Apollo BBS Archive - January 1992

Apollo BBS Archive - January 2, 1992


Mail from Pete Fischer
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 23:59:29

There were *NO* high explosive devices in the briefcase, only worthless
stock certificates. Hope you had a good day. Remember, the only good commie
is...well..I think you know...
        My neighbors are really hammering me at the moment. I sure wish I
had some way to make them stop. Adios, Pete
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:Perhaps you could entice the Dirty Dozen Motorcycle Gang to spend a week at 
 2:your house.  Of course you would have to furnish the beer, they would
 3:furnish the 'crank'.
 4:
 5:I have a few 'biker' friends and one of them lives next door.  He is a 
 6:Harley Man.  Or hire a couple of Van Buren repo men to spend a few days with
 7:you.
 8:
 9:There is a book sold at Spy Headquarters that tells how to 'get even' with 
10:enemies.
11:
12:Cut off their gas at 2 a.m. and turn it back on at 2:03 a.m.
13:
14:Have a 'man to man' with your neighbor....invite him out for beer or coffee 
15:and arm wrestle him.  People can become better friends after a fight 
16:especially of those people who still have some 'child' remaining in them.
17:
18:                                        Rod


$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 8788
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Stinkeroos
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:35:09

Actually, the diapers don't start to smell REALLY bad until the kid starts
eating something besides mother's milk.  Then, hooooeeeee!

Message: 8789
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Poopoo
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 12:20:14

Ah, that must be why nursing is sometimes prolonged for 2-3 years in many
cultures.  They must want to put off weaning until the kid is potty trained.

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC

You chose Chit-Chat

Subject:Nursing

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:Actually what Bill said is true.  Once meat is put into the babies diet then
 2:the poop changes character.  The benefits of mother's milk gives the baby a 
 3:much better start than cow or goat milk.
 4:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...
The message is 8790

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN

*=* Journey to a SIG *=*

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

Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:$C

Press  to abort

Message: 1586
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit-Chat & Sing
Subject: Spike Jones
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 03:46:58

Is there really a "Best of Spike Jones" CD?  That would be a keeper.

Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:EC

You chose Chit-Chat & Sing

Subject:Spike Jones

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:Digital?
 2:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...
The message is 1587

Nick's Music Palace Bulletin Board command:JN

*=* Journey to a SIG *=*

*=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*

Public Bulletin Board command:$C

Press  to abort

Message: 81064
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bands
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 01:44:06

 BB>>I'd forgotten how great a marching band sounds!  Except for the
 BB>>clarinets, of course.  They always sound kind of wimpy and out of tune.

Our school orchestra always had a plaintive, reedy tone, lacking in presence
and power.  They had woodwind and strings -- but no brass.  Don't know why.
I can't imagine that there was nobody willing or able to play trumpet,
trombone, or oompah.  Maybe with the orchestra being so small, they thought
that brass would overpower the other players piping into their piccolos and
scraping at their off-key violins.  Pity.

A friend of mine in Mass. used to play tuba in high school, in spite of
which he always described marching bands as "mechanized farting".  This is
not entirely an unfair assessment.  Many bands do sound good, but those that
do are usually also in tune with one another.

My father played most brass instruments in his time, in a Salvation Army
band.  This particular brand of musical skill doesn't seem to have emerged
in me yet.  Any note I can get out of a trumpet is usually random in both
duration and pitch.  And I have yet to get a note out of a set of bagpipes,
except by removing the drone and applying the chuck of an air hose.

Scotsmen may inherit leather lungs with their genes; but I have a theory
that what a Scotsman has under his kilt is not what you think.  That loose
garment is designed to hide a small battery-operated air compressor.

Message: 81065
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/schemes
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 05:45:12

 You find it difficult to understand how "anyone with half a brain would
fall" for a well planned and executed con scheme.
 About all I can say to that is that you have probably never been played for
the sucker. Even with all the publicity that the one major con (I forget he
name of it) gets every year about this time, there are still people who get
taken, and they're not all ignoramuses, either. They are usually elderly
folks, as often as not, they are snowbirds. The cons have a nack for
spottiting the ones that are most liable to have money in the bank, and they
are very good at what they do. The con itself, like all cons, play to the
most basic of human faults, greed. The chance to get (seemingly) something
for nothing is hard to resist, and if one isn't well fortified with
information concerning the con, one can be easily taken in by a couple of
good artists. It really has nothing to do with the capacity of anyone's
brain.

Message: 81066
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: The SYSOP Speaks
Subject: Fred & Arch
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:00:45

Yo!  Archimedes and Fred Smith!
 
Stay cool guys.  You're both approaching the "Jane, you ignorant slut" level
of argument here.
 
This has been an engaging and fascinating discussion for several months now.
 Please don't let it end in acrimony.  It'll taste bad to all of us.

Message: 81067
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: The SYSOP Speaks
Subject: Mr. Matlock...
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:01:11

James, the remarks you've made in messages 81058 through 81060 regarding
Archimedes's character are out of line.  Please edit or withdraw those
messages -- and issue an Apollogy -- immediately.
 
You've got some important points to make about argumentative technique,
James, but to frame them in personal attack cannot be allowed.  (In fact,
it's the points you make which cause me to give you a chance to rework your
comments rather than simply pull them myself.)

Message: 81068
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann-Refusing
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:32:51

> I found it abhorrent too, but what could I do about it? You
> could say I was not cooperating by not telling them what I was
> going to do with it. But how could I stop them from telling the
> IRS? And remember what Archi said about Structuring -  can't
> even sneak it out a little at a time. What would you do when
> you say you wouldn't cooperate?? 
 
