Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
December 1991 -> December 31
Apollo BBS Archive - December 31, 1991
\ | / . | . ________________
-- + -- . | . | HAPPY NEW YWAR|_________|\____===\_|
/ | \ \ / | FROM APOLLO BBS| ;-------\o |
| - -- + -- - ------1992------ |_ __
. / | \ $` |::| |..|
. . | . _ |::| |..| __
. . . . _|.||::| |..| __| |__
. |..||::| |..| | :::::: |)
. . |..||::| |..| | :::::: |
//__//_||_________________________________________|__||__|_|__|__|________|
*=* Main Menu entered *=*
Main Menu command:{{P
*=* Post Office entered *=*
Mail from Pete Fischer
Date: 12/30/91 Time: 21:59:36
[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
I believe you can ask a medical question. It is not just doctors. Of course,
they disavow any consequences from advice you may receive. I went by your
house about 9 pm, but it looked very dark and I was afraid to wake somebody
up by knocking. Now I'm getting some garbage, not much though. Pete
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:{{{{{Insty-reply
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:My house always looks {{dark. {{{Knock on the door or use xxx as
2:{code to let yourself in {{. {Raid the refrigerator{{. Do durgs{, do
time.
3:{
4:I{ wa{s {pro{bably{ here and awake{.{{ {277-xxxx. -Rod
5:'{end
6:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
As for the message to which you replied...
[A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap
Mail from James Matlock
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 00:46:04
[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
Foxes tend to be expensive. Lining them up is pointless at any rate, since
they tend to break single-file and aggregate into groups.
If y^E
I9 "J9QIMQJ9%9
9er]j=Y%M1I!AM:9=II=]
Dean's time-machine and see an old one. Talkies, anyone?
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:{{{{{{{{{{{{Continue
Post Office command:{R
Mail from James Matlock
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 00:46:04
[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
Foxes tend to be expensive. Lining them up is pointless at any rate, since
they tend to break single-file and aggregate into groups.
If you aren't interested in seeing any new movies, perhaps we can borrow
Dean's time-machine and see an old one. Talkies, anyone?
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:{{{Insty-reply
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:Yes, I would love to have t{he {use of {Dean's {time machine. { {That
2:would {be a {real th{ri{ll. {{{I{ am ge{tting so{ much garbage th
3:at I am having {trouble see{ing the scree{n{. I'm not sure what I {have
4:written{..
5:
6:By the way t{{{you r{ea{lly made some{ good {poi{{nt{{ in your mess
7:{m{essages a{but Jury Nullification.
8:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
As for the message to which you replied...
[A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap
_l(*V-[to Pete Fischer
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:43:34
[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:{{Abort
Post Office command:G
Goodbye, Rod Williams
You were on 05:08
Please hang up now
{6i5-K8cA_
NO CARRIER
`ATDT8431704 RINGING
CONNECT 1200
Type
Apollo 8.0 300/1200/2400
What is your first name:ROD
What is your last name:WILLIAMS
Hello, Rod Williams
Is your name correct:Yes
Password:
Password:$$$$$$$
Caller # 166875 (19 today)
It is now 12/31/91 20:47:05
Last on @ 12/31/91 20:46:40
Last message read was (80980)
Message range is (80766-81016)
You have logged in 1845 times
\ | / . | . ________________
-- + -- . | . | HAPPY NEW YEAR|_________|\____===\_|
/ | \ \ / | FROM APOLLO BBS| ;-------\o |
| - -- + -- - ------1992------ |_ __
. / | \ |::| |..|
. . | . _ |::| |..| __
. . . . _|.||::| |..| __| |__
. |..||::| |..| | :::::: |
. . |..||::| |..| | :::::: |
//__//_||_________________________________________|__||__|_|__|__|________|
*=* Main Menu entered *=*
Main Menu command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* $tatus Club Bulletin Board entered *=*
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 8774
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: Girl
Date: 12/30/91 Time: 22:07:53
My wife had a baby girl this morning at 8:10am at St. Josephs Hospital.
Baby and mother are fine. 7 pounds, 4 ounces. 18 1/2" long. Kind of hard
to tell the color of the eyes.
Got to change my first diaper tonight. Yummm!
Message: 8775
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Question?
Subject: Last..
Date: 12/30/91 Time: 22:32:14
The NAME...What is her NAME.... you Daddy dork!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 8776
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: James Hawley
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 05:34:41
Congratulations, daddy!
Message: 8777
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Sweet Baby, James
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 06:56:31
Congratulations, James! And to your wife, too!
Message: 8778
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Baby Doll
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 07:58:56
Congratulations to Maria and yourself, James. Wow! I didn't even know you
both were pregnant!
Message: 8779
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: James on Baby
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 09:27:49
Congrats James and to your wife that did all the work. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 8780
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Melissa
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 14:01:38
My wife's name is Claudia... Rod was making a joke.
Haven't picked out a name yet.
