merry Christmas
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 17:15:47

    Merry Christmas to one and all!!!

    Message: 80781
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Merry Christmas
    Date: 12/23/91  Time: 18:04:18

    and a Happy Depression.