 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
You too have something to prove to me, don't you?
Matt,
You are a puppy, at 40, compared to my 50 odd years, I've lost count. Your state of youth, relatively speaking, can be measured as time spent working on what I call The Problem.
I've been going to sleep with this problem, working on it every night, and waking up with new competitive solutions, for almost 3 decades. If you have been doing the same thing, you started at age 10, or so.
Discussion (or Debate, or whatever word is the highest quality and lowest cost word) is a tool, by which, one single viewpoint is placed next to a competitive viewpoint, and by way of comparison, a new viewpoint can be constructed, through a process similar to The Scientific Method, or Trial and Error, or whatever word works best to describe the process of finding reinforcements in support of possible answers to questions, and finding information that contradicts possible answers to questions.
Discussion, unlike reading books, and unlike one person working on a problem alone, inventing possible contrary, and possible supportive viewpoints, allows one person, with one viewpoint, with or without invented contentious, or supportive viewpoints, to actually borrow another person's viewpoint, assuming that the discussion involves honest people whose product, whose words, whose voices, are not all lies.
The first time I encountered a "discussion" whereby the supposed other viewpoint was false, and false on purpose, or as a result of a false viewpoint being parroted, I learned something.
OK, that was a lesson to be learned, running down a rabbit hole, or off a cliff, what was that called?
An argument.
The second time I encountered a "discussion" whereby the supposed other viewpoint was false, and either false on purpose, or as a result of a false viewpoint being parroted, I employed what I had learned.
Hey, you are another one of those people who lie, so as to accomplish some goal, winning, or something, I don't know, can you help me know why you lie?
I learned more, then, as the answer was either no answer, or more lies.
By the time I've reached 1000 people, who lie, will-fully, or just "going with the flow", who knows, they don't confess, I've learned almost all the tricks, almost all the arguments, almost all the deceptive fabrications of non-reality, the tactics, the methods, the process, is knowable, and few new tricks come my way these days.
1. The Parthian Arrow (one of my favorites)
2. Transference/Projection
3. Collective punishment/prejudice
4. Diversion/misdirection/willful ignorance (the most common)
5. The Devil's Advocate
6. I agree but...
Suffice to illustrate the point?
Your offering:
You too have something to prove to me, don't you?
I am me. I am not someone like me. Just me, always me, no matter how much I try to escape me, I'm still me.
No, I have nothing to prove, TO YOU.
Product 1 and Product 2 ILLUSTRATE what has already been proven, time, and time, and time again, every time, each time, without fail.
Competition ends monopoly.
Good avoids evil.
Words do not reach those who refuse to know.
No, I don't have anything to prove to you, or anyone else, if you have an interest in knowing, then you will know, can I help? I don't know.
Do you want to find out if I can help, if you have an interest in knowing?
Is that the same thing as ME having to prove something to you?
I do not think so, I think one is one thing and the other is not the same thing, and potentially the opposite thing.
A. Me having to prove something to you (or else what?)
B. Me offering help to someone who I think deserves help, and helping myself, by some measure, at the same time (also known as an equitable exchange)
You tell me, please. One is one thing, not two things, not duplicity.
A) We (now) mutually agree that the monetary system of values is a flawless tool for the people at the top of the pyramid, drainging excess power from the greater good, to emass insurmountable power for the lesser bad. (lets skip the good/bad/good/evil/right/wrong/left/right argument) I am not here to argue either.
It is your choice, not mine, to skip morality. I do no such thing.
Live is good, all things that work to ensure survival of life are good, that is the full measure of good. Look up ectropy.
Ectropy
No need to resort to any organized religion.
Good is what it is, bad is what it is, as bad is that which works to end life.
Entropy
No opinion necessary. If there is no force working toward the work required to produce and maintain life, there will be no life. If there is a more powerful force working to end life, there will be no life.
No life = no opinion.
You can skip the moral question as you please. I don't. It is simple, why skip it?
I am in totality FOR the free exchange of ideas, opportunities, and perspectives without monetary exchange.
I am not. Money is a tool, it helps increase the quality of life, and lower the cost of life, for those who use it for that purpose. Why skip money?
Why skip morality?
Why skip money?
Both are very useful in the work required to maintain life, increasing the quality of life, and lowering the cost of life, so why skip either, why skip both?
I don't know, that is why I'm asking.
Your products are based on a system which intrinsically favors the cheat.
I cut that out of the context, since that stands alone as a false statement.
That is a false statement.
You obviously do not understand Product 1, and Product 2, which are definable as they exist, and they are not, necessarily, mine. They exist, here and there, not in exactly the form I describe, as I describe them, but in principle they exist, and the point is to point out, or to illustrate how the force of competition works in legal money markets, not necessarily any one competitor, it just so happens that the competitive legal money I use as an illustration, Product 1, and Product 2, are the highest quality, and the lowest cost competitor in my view, to date.
If you can illustrate a higher quality legal product, at a lower cost, then you can, if you can't then you can't, and you sentence merely shows how little you know, or how much you are guessing wrongly, in reference to Product 1, and Product 2.
If you trip over a rock, and it happens to be the largest diamond on Earth, you may look back and blame the rock for you carelessness, to what end?
Someone else may find the same rock, and use it, to what end?
A better illustration may be a case whereby someone right now, on this planet, has invented a devise that consumes the least amount of the most abundant form of power in the process of producing the most amount of the most scarce, usable, constructive, productive, power, and no one wants it.
There it is, right there, it exists, it is there, you can argue about it not being there, because you don't see it, but it is there, as described, exactly as described, and no one, not you, no one, uses it.