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit-Chat
Subject:Diapers
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Poo poo diapers are the most fun to change. Ever see green poop?
2:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 8781
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*
Public Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 80981
Author: James Matlock
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon/last
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 01:04:19
Well, we can always argue that the American people have exactly what they
want; or if not, exactly what they're too apathetic or cynical to work
against. I'm not sure I buy that, but that's one point of view.
As far as taxes and the IRS are concerned, people are always grousing about
taxes until they want something from the government; whether new freeways,
free or discount health care, subsidies for their industry or business, and
so on and so forth. If so many people really want to do away with the
entire tax system, including the IRS, why don't they stand up on their hind
legs and make some noise? Sure, a few do, but they are generally regarded
by the rest as a lunatic fringe. Everybody wants their piece of the pie,
and generally wants to deny somebody else their piece. So instead of
getting rid of the pie altogether, they grumble and moan -- and take their
piece. Just look at the popular response to the current state of the
economy: every interview I have seen of the "common man on the street"
features somebody asking the administration (i.e. the government) to "do
something" (which typically involves spending money). Everybody wants the
government to cut defense spending, until the government tries to close down
a base in THEIR town which employs thousands of people and injects
unnaturally large amounts of money into the local economy.
(CONT.)
Message: 80982
Author: James Matlock
Category: Politics
Subject: continued
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 01:26:28
One obvious problem with the political system is the obscene amounts of
money -- tens and hundreds of millions of dollars -- which is spent on
political advertising and without which, you can't get elected, because
nobody's heard of you (I'm speaking of high level posts, and particularly of
the Presidency). Where can a person get this money? From special interest
groups. Essentially, a few, loud-mouthed but rich and powerful fat cats,
play "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine." The rest of the People
sit around bitching about how little control they have over the government
(and not doing much else) and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don't think that outlawing special interest groups is the answer, since it
is essentially undemocratic to prohibit sections of the population from
banding together and trying to influence the government to do what they want
...that is what everyone is supposed to do. And as long as there is big
money, it is not reasonable to expect big government not to flourish.
Essentially, you have to (1) get people involved in the political system at
a grass roots level and (2) design your government so that it doesn't have
the power to grant such favors. The Constitution (as originally framed) was
NOT adequate to accomplish (2). It is full of ambiguous phrases (contrary
to what $Archimedes likes to think) and far too malleable.
If they wanted the government to be limited in its powers, they should have
said something like :here is what the government can do -- and nothing else.
Period. But they didn't. They authorized the government to lay and
collect taxes "for the general welfare."
Message: 80983
Author: James Matlock
Category: Politics
Subject: another two cents
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 01:53:12
Really, I think our political system is pretty good. The real problem is
that 3/4 of the People are dopes and saps...the same people who buy _Puffy
Objects_ because some actor in a white smock tells them it's got *fiber* (or
whatever the latest buzz word is)...the same people who think those smarmy
petrochemical companies really do have a heart, just because they pay some
ad agency to put together a commercial featuring seals clapping their
flippers together as the company logo is flashed on the screen...the same
people in short at whom commercial advertising and most of the pablum that
passes for adult programming is successfully aimed, are the ones who are
impressed by the empty, pathetic, political rhetoric and the inane sound
bytes which now take the place of an intelligent debate of the issues
or even a commitment to a clearly espoused plan or point of view...the same
people are the ones who, come election time, put the same no-good
sons-of-bitches into office, the very ones who have been screwing them
blind, just so long as they get a Bud Light and a pat on the head and a
"there, there, everything is going to be alright," and a bribe payed to
them from their own pocket.
Message: 80984
Author: James Matlock
Category: Politics
Subject: Imp of the Perverse
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 03:38:28
Taxes, and the hard-working, ** American who pays them, together
with an interested, involved, far-sighted government, are what has made
this country great.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is either an ignoramus or a charlatan
trying to take advantage of your stupid, can't-see-beyond-the-weekend
greed. If it weren't for taxes, we'd have no national system of roadways,
no public libraries (and information IS power); no medical care for the
poverty stricken, elderly poor, mentally ill. If it weren't for government
meddling (and the taxes which pay for it) we'd still be a nation of wage
slaves, our children working twelve hour days in unheated factory basements,
doing piecework, as they did at the turn of the century; we'd be eating
adulterated food; big business would turn our air and water and land into
their cesspools (they are nearly doing that now, but not because there is
too little control, but because there is not enough!!); we'd have no control
of our most vital national resources (which properly belong to the people,
not the Rockefellers); if there weren't standing armies, and the taxes which
pay for them, we'd all be doing the goose-step, either for the commies or
the fascists, as if there's any difference; we'd be a third class country
with third class industry and third class living conditions, because it
takes concentrated development and investment by the people, in the form of
taxes and central planning and support, to do what we have managed to do.
There isn't a single country in the world today which grew past the cottage
industry stage by following the outmoded dictates of Adam Smith.