I'd do pretty much what you did: Simply refuse to fill out whatever form
they had and refuse to answer questions.  But I'd do it without any
illusions that this action alone would strike any serious blows to the IRS. 
They'd just have to work a little harder to get their information.

Message: 81069
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Scheming Cliff
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:33:24

> I have looked into these so called schemes to take money from
> would be victims and find it difficult that anyone with half a
> brain would fall for them.
 
        Ah!  But that's the rub!  A con's victim HASN'T looked into it, and
it seems so fortuitous and reasonable at the time...  Well, why not?
        I agree with your skepticism, but not necessarily that those who
haven't thought it out should be left to fend for themselves.
 
> I think that if people would realize that we need to look out
> and be responsible for ourselves, these scams would stand less
> chance of happening.  Big Brother has given us false security,
> yet we keep paying in and screaming for more.
 
These schemes have been around for centuries.  Their success has nothing to
do with hoping Big Brother will take care of us.  It has to do, as Paul
said, with greed and a bite of a free lunch.

Message: 81070
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: Fred - $ v. FRNs
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:33:56

> ...if the gvt establishes the equation between GOLD and FRN's
> then the GVT IS establishing the value of those two things in
> relation to each other.
 
I know Archimedes doesn't seem to need my help in expressing himself, Fred,
but let me take a whack at this.
 
I think where you and he part on this specific issue is that he says the
government has the right to say a DOLLAR has a particular value in terms of
SILVER or GOLD, and that a DOLLAR is not the same as a FRN.
 
OTOH, you seem to be of the opinion that a DOLLAR and a FRN are one and the
same, therefore, any change in the definition of a DOLLAR (in terms of
SILVER or GOLD or whatever) represents a change in definition the FRN.
 
It seems you've been talking past each other on this point.

Message: 81071
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Politics
Subject: James-Reading Arch
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:34:20

> Speaking of true believers, did you see Archi's guest column in
> today's Republic?  I suppose congratulations -- of a sort --
> are in order.
 
I'd like to hear more about this, James.  Was there a piece under an
"Archimedes" byline, or are you saying you know his/her true identity?  Or
are you being coy about an article by someone espousing similar views?

Message: 81072
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod's Learning
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 07:34:41

> I'm learning but I'm not sure what I'm learning because the
> pieces are still out of place.
 
What a lovely and honest sentiment!
 
In the scriptwriting seminar I do from time to time, in the segment on
determining what the message of the script is, I like to tell the story of
my then three-year-old son drawing.  I asked him what he was drawing and he
picked up the paper, turning it several directions.  After some study he
finally replied, "I'm not sure yet."  What a wonderful way to approach
learning and creativity!

Message: 81073
Author: $ Zak Woodruff
Category: Joke
Subject: Happy New Year
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 11:30:22

Another new year, but then again, time doesn't exist.  Hi Wod.  

Message: 81074
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 76 Trombones
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 13:24:13

I know.   My editor doesn't default to 76 and I always forget to reset it.
Where was the guest column?  I don't remember seeing it unless it was the
letter about ranchers and miners.

Message: 81075
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Matlock
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 13:30:28

You are right, the parallels between religion and other beliefs are
striking.  Just about all of us have some of those "hot-buttons" that when
pushed cause us to get a bit ahead of ourselves.

Message: 81076
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 13:35:43

One reason you may be finding some of the economic arguments difficult is
because there really are no clear cut answers for what goes on in the real
world.  Learned economists themselves hold widely different opinions of
what's "right" and what's "wrong".  As to the question of "what to do when
all hell breaks loose....but not at the expense of others..."  I would
suggest that Arch's idea of having  his gold stash for when the collapse
occurs could be construed to be taking advantage of others if that day
comes.  I wouldn't agree with that position but it could be argued that way.

Message: 81077
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill B/Schemes
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 13:39:16

Almost everyone who has dealt with a car dealer has been on the recieving
end of a con.  

Message: 81078
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill B/$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 13:44:37

SInce the gvt does not issue "dollars" only FRNs and since FRNs are
denominated in "dollars" then they are, in any meaningfull sense, one and
the same.  That is precisely where I think ARCH has gone off the track. 
What he really wants is for the gvt to, in essense, start issueing (even if
they don't acutally put it in circulation) these things he thinks of as
"real dollars" and he figures that the "real dollars" will be far more
valuable then FRNs.  And if the gvt did it the way he wants them to they
would be far more valuble, which would be exactly why they could not issue
them - the system would not make any sense.  You cannot have two currencies
in circulation and with offical backing unless they have offically
maintained parity.  I understand what Arch wants but he ain't gonna get it.

Message: 81079
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Bill/The SYSOP Speak
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:02:54

I've already written a bunch of messages in reply, but I think I've backed
off from the "Jane, you ignorant slut" allegory without giving up any
logical advantage in the discussion.  If you think I am still a little too
... uh, pointed, shall we say ... then let me know again.  Thanks for your
suggestion.

Message: 81080
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Answer!
Subject: SYSOP/Mr...
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:05:41

If it makes any difference, I did not see James' messages in 81058 through
81060 because I've been filtering him out.  You can probably see why.

Message: 81081
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Prayer in Schools
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:11:39

FC> The United States had a lot of prayer and various Christian activity
FC> for about the first 200 years of history and none of your reasons
FC> happened.  Why then should they happen now all of a sudden if prayer
FC> were permitted again?