Not yet.
Someone, other than the first to invent it, then prove it, then use it, first does so, then two, then three, and that has happened with the discovery of Whale Oil, and Petroleum Oil, and Solar Panels, and personal computers, and horse draw carriages, cars, planes, rocket ships to other planets, cures for diseases, to name a few examples of the same point.
Your products are based on a system which intrinsically favors the cheat. There is no hidden meaning on my part there, I am not implying you are a cheat. The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power.
No hidden meaning, there is no meaning, all that you are doing is presuming something that does not exist, and then concluding things based upon the initial false presumption, if you were not doing so, then you would have specific things, rather than ambiguous things, to report to me.
Your angle of view could be inspected for validity, if it was specific. Since your expressed angle of view is nothing but hot air, it can't be inspected for validity.
What exactly do you mean? There is no reference in your expressed viewpoint to the actual Product 1, or the actual Product 2 offered to you. You are stumbling on the rock, and blaming it for your carelessness. Is that an MO, a habit, a willfully repeated mode of behavior?
The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power.
What system? What are you referring to when you describe the thing you are referring to with those words? Are you describing the Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion?
You cannot be referring to Product 1, and Product 2, because your words do not apply to Product 1, and Product 2. Your words do apply to the Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion?
Your words apply to the Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion because that system is a legally enforced monopoly that is designed to accomplish exactly what you describe:
The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power.
That is a description of the design of The Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion and it works, as you describe, because the competition to it is rendered power less, or not powerful enough to end that process of moving power from those who create power to those who steal it with The Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion.
As soon as any competitor, Product 1, and Product 2, or Gold, or Silver, or any legal competitor, or all competitors being made legal, as soon as there is a legal competition, not a phoney legal competition, the description you describe is rendered power less, and is exactly as less powerful, as the competition is more powerful, and that is the point.
It is not "my" offering of an illustrated example of just exactly what competition can be, as competition can be higher in quality and lower in cost, it matters not whose offering what, since the full measure of meaning, the full measure of what matters, is that competition is, in fact, higher in quality, and lower in cost, that is what matters.
You say:
The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power.
So how can that be made better? How can less power be relinquished as producers relinquish power to the legal criminals?
How can any less power be relinquished while the legal criminals enforce the relinquishing of power from producers to them, with their legal money monopoly extortion racket?
No competition: things keep flowing as is.
This way:
Dept Clock
Those are the numbers that are for "public consumption", and as likely as not, that isn't even close to the full measure of the ongoing crime spree.
Competition rears it's ugly head (not phoney competition): less of an ongoing crime spreed, in direct proportion to just how much higher in quality and just how much lower in cost the competition is, exactly, and Product 1, and Product 2, offers an illustration of just, exactly, how many less pennies, nickles, dimes, quarters, and dollars worth of surplus wealth flows from the producers to the legal criminals.
If you are speaking about the monopoly power, then your words make sense, otherwise, what are you speaking about: certainly not Product 1, and Product 2?
The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power.
Those words apply to a working legal monopoly; which is the direct measure of non-working competition.
Those words do not apply to working competition; which is the direct measure of a non-working monopoly.
So stands my confusion, but offer that we are all a work in progress.
To me, from my view, you trip over the rock, which is the diamond called competition in money markets, and you blame the rock for your carelessness in knowing better that which is before you, in reality, and for what purpose?
Are you in such a hurry to get somewhere that your goal blinds you to any other perception on that path?
I've been, alone, up, down, and sideways, on how Product 1, and Product 2 work in reality, and as yet no one, ever, makes any effort to expose to me how those products would not work as claimed. Why is that?
Actual words do not exist, not yet, whereby any perspective, my own, or anyone else's, expose the faults of Product 1, and Product 2, as a means of avoiding, completely, all the worst things borne by all the victims of the legal criminals who perpetuate their crimes, all their crimes, empowered into existence by their enforced legal money monopoly extortion racket.
This:
Dept Clock
Product 1, and Product 2 ends that above.
I know it. You claim to know otherwise, from a position of ignorance.
Is that an MO?
Is that a habit?
Is that the result of years, and years, and years, of exposure to behavioral modification, brainwashing, response conditioning, false advertizements, and deceit, and threats of violence, and witness to terrorizing, horrible, torture to millions, and the serial killings of those same millions, on your dime, as you work harder, and harder, and harder, to get less, and less and less, and as your earnings lend psychological (political), and physical (economic) support, making you accessory to those tortures of millions, innocent and guilty alike, and you continue, by this engineered habit, this unwelcome, this enforced, this invasive, and this undetected, method of operating, this knowing from a position of ignorance routine, that results inevitably, with millions, or billions of murdered innocent lives, and perhaps, even, the end of all life on Earth?
I think some habits may be in need of avoiding.
That isn't me trying to get something from you. I'm not, as you say, having to prove something to you, that is me, offering a competitive point of view.
If yours, which looks like you claiming to know something from a position of ignorance, is higher in quality that what I offer, then it is, and if your viewpoint is less costly to you, for now, than the one I offer, then it is, and that is what that is: your viewpoint.
It is not mine.
Product 1, and Product 2, end the legal monopoly, and all that goes with it.
Simple.
Easy to understand.
Workable.
Obviously workable, until proven otherwise, by some accurate means, by some obvious contradictory viewpoint addressing Product 1 and Product 2, which so far, does not exist.
So, as a closing question, thrown on the discussion table, a tabled question, to anyone:
Would the honest productive people be able to realize a solution to the legal crime problem if they saw one, and if they saw one, where is it?