Message: 80985
Author: James Matlock
Category: Politics
Subject: Imp of the Perverse
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 03:40:26
Stop trying to take the law into your own hands. So you don't like
the law? Fine, you have legal, effective recourse. It's called
VOTING. What if every special interest group decided to disobey the
law every time they didn't like one? You couldn't maintain a civilization.
If you had no recourse, it would be different: revolution would be
justified, just as it was when this country was founded. But you DO
have recourse. You have more freedom and power than most populations
dream of, but all you can do is invent conspiracies and drum up seditious
sentiments. The followers are worse than the leaders. The leaders are
generally smart, if cynical and manipulative, with their own best interests
at heart, if no one else's. The rest of you are just like sheep, or perhaps
roosters. Some big cock crows about mean old Uncle Sam, as if you aren't
collectively Uncle Sam, and throws in a few phrases about your rich and
powerful oppressors, the kind of demagoguery which makes George Bush's
blitherings look downright rational, and you're ready to hang 'em by the
lamp-posts. In other words, because you can't convince the rest of the
people to vote the way you want, to get the laws changed to suit you,
you're ready to take matters out of the people's hands and into your own,
because you don't think the people are smart enough to handle their own
affairs and you put your will ahead of that of the majority.
(Rule 30.A: Keep 'em guessing.)
Message: 80986
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Religion
Subject: Felix-Religious Hug
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 06:55:39
> The schools don't [embrace religion]. It's against the law.
> They are not even allowed a moment of silence for students to
> pray or meditate to the god of their choice.
The ones that use religious Christmas carols as part of their curriculum do,
even if it is a subtle embrace.
And, I hate to burst your bubble, Felix, but both of my kids' schools have
moments of silence immediately after the Pledge of Allegiance. I think
you've got it backward: If I'm not mistaken state law REQUIRES a moment of
silence.
Message: 80987
Author: James Matlock
Category: Tales & Tall Stories
Subject: More Crowley Capers
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 07:06:14
More hilarious tidbits from John Symonds' biography:
"Like other men of renown, he [Crowley] received letters from strangers.
'Dear Sir, I am writing to you because I am sure you can help me; my
story is as follows. When I was three weeks old I met with a shock which
has tremendously affected my life. I was lying in my cradle when a hard
bowler hat fell off a hat rack and hit me on the temple and rendered me
unconscious. The effect of it was that it upset my whole nervous system.
Since I can remember I have suffered from excessive perspiration of the
hands and feet, extreme nervousness and extreme shyness, and when I reached
the age of fourteen I began to suffer from excessive seminal losses, both
day and night. I am now thirty-four years of age, but I do not look it.
. . . I have very great ideals and have a strong desire to do good in the
world, for instance, putting an end to White Slave Traffic, stopping any
future war, and it is for this reason I would like to develop my psychic
power but I cannot do so until I am cured of my nervous condition.
Now, Sir, as you are a magician...'"
(continued)
Message: 80988
Author: James Matlock
Category: Tales & Tall Stories
Subject: capers...(2/2)
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 07:06:57
"Another letter was sent from Wormwood Scrubs [prison]:
'Dear Sir, since my last letter to you of about 20th November last, I
have been sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for robbery. This (my
first conviction) has been due to following in the past a false will and I
intend to dedicate the fruits of my misguidedness to a strong effort to find
my true will. In order to do this, I urgently require a copy of _Magic in
Theory and Practice_ and I would consider it a great favor if you could
arrange to have one sent to me here . . . I should mention that the rules
of the prison make all books sent in the property of the prison library and
on my discharge _Magick_ will be put into circulation (where it will remain
constantly), and will, I assure you, find readers -- even unwilling ones,
for the famine of reading matter is not the least of one's worries here.'"
[Times have changed, haven't they?]
Message: 80989
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill # 80899
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 08:58:29
Your getting kind of silly there. It isn't the banks job to protect people.
What I do with my money and how much I take out is none of their business.
It is only their business if it's a vast amount because they need time to
gather it up. That's all!! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 80990
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley #80901
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 09:00:19
I agree 100% I noticed NOTHING was said about rates going down - which
should be the case since everyone absolutely has to have insurance and it
will be very hard to cancel it! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 80991
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Fred on economy
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 09:09:05
Why do you think that Doom's day won't happen to us in our economy?
It has most assuredly happened in other countries. I knew a guy from some
foreign country like Yugoslavia or some such and he said that they were
taking wheel barrels full of Marks to the store to buy a loaf of bread - it
costs trilions of dollars for a gal. of milk, a loaf of bread etc. Inflation
got out of hand. Over night, they changed it back to it's original worth -
just like we might change the gold value back to what it's worth - $35 an
ounce!! As Americans, we all think nothing like that can happen to us, but I
don't see inflation even slowing down. Where is it going to end in your
opinion? Does the gov. just keep on printing money that gets less valuable
all the time? -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 80992
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Fred on insurance
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 09:13:17
We might not agree on everything, but we sure do on this new insurance
law(s). Maybe we should get back to thinking about 'no-fault' insurance.