Because the prayer and various Christian activity for about the first 200
years of history (I don't think it was quite that long, but that's a
quibble) was unorganized and what people wanted to do and naively expected
everyone else to agree to.  It bespoke a certain provincialism; i.e., "I'm
Southern Baptist and therefore everyone must be Southern Baptist.  Therefore
why would anyone object to praying in school?"  That sort of thing.

People explored and fought for their inherited and unalienable rights to not
have another man's religion rammed down their throats, and they succeeded in
putting teeth into the Constitutional separation of church and state.  (A
bit too much teeth, I might add; I see nothing wrong with using school
facilities for after hour prayer meetings so long as every denomination has
equal access.)

But let me present the problem to you this way:  Suppose gov't recognized 'a
moment of silence' in schools because Buddhists wanted to say 'OOOoooom' for
60 seconds.  Wouldn't you feel a little threatened, even though you could
pray to your own God during that moment?

The answer to the other half of your question -- why do I feel it would be a
problem now when it wasn't for a long time -- is that the difference is that
gov't would have to be involved with it as an "official action."  Before it
was unofficial, and no one, gov't official or private individual (except for
perhaps those who didn't want to participate in other people's religious
ceremonies) felt that official gov't was taking a hand in it.

I can see the point of those whose religious beliefs conflict with the
Christian beliefs.  I can see it because of the adage, "If they can do it to
'them' then they can do it to US."  I would not want my daughter to be
required to participate in someone else's religious ceremony.  I would not
even want my daughter to be required to give up a portion of her learning
time in school because someone else's religion had gained the power to
divert the resources of the school for a period of time.  My daughter is in
school to learn what she needs to learn in school; she does not benefit from
organized prayer because she can pray any time she wants to, and she
certainly isn't going to benefit from everything coming to a screeching halt
for a period of time so someone who wants to pray won't be distracted by
anything so secular as schoolwork.

School resources and time are limited enough without parsing it out for
organized prayer and meditation anyone can do on their own time.

Message: 81083
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: True Beh?
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:14:13

BB> Uh oh.  Anyone else get the feeling we're moving from politics to
religion
BB> here?  You're starting to sound more and more like a True Beh.

I don't know what a "True Beh" is, but I have to disagree that I am
exhibiting a religious fervor about this (if that is what you are
inferring).  It seems to me that religious fervor is built on faith, and by
definition, faith cannot be proven sufficient to meet any criteria of legal
or scientific proof.

On the other hand, the fraud inherent in our current monetary system admits
easily of both legal and scientific proof.  My comment to Fred was based
upon the fact that I can and have presented a considerable amount of sound
argument, backed up with facts and figures, with legal documentation proving
that the framers of our Constitution knew about the evils of this kind of
system and were intent upon prohibiting it, that that was very nearly the
primary reason for the Constitution in the first place, and I can and have
demonstrated repeatedly that everyone loses and everyone's descendants lose
in this kind of system, and instead of addressing those arguments, instead
of trying to prove they are wrong, Fred merely comes out with baldfaced
statements like "A medium of exchange doesn't have to have any value" or
some such.  Now, if you want to talk about religious fervor based on faith
and nothing else (except, perhaps, a cunning avarice), then there you have
an example to consider.

Message: 81084
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Freedom of choice
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:14:55

Ar> Students should start praying in school.  Not collectively, or in any
Ar> organized manner, but individually, according to their own religious
Ar> beliefs.

BB> Yes!  With an added "if they wish to."

Indeed.  And absolutely only if.

Message: 81085
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Insurance
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:16:18

AO> Yes I understand, but now that insurance REALLY is mandatory, shouldn't
AO> the rates go down on these? More people paying in, etc.??? I read in the
AO> paper this morning that the rates may go up if nothing else. -=*) ANN
(*=-

I can think of no reason at all why rates should go down with this mandatory
insurance deal *or* with "No-Fault" insurance.  The rates are based upon
statistical analysis of both accident rates and repair costs within given
geographic areas; it isn't too important whether claims are paid out for
what a driver does to someone else or what someone else does to a driver.

Plus, as Fred has pointed out, mandatory insurance doesn't matter because
the loss to carriers is drivers who can't afford insurance in the first
place.  Making it mandatory will do nothing but (occasionally) getting their
cars impounded, which will do nothing but increase their dependency upon the
State for their existence, and I don't think will happen often enough
*before* an accident to make a difference.

This is not a suggestion that we should have greater gov't control over our
lives, but if California insurance rates are cheaper it's because California
enforces its traffic laws.  I don't mean heavier penalties; I mean they have
trained officers on the road seeking incompetent drivers.  They also have a
reasonably intelligent idea of how to program traffic lights at
intersections to minimize accidents.  In these areas, Arizona is a joke.

Message: 81086
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Modest Inflation
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:17:38

FS> You don't see inflation slowing down??????/  Where have you been?  It
FS> was double digits around 10 years ago, now it's down to almost nothing.
FS> And many economists feel that a modest inflation rate is the most
FS> effective way to keep an economy humming.

Ann, Fred is conveniently ignoring what I've presented to him regarding the
true inflation rate, most of which will have to be paid by future
generations, versus the carefully massaged gov't figures.  And you have to
remember that a so-called "modest inflation rate" is the *only* way to keep
an economy humming when you have a fraudulent, unConstitutional, debt-backed
currency as we do.  You don't need inflation to keep the economy humming
when you have an honest monetary standard of intrinsic value, as the framers
of our Constitution knew and which they compelled of government in the
Constitution, and which worked fantastically well for over a hundred years.