We also need to have a set rate for liability! That is something I never
understood - the different in rates for liability among the companies!
Liability is liability, right? What difference you hit a person with a Rolls
Royce or a Beetle?? -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 80993
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Justice v. Law
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 09:47:21
FS> What we have in practice are Courts of LAW. What Jury Null would do is
FS> introduce a chance for JUSTICE also.
*That* worries me a little bit. Justice is what you are *supposed* to get
in equity court -- in courts of law, justice takes a back seat to individual
rights as opposed to collective rights. 'Justice' as found in the equity
courts invariably holds some judge's idea of 'the common good' superior in
importance to individual rights, and that's almost uniformly bad.
However, this is quibbling; I'm really not concerned about it with regard to
jury nullification -- I just want it understood that jury nullification
*only* works when the government is a party to the action, as in a criminal
case, or as in a 'civil' (equity) case where gov't sues somebody because it
doesn't like their advertising or something -- whether that case is being
tried properly at law or wrongfully at equity. That is where both its
importance and the fear it engenders among the privileged class resides. In
any other kind of a case -- a lawsuit, for example, between individuals or
corporations or whatever, equity is the proper forum and equity already
recognizes the right and power of the jury to pretty much decide however it
wants to.
This is my opinion based upon my research. I do not give legal advice.
Message: 80994
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Value of gold
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 10:00:00
FS> I do see an inherent confict though with the idea that you want those
FS> dollars to be REAL on the one hand but you want gvt to establish the
FS> value on the other hand.
It is indeed tedious to keep repeating myself, Fred, but I have said this
over and over again and you just keep making that silly statement without a
shred of legitimacy to it -- that is, unless you insist on denominating the
"value" of something in frns, which is an oxymoron. So I will say it again:
Under a gold and/or silver system, gov't does not -- repeat, DOES NOT --
establish the value of the gold/silver, or the "Dollar." The market does
that. All gov't does is apply a label, a word, and the word is "U.S.
Dollar," to a given weight of the substance. Gov't DEFINES the "dollar" as
X weight of gold or silver of Y fineness. It does not establish the "value"
of the gold or the silver or the dollar. The market defines what you can
buy with a dollar of gold or silver -- how much of something you can buy
with a dollar -- and THAT is the value of the dollar.
I really think the only reason you and I disagree in those other areas in
which we disagree is your insistence that the "value" of gold must be
denominated in what we falsely call "Dollars" now, but which are not
dollars; they are *FRNs*. If you could line that particular perspective up
with reality, you and I and Cliff would be talking the same language.
Message: 80995
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: What's the problem?
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 10:00:59
FS> You can, if you choose, immediately take those nasty dirty FRNs over to
FS> a gold dealer and exchange them for pure gold.
True, at a net loss in terms of the labor you expended in obtaining the frns
with which to buy the gold, and at a net loss to your descendants, who will
have to pay the national debt plus interest those frns represent, because
you didn't earn substance of value with your labor, you earned debt with
your labor.
FS> Then you can hang on to your gold or do whatever else you want with it.
True, and as long as you hang on to it, it will purchase about the same
thing that amount of gold would purchase when you bought it -- but that is
less than the purchasing power you would have had for that amount of labor
in a gold-based monetary standard due to the losses mentioned above.
FS> What's the problem?? If you are convinced that gold will not suffer
FS> the ravages of inflation you have nothing to worry about.
On the contrary, we have lots to worry about. We may not worry about losses
due to inflation once the gold is in our possession, and many of us do
purchase gold and/or silver coin for that specific reason. However, there
are still the losses mentioned above which have already occurred,
Message: 80996
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Another loss
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 10:01:52
PLUS we cannot invest that gold under this monetary standard because our
return would be paid in frns -- at a tremendous loss. Under this monetary
standard, and in spite of the clear wording of the law, gov't will not
enforce a contract denominated in gold, because while dollars are still
defined by law as specific amounts of gold, and frns aren't, gov't takes the
position that frns are legal tender for all debts public and private. That
is in violation, among other things, of the prohibition against the
impairment of contracts; see Art. I, Sec. 10 Cl. 1.
FS> If, and when, you want to buy something 3 years later, you just haul
FS> out some of your gold take it to your neighboorhood gold dealer and
FS> convert it back to FRNs for use on the day of the purchase.
Again at a net loss, because that dealer is in business to make a profit,
and he knows the difference in value between frns and gold, and he's going
to take his profit in gold. This is akin to -- but much worse than --
receiving a paycheck which must be cashed at one of those check cashing
outfits who charge you a percentage of the check for cashing it. If you
traded your honest labor for your pay, then why should you have to *pay* to
get the fruits of your labor converted to usable form?
Message: 80997
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: What difference?
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 10:02:50
FS> ... what difference does it make whether you paid for it directly with
FS> gold or in the CURRENT equivalent in FRNs.
Besides the losses listed in the previous message, and besides the heavy
burden of debt that process places upon future generations, the "difference"
is that if you made the investment originally in frns, you don't own the
property in which you are investing. If you invested gold in some property
for which you expect a return on your investment, but you purchased the gold
with frns, then you don't own the gold and you don't own the investment, and
you don't own the return on the investment.
The whole problem here, Fred, is getting paid for your labor in a substance
of no intrinsic value in the first place. By doing so willingly and
voluntarily, you are saying that your labor has no value, and that gov't --
which in turn is owned by the banksters -- owns everything you think you
own, including your labor, and ultimately, including you.
This is a back door, sneaky, dirty, underhanded method of enforcing the
Marxist-Communist idea of "from each person according to his abilities, and
to each person according to his needs," without anyone having any idea
that's what's being done to them. Like Keynes said, "... not one man in a
million ..."
Message: 80998
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: No assurance...?
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 10:04:07
FS> There is no assurance that a gold money system would be immune to
FS> inflation.
You're a nice guy, Fred, but you don't listen. One hundred and twenty-six
years of zero inflation. ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIX YEARS OF ZERO
INFLATION. I think that is a fairly good assurance that a gold money system
would be immune to inflation -- certainly a greater assurance than anyone
could give that this worthless paper money system is immune to inflation.
FS> One way or another, BAD gvt is going to find an "out". If it is not
FS> thru one part of the economic system it will be thru another.
FOR ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIX YEARS, government couldn't find an "out," or
more correctly, the banksters couldn't find a chink in the armor of an
honest, stable, dependable monetary standard which would enable them to come
in and take over control of gov't. Then, finally, in the closing hours of
the 1913 legislative session, when most of the Congressmen had gone home for
the Christmas break, their opportunity came and they seized it -- Ohio, by
the way, was the pivotal vote, and Ohio was not a State in 1913. How about
that? [Okay, someone go look up Ohio in the encyclopedia and then come back
and challenge that statement, so I can direct them to the Congressional
Record for the year Ohio was DENIED statehood.]
Message: 80999
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon Little
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 10:04:51
GL> One thing that strikes me is that the line between jury nullification
GL> and "reasonable doubt" is a fuzzy one at best.
Re your series of messages on the history of draconian law in England,
eventually leading to jury nullification:
My sincere compliments for an extremely informative, incisive, and
well-presented set of posts, Gordon. Excellent.
Message: 81000
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Good news/bad news
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 10:06:18
Unknown> Throughout our history (I'll bet Archimedes disagrees with this!)
Unknown> the trend has been toward improvement; aberrations get corrected
Unknown> sooner or later.
I deleted the earlier portion of a message in which this statement was found
before I found out who made the statement, so I quoted it as an 'Unknown'
source. I think it was either Gordon or Bill Burkett.
Whoever it was, they'd lose their (unqualified) bet. Taken as a whole, on
the average, the trend *has* been toward improvements, and aberrations do
get corrected sooner or later. However, this is not a linear improvement;
new aberrations -- or rather, old ones with new names and facades -- are
constantly being introduced as well in an effort to gain power and control
for a privileged few. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
In that regard, pertaining to a more immediate threat, I would like to quote
another old homily: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to
repeat it." The good news is that "Dow Defies Gravity," according to an
Arizona Republic article sub-headline this morning. The bad news is the
same thing happened, and was reported in almost the same words, just prior
to October 1929.
Message: 81001
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Banks
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 10:54:53
Well, considering that one of the more successful scams involving pigeons
and banks is to pose as a bank official, the banks *clearly* have an
interest in dissuading you from "cooperating" with "bank officials" by
withdrawing large amounts of money.
Message: 81002
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann on Gold
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 11:29:53
Re: 'just like we might change the gold value back to what it is
worth - $35 an ounce!!'
Ann, gold is still 35 DOLLARS an ounce... It just takes many more
FRNs to buy gold then 35, because the Federal Reserve Notes are not worth a
dollar each. This is unconstitutional, and yet people like Fred defend this
FRAUD the government has perpetrated on the American public. It's no
wonder this country is a mess and is sliding downhill to its destruction.
Now we even have people like Bill who think it's the banks job to
'Protect us'... my God, what ever happend to self responsibility?
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 81003
Author: James Matlock
Category: Tales & Tall Stories
Subject: more capers
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 17:45:10
Sick of Paris, Crowley returned to Boleskine. There, on the shore of
Loch Ness, he whiled away the time with a woman he had picked up in London.
One day, bored, he wrote this letter to the secretary of the Vigilance
Society, a kind of organization for the suppression of vice.
Sir,
I am sorry to say that the prostitution in this neighborhood
is *most unpleasantly* conspicuous.
Perhaps you would inform me what steps (if any) I can take to
abate this nuisance, which every day seems to me to grow more
intolerable.