I consider it a pretty cynical effort at disinformation (read that as
'lying') when any so-called economist claims that a "modest inflation rate"
is necessary to a good economy, when in fact an institutionalized inflation
rate of any kind is one of the strongest indicators of fraud in government. 
It is not necessary at all; what is necessary to keep an economy humming and
our children out of the poorhouse is an honest monetary standard.

Message: 81087
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Supreme Court
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:18:52

FS> Until the supreme court says it's unconstitutional it's constitutional.

Oh, brother!  Wrong, Fred!  The United States Constitution was written in
plain English instead of Latin so the *People* could read it and understand
it and demand specific performance from gov't pursuant to its provisions. 
And, I might add, the Supreme Court has ruled that when a court makes a
ruling contrary to the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is
bound to obey it.

It always astonishes me when people express their apparent belief that
rights exist only to the extent some gov't branch or agency authorizes them!

FS> Have there been any supreme court cases addressing this issue???

Yes, there have, by the Supreme Court "packed" by F.D.R., who got very upset
because the previous Supreme Court had struck down some of his pet
collectivist ideas as being unConstitutional.  These decisions by F.D.R.'s
pet Court are widely regarded, by legal professionals on both sides of the
individualist/collectivist issue, as being poorly researched, poorly
written, and as having ignored any of the basic issues the Court should have
taken up in their consideration.

Message: 81088
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Oh, yes we will...
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 15:19:38

FS> If the Banksters and all are as powerfull and in control as ARCH, and
you
FS> seem to think, you will never win anyways.

Oh, yes we will.  We will win because the fraudulent system created and
exploited by those bozos is about to self-destruct, as any such system based
upon fraud eventually must.  "You can fool some of the people some of the
time ...", etc.

Message: 81089
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Woops...
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 19:50:17

Well, I didn't quite do this as fast as I thought.  I pulled the same trick
Fred did and had to go back and reformat all the files I'm uploading
tonight.  And then I had to re-write my ascii translation tables.  But it
doesn't look like anyone has been in here yet, so I guess now I'll see if
what I did works.  If there are no messages besides this one, then I made a
hash of it.

Message: 81090
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: FRED SMITH
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 20:18:40

FS> - if the gvt establishes the equation between GOLD and FRN's then the
FS> GVT IS establishing the value of those two things in relation to each
FS> other.

That is not the same as establishing the value of either one in the
marketplace.

FS> In the case of your example of the MARKET setting the value of gold,
FS> that is certainly true.

Thank you!

FS> What you ignore is that the MARKET also establishes the value of the
FRN.

So?

FS> Why , oh Why, do you insist that the GVT now return to establishing
FS> the MARKET equation between FRNs and GOLD?????

I'm not.  If gov't would again honor the law defining the "U.S. Dollar" as
X-amount of gold, I'd be perfectly happy to let the market set the equation
between frns and gold.  I don't think you would be happy, though; people
would discover, virtually overnight, the truth that frns are intrinsically
worthless.

FS> It's amazing to me how you can attack the gvt at every turn but when it
FS> comes to your HOLY GRAIL, gold, you want the GVT to be the entity
FS> estbablishing it's market value.

I don't, and under a Constitutional monetary system of gold and/or silver
standard, gov't doesn't.  Again, you refuse to separate the concepts of
"frns" and "dollars."  What you say would be true only if frns were in fact
dollars, and they are not.

Also, gold is not my "Holy Grail."  Gold represents honest money to me, and
honest exchange for my labor, which is my basic intrinsic "wealth" in this
society.  I demand that my labor, which is the only intrinsic wealth I have,
be exchanged in the marketplace for a substance of equal value.  It seems to
me that while you may not feel your labor is worth anything (I don't know;
maybe you don't expend any of it, and that's why), *your* "Holy Grail"
appears to be worthless frns representing debt.  It seems a rather hollow
form of wealth.

FS> To follow your logic you would have the gvt issuing FRNs denominated
FS> in "dollars" but not worth their face value.

On the contrary, that is what is being done now.  Follow my logic, Fred: I
want gov't to mint "Dollars."  Not frns.  (Though I don't care if gov't or
the bankers issue frns not worth their face value, which they are doing now,
as long as they issue "U.S. Dollars" as defined by law and make "U.S.
Dollars" as defined by law "legal tender in payment of all debts, public and
private."  If gov't will do that, frns will disappear anyway because you
won't be able to buy anything with them; they won't be worth anything.  I
won't mourn their departure, but I won't care if the banksters want to keep
on wasting printers' ink and paper.)

FS> You'd pull out your FRNs and he'd say, "Hmm, let's see now, what are
FS> those babies going for these days. Let me look it up.  Ah, yes, that
FS> will be 37.43 FRN's."

To begin with, had gov't begun minting real dollars, and had gov't made them
legal tender in payment for debt (that is the scenario we are talking
about), I wouldn't pull out any frns because I would know better.  But if
*you* pull out your frns and offer them in payment for shoes, the proprietor
isn't going to say "what are those babies going for these days", he's going
to say "Sorry, Bub.  We don't accept worthless trash for our quality
products.  We only accept real dollars.  We have real people working here
who are exchanging their real labor of real value *for* real value in the
marketplace, and they lawfully and Constitutionally have a right to real
wealth in exchange for their valuable labor, and they deserve to pass a
portion of that wealth on to their children, instead of lumbering them up
with debt."

Well, most likely he wouldn't say all that.  Most likely he'd just give you
the boot where it would do you the most good for insulting him.