I would willingly spend a considerable amount.
I am, sir,
Yours very truly,
Aleister MacGregor
By return post, the secretary of the Society replied saying that he would
sent up an observer immediately. After a further exchange of letters and
the passage of about a week came the disappointing report that their
observer had not found prostitution to be especially conspicuous in the
little town of Foyers. To which Aleister MacGregor, the Laird of Boleskine
Manor, feeling that he had been shocked enough over this matter, replied on
a postcard, "Conspicuous by its absence, you fools!"
[From Symonds' biography]
Message: 81004
Author: James Matlock
Category: Politics
Subject: Politics(what else?)
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 17:52:21
Politics has become a capital bore. I am absolutely indifferent to
it, and to anyone's opinion of what they might imagine (correctly or
incorrectly) my political views to be.
I hereby resolve that in the New Year, I will not be goaded into discussing
politics, except in the event that Rod Williams takes up banjo playing.
Message: 81005
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Soviets owned?
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:08:33
BD> Ummm, how long have the banksters owned the Soviet Union ???
BD> And *how* have they owned *it* ?
Well, I didn't say they "owned" it. Not yet, anyway. But their involvement
in the Soviet Union dates back to the Bolshevik Revolution, which they
financed. There may have been financial involvement since then, and I
wouldn't be surprised if there were, but I have no direct evidence of it. I
think what happened is that they financed the Bolshevik Revolution and then
found themselves with a pig in a poke -- they didn't have enough control to
make the plan work. So they concentrated on the West instead. Then, when
their investment in the West reached the point of diminishing returns, they
sent Rockefeller over there (to the Soviet Union) to open up new markets.
So, by getting rid of the Communist infrastructure, which doesn't produce
enough to make a profit from it, they replace it with a Socialist
infrastructure modeled upon their success in the West, particularly the
U.S., which is economically Communist but politically Socialist. That way
they gain the control available under Communism but with the production
capability of a nation that thinks it is "free."
Something to remember when considering this, as a letter-writer to the
Arizona Repugnant pointed out recently, is that a Communist is nothing but a
Socialist in a hurry. To put it another way, a Socialist is nothing but a
Communist pretending to support liberty.
Message: 81006
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Another way...
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:09:08
To put it still another way, the Communist leaders of the Soviet Union
"owned" the people and resources and the only liberty there was in the
Soviet Union. When Rockefeller made them an offer they couldn't refuse
(since Communism wasn't working and they were losing their grip) the
Communist leadership sold out their country to the banksters, just like our
leadership did in 1913.
Message: 81007
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Poor analogy
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:09:58
FS> Again, you are looking at only half the picture. Lets say, for
FS> argument sake, that the total amount of FRNs is $100 and the debt is
FS> $1. Compare that to a total FRNs of $200 but a debt of $20. In the
FS> first case, each FRN represents 99% value and 1% debt. In the second
FS> case each FRN represents 90% value and 10% debt. Then throw in whether
FS> or not the current income is or is not sufficent to cover the debt
FS> service OR if the printing of MORE FRNs is needed to cover debt service.
Now let's consider that the total amount of frns is 100 and the debt is
8,000. How is the current income going to cover that, Fred? That is a much
closer analogy to the current situation than yours. And yes, the printing
of more frns *is* necessary for debt service, and the printing of more frns
increases the debt as well as the interest on that debt, therefore the need
for printing more frns for debt service increases -- it is a
self-perpetuating labor-consuming con game our nation cannot escape without
catastrophe.
Message: 81008
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Princip. v. semantic
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:11:58
FS> It is not true that the only reason for FRNs is as debt. They exist
FS> also as a medium of exchange and could be around with or without any
FS> national debt.
C'mon, Fred. If there was no national debt, frns would be worth no more in
the marketplace that a handful of desert sand. They are used as a medium of
exchange only because they make enormous illicit profits for those who print
them.
FS> I see you answered my question of who is really "wealthy" by engaging
FS> in a burst of semantics over the definition of wealthy and eventually
FS> ending with an Alice in Wonderland world view. There is no such thing
FS> as "apparent" power. Either one has power or one doesn't. The pork
FS> belly traders may not meet with your approval but I didn't ask who met
FS> your approval. I asked who controlls the wealth? Who has the big
FS> cars? Who vacations in Tahiti 6 months of the year? And who has
FS> CONSISTENTLY been doing so year after year after year???
I love it. Every time I stand on principle, you accuse me of "engaging in a
burst of semantics." It sure reveals your philosophy. Okay, if you want me
to answer in those terms, then I will do so in the next message.
Message: 81009
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Feather Merchants
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:13:20
FS> I asked who controlls the wealth? Who has the big cars? Who vacations
FS> in Tahiti 6 months of the year? And who has CONSISTENTLY been doing so
FS> year after year after year???
The Robber Barons. Those who gain ascendancy and privilege over their
fellow man by exploiting his (and her) labor expended in producing that
wealth, by paying them with less purchasing power as every day goes by, by
increasing their cost of living and the cost of living of their descendants
as each day goes by. I *agree* that those who produce the wealth controlled
(but not produced) by people like you do not have the big expensive cars, or
vacation in Tahiti six months out of the year, consistently or otherwise.
I consider it absolutely appalling and immoral that the people who knowingly
and cynically take advantage of others in this way, leading them "down the
garden path," so to speak, haven't even the good graces to blush when their
con game is revealed, and the hangers-on and feather merchant wanna-bes who
follow them around and worship at their feet, naively and foolishly
considering themselves "among the wealthy," have the unmitigated gall to
claim that what they are doing somehow makes them "smarter" or "better" than
the "poor fools" who produce that wealth by the sweat of their brow and by
consistently exercising their principle of exchanging an honest days' work
for an honest day's pay -- without ever getting an honest day's pay.
[Continued 1 message]
Message: 81010
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Investing...
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:16:19
Now, this is not to say that there is anything wrong with being wealthy,
*per se*, so long as the person who is wealthy makes himself worthy of it by
*earning* *the* *privilege*. You don't earn it by spending six months of
the year in Tahiti, and you don't earn it by giving it away to the "less
fortunate," and you don't earn it by "jumping into the frn fray" and raising
everyone's cost of living to benefit your own profit and loss ratio. You
don't even earn it by merely investing it in industry which tries to improve
the living standard of everyone by producing something of value for which
there is a market.
You *earn* it, Fred, by investing not only your money but *yourself* in
industry which tries to improve the living standard of everyone by producing
something of value, and you make it damned clear that people who produce for
you will be rewarded with *value* -- not debt -- in exchange for their labor
and excellence, and not only the person you hire, but every person down the
line that *he* hires.
In other words, you become worthy of success by providing opportunity for
the success of others, and by demanding honesty and principled behavior of
them -- not only toward you, but toward everyone. It doesn't matter what
"industry" we are talking about, so long as you are investing in *people*
and in their *future* and not merely investing in your idea of "wealth."
'Six months out of every year in Tahiti,' Y-e-euucck! Gad, what a
*parasite* such a person must be!
Message: 81011
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Priorities
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:17:29
FS> You are welcome to your world view but so much of it just seems
FS> basically pointless to me that I don't understand the attraction.
That's because your highest priority is what you define as wealth. Mine is
principle. Wealth, in the way you define it, is one of my lowest
priorities. I mean, don't get me wrong: a little more wealth would be very
nice; life would be a lot easier; I could give my daughter the college
education she deserves without her having to waive her (and our) rights to
privacy by begging scholarships and grants all over the place; and if there
was enough I could devote some of it -- probably one heck of a lot of it --
toward those who desperately need help in defending themselves from
government abuses of their rights. But Tahiti 6 months out of the year?
Stick it. I've been there and I wasn't impressed -- certainly not impressed
enough to think Tahiti is worthy of either my money or my leisure time when
there are so many more important -- indeed, *vitally* *essential* -- things
which need doing and would benefit everyone, not just me.
Message: 81012
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Tobacco Standard
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:19:15
FS> I have no doubt that a FEDERAL Tobbacco standard would have worked as
FS> well.
You must have shares of stock in Liggett-Myers or something, the way you
keep coming back to that "Tobacco Standard" nonsense. Look, Fred, in the
early years of the colonies, England wouldn't permit the colonies to mint
their own coins. Virginia and North Carolina raised bumper crops of tobacco
which found a worldwide market; thus they began to use bundles of aromatic
tobacco as a medium of exchange. At the same time, the more northern
colonies used wheat, rye, barley, and other crops as a medium of exchange.
Furs and indian wampum was also used. All of this was used by default for
two reasons: they didn't have any formal "money" to speak of, and for the
most part they didn't need any; most people supplied their own needs from
raw materials. But as the colonies grew, these consumable barter materials
became unacceptable; a merchant who accepted wheat as barter for broadcloth,
for example, had to be expert at gauging the grade of wheat, or he would be
cheated. The governors of the colonies urged those leaving Europe to bring
coins rather than equipment and supplies, and finally Pennsylvania received
permission from the Crown to establish a mint.
The point is (the above doesn't "prove" it, but wasn't meant to) that you
cannot use a consumable commodity as money for very long, because just like
frns run off with a printing press, they devalue when exchanged for labor.
They get consumed, or become stale, rotten, and/or smelly.
Message: 81013
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Suspicious
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:20:35
FS> It is NOT necessary for a medium of exchange to have an intrinsic
FS> value.