FS> It seems you want someone to agree to pay you for 1991 value in terms
FS> of golds value in 1913.

Considering that one "U.S. Dollar" in gold today is more valuable than one
Federal Reserve Note which is fraudulently called a dollar today, and this
was also true in 1913, and that in both cases the frn is worth
zippety-do-dah, you're darned right I want someone to agree to pay me (for
my labor) in U.S. Dollars (gold).  If he doesn't want to agree to that, then
he expects something for nothing from me.

FS> Of course no one would enforce that sort of contract.

Of course not; not when gov't enforces fraudulent contracts requiring people
to work for nothing but debt.  Of course this *is* government-legalized
fraud, but that doesn't seem to bother you.

Ar> One hundred and twenty-six years of zero inflation.  ONE HUNDRED AND
Ar> TWENTY-SIX YEARS OF ZERO INFLATION.

FS> From Fred  --- Oh Geez....  Is that the "zero inflation" you talked
FS> about before with all the if ands or buts about "well we have to ignore
FS> this" and "we can't include that, it's hard to get data for it" and
FS> making no allowance for the tremendous impovements in "like" kinds of
FS> things then and now???

No, it's not.  The fraudulent debt-money system we endure today wasn't in
existence, thank God, for the one hundred and twenty-six years between the
ratification of our Constitution and 1913, which was the year the Federal
Reserve Bank was illegally chartered by Roosevelt's cronies.  It therefore
did not create the distortions I spoke of when I compared the purchasing
power of gold in 1913 to the purchasing power of gold today, which I said
was "pretty much the same" with a few distortions caused by fraudulent frns.

And I'm certain that, while you are certainly misguided, you *are* bright
enough to know the difference between those two arguments I presented.

The "zero inflation" to which I referred above was the "zero inflation" our
country had under a gold and silver standard, during the greatest period of
improvement in the living standard of the working class in 18 centuries, and
during which the cost of living for everyone went down, and the quality of
"like kinds of things" as you put it -- all manner of consumer goods -- went
up.

FS> From someone else in the R&G>>    Inability to prove a conspiracy is in
FS> itself proof of the conspiracy.  (said with TIC)

I'm surprised to hear you say that; I thought you were claiming the position
of those fat dumb and happy sheeple who believed that the assertion of a
conspiracy was proof that it did not exist.

FS> From People Like Fred>>>  FS> the yearly budget (if memory serves, and
it may not) it could be easily wiped out from current income.

Oh?  Well, after you wipe out the principle, what are you going to pay the
interest with?  C'mon, Fred, wake up.  That's another one of those carefully
massaged gov't numbers; all it means is that the "collateral taxing power"
of the U.S. gov't is 70% greater than the current national debt.  In other
words, gov't could tax every single frn out of circulation and still have
70% of its taxing power available.  Of course, it couldn't collect any more
frns, because no more would be available, so it would have
to accept barter -- you know what barter is, I'm sure: houses, land,
personal possessions, labor, slaves ... etc.  You get the picture.

FS> IN fact, I do believe that Congress has more then once put together
FS> budgets that would, if followed, have taken care of it.  It requires
FS> reductions in welfare, and entitlement programs, and some other stuff
FS> and when push comes to shove then just won't make those cuts.

No, it wouldn't have taken care of it, for the aforementioned reasons (it
*can't* take care of it; the debt including the interest is greater than all
the frns in circulation; in fact, it is greater than all the property in
U.S. hands); however, Congress has more than once 'supposedly' put together
budgets which addressed reductions in welfare, and entitlement programs,
etc., but won't make those cuts.  One reason is that the advertised budget
was not the budget that was passed; the advertised budget was the facade to
make the politicians look good.  Another reason is that under a system which
cannot be paid off without giving up the whole country and *all* its wealth
to the foreign bankers, why even try?  It's easier to keep up pretenses and
keep running up the debt than it is to pay the piper -- so long as that is
*possible,* which it won't be much longer.  Another reason is that attempts
to significantly reduce the debt load draws furrowed eyebrows, one might
even say 'frowns,' from the banksters looking toward Congress.  Reducing the
debt load reduces the banksters' political
power over gov't, and that is a no-no.  Any Congressman advocating that will
shortly find himself in the gutter without a constituency, and if he doesn't
exit gracefully he'll find himself in jail on trumped up IRS charges. 
Remember George Hanson?

FS> What's "wrong" with this country isn't the monetary system, it is the
FS> tax and spend syndrome our national "leaders" are afflicted with.

All national (and State and Local, too) leaders are *always* afflicted with
the "tax and spend syndrome."  Anyone with any common sense knows that going
in.  The founders of our country knew it; that's why they created a
Constitution which placed taxing and spending beyond the reach of the
legislators.  They simply can't do it under the Constitutional monetary
standard the framers of the Constitution (specifically, Roger Sherman, who
wrote the economic provisions of the Constitution) compelled.  That is why
gov't was under such a tremendous incentive to get around that
Constitutional standard and impose one, illegally, which allowed them to
satisfy that craving.  (They could not have imposed one legally, and their
game would have been exposed for all to see if they had tried.)

FS> Many have worked 90 hour weeks for year after year so that finally they
FS> can take a vacation for 6 months after not having one for 6 years.

Now it's my turn to say "how noble."  And I am not disparaging those who
work as you describe; I am disparaging you for playing this "how noble" game
when that is not what you SAID.  What you SAID was "... who spend 6 mos out
of every year in Tahiti?  And *consistently* do so year after year after
year?"  (And *that* person, in my view, is a parasite.)