Well, I haven't given you a chance to answer the message I uploaded earlier
about using dirt for money, but if you believe that statement I quoted
above, then I suggest you try it. If it is not necessary for a medium of
exchange to have an intrinsic value, then dirt should be as "valuable" to
you as frns or gold. It is clear that for all your self-perceived "wealth,"
you have no idea what makes a monetary system work or not work, what makes
it a rip-off by the privileged few or a catalyst to improve everyone's
living standard, or for that matter, do you seem to care much one way or the
other for the principles involved.
You know, Fred, you are making me suspicious. I have presented many, many
sound arguments here for my position in this discussion, and all I get from
you are baldfaced statements like the above. It is beginning to dawn on me
that you must have a vested interest in perpetuating the lie which is
draining the life's blood out of America and out of America's future. Are
you one who is knowingly profiting from that lie? If you are one who "jumps
into the frn fray" and exploits the system for your own benefit then
obviously you are profiting from the lie, but are you *knowingly* profiting
from it? Because if you haven't been up until now, from now on you are.
Message: 81014
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Religion/schools
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:22:07
FC> Re: but when a school promotes an atmosphere embracing any religious
FC> belief
FC> That's just it Bill. The schools don't. It's against the law. They
FC> are not even allowed a moment of silence for students to pray or
FC> meditate to the god of their choice. And it was done for the very
FC> reason that Arik was complaining about. Our public schools are about
FC> as godless as we can make them.
I don't know who 'Arik' is, or what he or she is doing or complaining about,
but if you want to change the fact you expressed in the above paragraph, I
have a suggestion: Students should start praying in school. Not
collectively, or in any organized manner, but individually, according to
their own religious beliefs. If the school tries to stop the students, then
sue the school (gov't) for violating the students' freedom of religion. It
would be an open and shut case.
I am opposed to the movement to pass an amendment to "allow" prayer in
schools for two reasons: 1. We already have that right now, individually,
which is protected by the United States Constitution. 2. If you make it a
collective right by passing an amendment, then you are putting government in
charge of controlling it -- telling you when and where you can have your
"moment of silence," and sooner or later you will be told "how" praying is
[Continued 1]
Message: 81015
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Religion/schools
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:23:09
acceptable (example: silently or loudly, kneeling in a corner or rolling on
the floor speaking in tongues, etc.) and eventually you will sure as hell
(is that the right word?) be told to *whom* to pray -- you can bet on it.
You don't give gov't an inch unless you want it to take a mile. We already
have the *right* to pray, anywhere, any time, to whomever we wish, in
whatever manner we wish. Let's not throw it away in some hare-brained
scheme designed to force gov't into a religious mold, because gov't *will*
come out on top if we do. And gov't will just *love* us for it.
Message: 81016
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Ann/insurance
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 20:24:38
AO> That is something I never understood - the different in rates for
AO> liability among the companies! Liability is liability, right? What
AO> difference you hit a person with a Rolls Royce or a Beetle??
AO> -=*) ANN (*=-
Difference #1: a Rolls weighs about 4,200 pounds; a Beetle weighs about
1900. Difference #2: It would cost as much to repair a dented fender on a
Rolls as it would to replace a Beetle. Difference #3: In any serious
collision between a Rolls and a Beetle, the Beetle is going to be rolled up
into a little ball and tossed into the nearest ditch, while the driver of
the Rolls might not notice.
If you hit a person with either one, there would be a slight difference in
injuries -- but the victim would sue the Rolls owner for a lot more than he
would sue the Beetle owner for, and the 'Liability' portion of the coverage
is what pays it -- up to the limits of the policy. Therefore the Rolls
driver better have a whole lot higher insurance coverage.
If either of these vehicles hit another vehicle, the Rolls is going to do
about twenty-five times more damage than the Beetle will do.
Does that answer the question?
Public Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit Chat
Subject:James Matlock
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Well tonight I only have 50K instead of last nights 55K. How lucky.
2:Actually I really enjoyed the messages I read off-line last evening. They
3:were all good.
4:
5:And in fact I own two banjos. One is a Lyle 5 string and the other is a
6:Contessa 6 string. The banjo is the only instrument that came into being on
7:this American soil. You should come over and hear me play some day. I
8:won't say 'some evening' because those suckers are really loud.
9:
10:Now what was that you were saying about me taking up the banjo?
11:
12: Rod
13:P.S. Would you like to join my sock religion? It's really dirt cheap to be
14:a member and the benefits are many.
15:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 81017
Public Bulletin Board command:R81017
Message: 81017
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: James Matlock
Date: 12/31/91 Time: 21:02:42
Well tonight I only have 50K instead of last nights 55K. How lucky.
Actually I really enjoyed the messages I read off-line last evening. They
were all good.
And in fact I own two banjos. One is a Lyle 5 string and the other is a
Contessa 6 string. The banjo is the only instrument that came into being on
this American soil. You should come over and hear me play some day. I
won't say 'some evening' because those suckers are really loud.
Now what was that you were saying about me taking up the banjo?
Rod
P.S. Would you like to join my sock religion? It's really dirt cheap to be
a member and the benefits are many.
Public Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
No more new messages