Don't pull that kind of crap, Fred.  It doesn't become you and it weakens
your credibility.  I want my arguments to prevail on their merits and so far
they do; I don't need to win this debate by default.

FS> From Scum of the Earth...>>

Well, if you say so.

FS> What you characterize as sound arguments are what I would characterize
FS> as something far less.

Then prove it.  Address my arguments, then.  Do your research and marshall
your facts and present a superior argument for your position.  Don't expect
to ignore the facts and arguments I have presented, re-assert your original
unsupported premise, and walk away with everyone nodding in agreement with
your position.  With few exceptions among those who have a modicum of
superficial book learning and no discernible methodology or experience in
the real world, it ain't gonna happen.

FS> The rest of your statements above are typical of your blind allegations
FS> and mindless attacks and general invective against anyone and anything
FS> that fails to conform to your world view.

Oh?  blind allegations?  mindless attacks?  general invective?  It seems to
me I'm the one who has been presenting facts and figures and documentation
and historical research for consideration here; I haven't heard a darned
thing from you but unsupported and self-serving premises and a few
undocumented generalizations that don't hold up under close examination --
not even under distant examination.  And *you* are accusing *me* of blind
allegations, mindless attacks, and general invective?  Who was it, here,
just a few messages ago, mindlessly accused me of engaging in this debate
for no other reason than the fact that I didn't like paying taxes?  Who is
it who keeps blindly alleging the incredibly naive dictum that if we just
had a (theoretically impossible) honest gov't everything would be
hunky-dory?  Who is it who keeps referring to the "pointlessness" of
demanding a gold standard?

You know, the more I review our previous messages to and from each other,
the more I think I should retract my half-hearted apology offered last night
while wishing everyone a Happy New Year.  I haven't heard a shred of logical
argument or documented fact from you since this debate started, and I am
therefore left with the distinct feeling that you *don't* *have* any
argument or facts marshalled for your position.  That leaves me with the
strong suspicion that you have no legitimate reason for your position other
than the fact that you *like* fraudulent debt-money out of cunning and
unprincipled self-interest.  That means, to me, that the *question* I asked
you -- not any allegation I made, or mindless attack, or general invective
-- that the *question* I asked you: "Are you one profiting from the lie?" is
a fair question.

Of course, you don't have to answer; I fully support your right to be secure
from being a witness against yourself.  I also support your right to believe
anything you want to, regardless of how brilliant or how stupid it may be,
so long as it doesn't infringe upon my inherited and unalienable rights and
the same rights of my countrymen.  Unfortunately, this fraudulent debt money
system does infringe upon everyone's rights, and I therefore will continue
to challenge your support of it, or anyone else's support of it.  Of course,
I fully support your right to voluntarily withdraw in defeat from that
challenge if you so wish.

Re:  Your message #81078, to Bill B/$$$$$$.

Well, now, that was a nice explanation of your position.  It's too bad you
didn't tell me that some time ago instead of trying to stonewall; we might
not have become so acrimonious.  However, there remains a fallacy in your
position:

FS> Since the gvt does not issue "dollars" only FRNs and since FRNs are
FS> denominated in "dollars" then they are, in any meaningfull sense, one
FS> and the same.

In the first place, gov't does not issue frns; the Federal Reserve Bank
issues frns.  Since the Federal Reserve Bank is a private corporation, they
can call their worthless pieces of paper anything they want (unless there is
intent to defraud) and they choose to call them "dollars."  Of course, there
*is* intent to defraud, knowingly and wilfully to defraud, and so gov't has
a responsibility to put a stop to it, but of course gov't benefits from the
fraud and so it will not put a stop to it, which makes gov't a party to the
fraud.

Now, then: the fact that a private corporation calls their worthless scraps
of paper "dollars" for the purpose of committing fraud (or for any other
purpose) does not make them, "in any meaningful sense, one and the same"

with "U.S. Dollars" as defined by law.  That makes no more sense than if I
wrote the word "dollar" on a piece of paper and claimed that "in any
meaningful sense, this dollar is one and the same" with a U.S. Dollar -- the
claim would be ridiculous and counter to law.

If you want to argue your free will to willingly be defrauded by these bozos
behind the fraudulent and illegal frn, and to accomplish this end you
willingly and knowingly and voluntarily choose to call a worthless piece of
paper a "dollar," you will get no argument from me.  But I reserve the right
to challenge your attempts to convince others that a falsehood is true so
that they, too, may continue to be defrauded.

FS> What he really wants is for the gvt to, in essense, start issueing (even
FS> if they don't acutally put it in circulation) these things he thinks of
FS> as "real dollars" and he figures that the "real dollars" will be far
FS> more valuable then FRNs.

You're right so far, except that I want them in circulation.  They do no one
any good sitting in a warehouse at the Mint somewhere.  Also, I "think of
these things" (gold dollars) as "real dollars" not merely because I choose
to for my own benefit; I think of them as "real dollars" because they are
the only thing the law calls a dollar.

FS> And if the gvt did it the way he wants them to they would be far more
FS> valuble, ...

Well!  The light dawns!  ... Well, maybe it dawned some time ago, but you've
been pretending ignorance because you didn't want to admit that I was right.

FS> ... which would be exactly why they could not issue them - 

'WOULD' not issue them, at least not willingly.  They COULD do so very
easily if they wished to obey the law and stop the fraud.

FS> - the system would not make any sense.  You've two currencies in
FS> circulation and with offical backing unless they have offically
FS> maintained parity.

I never said anything about "two currencies in circulation and with official
backing."  I want the lawful currency in circulation with official backing. 
The other one can become bonfire fodder for all I care, and it would.

FS> I understand what Arch wants but he ain't gonna get it.

Hide and watch, friend.  Either I'm going to get it -- either we are all
going to get an honest, Constitutional monetary standard back -- or there
isn't going to be an economy worthy of the name in less than ten years. 
That's the nature of fraud -- sooner or later it self-destructs, and takes
its' believers and supporters and hangers-on with it.

Message: 81106
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Whew!
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 20:36:40

Okay, everyone can come back on line.  I know that hurt you more than it did
me.

Fred, let's take a break for a day or two, if you agree; give the other poor
people a chance to put a cold pack on their eye-bobs.

Message: 81107
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Guest Column
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 20:37:35

Someone here said congratulations might be in order for me for my "Guest
Column" published in the Arizona Repugnant.  Sorry, I will have to decline
the congratulations at least so far; to my knowledge I do not have a "Guest
Column" published.  When I read that, I went racing to the January 1st
paper, and then the December 31st paper; didn't find anything in either one
that I had written or that even sounded like something I would write.

I *do* have two submissions in to the paper at the present time; one of them
might have made a Guest Column but I doubt they will do that, and the other
was just a letter to the editor.  In any event they have not contacted me to
clear either one of them.  If either one was in there, I missed it.  Does
anyone have more information?

Message: 81108
Author: $ Archi Medes
Category: Politics
Subject: Insurance?
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 20:38:32

RW> A few weeks ago I mentioned that a friend of mine from California told
RW> me he had full coverage on his 80's Toyoto P/U (a high theft vehicle)
RW> for $50. per month.  What I forgot to say is that he and I have the
RW> same insurance company, AAA.

You know, everyone here claims the insurance rates are so high.  I pay 40
frns a month for insurance on two 1980's vehicles, one of which has full
coverage.  That's less than I was paying in California.

Message: 81109
Author: James Matlock
Category: Answer!
Subject: SysOp Bill
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 21:22:19

OK, I did flame a little.  It was out of line.  On the other hand, so were
Archimedes' remarks to Fred Smith (as quote by Fred in one of his messages).
That's what ticked me off.  Anyway, I said what I wanted to say and don't
see the need to add any more.  As far as editing the messages, I can't edit
in place and I don't think anyone really wants to read them again.  Nor do I
wish someone else editing my messages.  If you feel they are too offensive
to be left on the board you may go ahead and delete them and no hard
feelings.
 
My remarks about his guest column were essentially tongue in cheek. 
However, there were a remarkable number of parallels between the author of
that column (I think his name was Conrad Possebo, or something close to
that) and Archimedes both in style and content.  I won't elaborate, because
it might be considered a personal attack (in fact, I fail to understand how
it could not be viewed as such).  The photograph of the guy looked just like
I picture Archimedes, too (and no, I won't elaborate on that either).

Message: 81110
Author: James Matlock
Category: Answer!
Subject: Rod
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 21:28:47

OK Rod, you've convinced me that the Order of the Holy Sock is the one, true
path to righteousness.  Send me whatever icons (i.e., socks) you make
available to your low level parishioners, along with a bottle of chloroform.
 
P.S. Did you read about the people ("spinners") who worship the Grateful
Dead, and particularly, Jerry Garcia?  
 
P.P.S.  I hope your socks are authentic.  I have a jar of "genuine Buddha
fingernails" large enough to fill a minivan.  And they say Buddha is a
saint!  What about his manicurist?!!

Message: 81111
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Matlock
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 21:55:38

Well tonight the tab is 49K of new messages since my last log-on at 1:30
this morning.  What a book.

Having read "The Three Faces of Eve" I keep getting this impression that
Fred Smith and Archimedes are one and the same body.  The two of them take
turns using that same body and I'll bet that there are some mighty large
callouses on his hands.  He probably has to take 'biker methadrine' in order
to type all those messages.

As to the official sock religion, you are in.  Please forward a one time
charge of $429. which will give you a lifetime membership.  This membership
gives you the right to worship on any monday after sundown.  If you would
care to purchase more than one lifetime membership then do so.  Each
membership gives you the right to sniff of the gods on different days. 
Sorry, no Sunday worshipping allowed.

Well I'd better get reading if I want to sleep tonight.

                                Rod

Message: 81112
Author: $ Fred Smith
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: GOLD
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 22:28:21

Some random thoughts on the idea of a gold based monetary standard...
       Who do you suppose has to pay for all the gold that is needed to
have that Gold money if the money is to be issued by the gvt and backed by
gold??  Is all that gold going to just materialize out of thin air?  Or
will the equivalent in taxes need to be collected to buy the gold out of
which the money is to be made?  And if the only money *is* gold, then you
have a round robin.  You have to have not only the Gold money, but an
equal amount of gold sitting in gvt vaults to back it, that is, the gvt
has to have the gold in order to issue the gold.
       Or you could get rid of HALF of that gold by having the gvt put the
gold in vaults and issueing gold certificates for use as currency.  Or you
could eliminate half the gold by NOT requireing the gvt to put the
equivalent gold amount in a vault and simply let the issued coins "back
themselves".  Neither, of course, eliminates the need for the gvt to
acquire the gold in the first place.  So there is STILL the need for the
gvt to collect as much in taxes as they issue in gold if the currency is
ONLY to be that issued by the gvt.  There could, of course, be non-gvt
gold out there in use as currency but that would violate the constitution
since only the FEDs have the right to coin money.

       So it would seem we have a bit of a conundrum, not unlike the one
faced by this country originally - How do you have "backed" currency
without somehow aquireing the backing??  And where do you turn to aquire
that backing?  The only place "we" can turn is to "ourselves" of course.
We have to TAX ourselves to "pay" for this gold standard.  As should be
rather obvious, that is not a very desirable state of affairs; to have a
billion dollars of money circulating we have to tax ourselves a billion
dollars and all we would have to show for it is a bunch of metal pieces
that we hand back and forth to each other.  And either we continually
DEFLATE (each piece of metal becomes worth MORE) the currency as the
economy (and population) expands or we have to tax ourselves more and more
and more to provide a "stable" currency in enough quantity to go around.
       There *is* a partial solution of course - we can start talking of
only fractional backing for our currency, that is, instead of putting the
"real thing" (no not coke, but gold coins) out as currency, we start
putting out sandwich coins, or "alloyed" coins.  We deviate from the idea
that each coin is worth (please bow down) ONE TRUE DOLLAR OF REAL VALUE
and say that each coin is "worth" a dollar but only has some fractional
dollar's worth of gold in it.

If we trust the gvt to NEVER EVER change the fractional value then, at
least in theory, we have no worry once we make the change.  We can all
sleep at night knowing that our money is "stable" as long as we are
willing to continue to tax ourselves enough to keep buying MORE gold to
satisfy the increasing need for currency as the economy expands.
Naturally, we would require ALL banks to only make loans in amounts no
greater then the amount of REAL money in their vaults, otherwise they
would be adding to the money supply and we can't have that, it would mess
up our "stable" currency if there were other "funny" forms of "equivalent
currency" out there in the form of deposits created from merely unbacked
loans and drawn thru the use of checks rather then REAL money.
  As you may be getting the idea, the choice in a growing country will
boil down to either tax after tax after tax to support a FULLY backed
currency OR abandonment of the absolute "gold" standard to a fractional
standard.  And of course, once people find that a fractional standard
works, as it clearly does in just about EVERY country on the face of the
globe, they will not be eager to continue paying taxes each year to
support their "stable" currency and stop it from DEFLATING.  As you see,
they never stop  paying taxes to prevent the monetary deflation that would
otherwise ocurr on a fixed "standard" in a growing economy. (And do not
mistake "growing" with "inflating")

A growing economy means that MORE people are entering it, that more
factories are coming on line, that MORE money is therefore needed in
circulation.
       As could be expected to happen, the allure of continued
fractionalization of the "standard" to AVOID collection of taxes to
support the Money (gold) standard will be hard to resist.  Particularly
since there is really NO difference between a FULL GOLD STANDARD and any
GIVEN fractional standard as long as one sticks with whatever one one has
chosen.  It is only when the "standard", whatever it happens to be,
changes, that a "monetary problem" is generated.  Since we have NO backing
anymore, there is no longer any chance of change in the standard.
Aside of course from the change in the backing of "The full faith of
and in the US gvt.
   Is that "bad"?  Not in and of itself.  A Responsible gvt would not put
more money into circulation then the economy needs and at least when they
do put more in they don't take the equivalent amount from you in taxes to
do so (or the fractional amount under a fractional system).  And as you
might be noticing, having to TAX you to pay for this GOLD standard is in
and of itself TAKING YOUR WEALTH AWAY.!! (and locking it in a vault.)

       As I hope you are begining to see, the FULL standard and NO
standard are just ends of the spectrum; at one end you have
non-productive taxes needed to support it and at the other end you don't.
As I have tried to show, the Gold standard is not "Free", it has to be
paid for with taxes and if you don't want DEFLATION of the money as the
economy grows you can expect continued taxes that do NOTHING but fill gvt
vaults with yellow metal.
       The PROBLEM is NOT that we don't have a GOLD standard; the problem
is that the gvt spends more money then it collects in taxes and has to
borrow "money" to do so.  The reason they are borrowing the money (from
us) is that it is easier then TAXING us.  If that is the case, as seems
obvious to me, then why would anyone imagine that the gvt could possibly
provide the needed TAX support for that gold standard.  Clearly they would
not support it, they would allow the gold money to deflate (become more
valuble) with the result that the economy would cease to grow, recession
would ensue, and they would all shortly be out of office.  If that sounds
familiar it may be because that is the chain of events that lead to the
abandonment of the gold standard!

Message: 81117
Author: James Matlock
Category: On the Lighter Side
Subject: mathematical puzzle
Date: 01/02/92  Time: 22:46:59

What set of numbers does the following function define:
 
f(m,n) = 1/2(m^2 + n^2 + 2mn - 3m - n + 2)
 
,where the domain (m and n) is the set of all natural numbers (i.e. positive
integers).

Message: 81118
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Matlock
Date: 01/03/92  Time: 00:29:01

I read the article about the Grateful Dead after logging off.  It was
interesting.  I've never been to a Dead concert but I've taken acid.

Message: 81119
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Question?
Subject: Gold
Date: 01/03/92  Time: 00:30:26

If a dollar was backed by gold would there be enough gold to back the
dollar?

Wouldn't gold producers have an unfair advantage since only the
wealthy would be gold producers on a large scale?

If the dollar was backed by gold how would those lost dollars be
dealt with?  Fire, flood, and other disasters would destroy millions of
dollars annually.

Couldn't we just start the economy over after declaring bankruptcy?  The
national debt would then be zero.