++++++++++++
The word “bugger” is slang for a difficult/unpleasant person, which is quite clearly defines you.
++++++++++++

Anyone,

What is defining about one persons opinion derived from written words on a pubic access forum is that such a thing is one persons opinion derived from written words on a public access forum; while what is definite, quite clearly, about me, what defines me is not limited to written words published on a public access web forum.

1. One persons opinion concerning how I am defined by the words I write here
2. Me

That has been a contention; and one that appears not to be understood by the person claiming to know me, while the same person claims that he (or she) doesn’t claim to know me.

Self-contradiction, or duplicity, is another trait common to narcissists; or in other words; they lie to themselves enough to actually believe their own lies.

++++++++++++
Would you like me to call you an elitist or narcissists or that you come a across as a “doo doo”.
++++++++++++

You do whatever you set your mind to do; what does that have to do with me – again: my point. You don’t even know me, yet you claim to know me – while you claim that you don’t claim to know me.

+++++++++++
Do you think it’s nice of you to highlight my spelling mistakes?
+++++++++++

I know that the automatic spelling program that highlights your mistakes can’t be nice, or not nice, it just does what it was programmed to do. I, on the other hand, spent some time to edit those automated things out; but gave up for lack of interest. I can be nicer; if you can.

++++++++++++
So you’re now playing the role of a victim. Why doesn’t that surprise me!
++++++++++++

Here again you don’t know me. I am not “playing the role of a victim”, rather: I am pointing out how you are victimizing – as a routine of behavior perhaps. If I were to “play the role of a victim”, it seems to me, I’d be unaware of your victimization routines, or I’d be powerless under the crushing weight of your power over me – which is hardly the case here.

1. You write how you think I’m a victim (perhaps you think the slight, very slight, insults you administer to your target victim is an injury to me – perhaps not).
2. I think you are a victimizer; and the insults you assault me with are pathetic to me; with one exception – but it was not an injury to me – merely insulting.

A is not B

+++++++++++++
I stated quite clearly in my previous post why I thought you were ludicrous, you said that I was an elitist for answering one of the questions you had, and my answer was literally only one sentence, so I can safely say that you’re response was ludicrous.
+++++++++++++

This can be termed “beating a dead horse” – it is dead.

I did not say you are, or were, or (was), an elitist, actions speak louder than words. If it walks like a duck, etc.

+++++++++++
Fair enough I should have used the word “presume” instead of “know”, but I have been right on numerous occasions on what you were going to say, it’s not hard, since you tend to repeat you’re self.
+++++++++++

How did you arrive there, and will you stay there, after you just came from here:

++++++++++++
The word “bugger” is slang for a difficult/unpleasant person, which is quite clearly defines you.
++++++++++++

You do not know me, nor do you know what defines me, your diagnosis is based upon your imaginary Straw-Man. Your imaginary Straw-Man does things that I don’t do; yet you believe your imaginary Straw-Man consistently, despite my objections concerning the things you think you hear from me, things I never wrote, things that can only be “said” by your own creative imagination.

You don’t know me, yet you say you know me, and then you say that you don’t know me. Which is it this moment?

A:
+++++++++++
Fair enough I should have used the word “presume” instead of “know”, but I have been right on numerous occasions on what you were going to say, it’s not hard, since you tend to repeat you’re self.
+++++++++++

or

B:
++++++++++++
The word “bugger” is slang for a difficult/unpleasant person, which is quite clearly defines you.
++++++++++++

Are you Good Cop and Bad Cop all rolled into one?

Next up is Bad Cop (again, like the change of the tide) as Bad Cop hears something from his Straw-Man while I know that what Bad Cop heard wasn’t what I wrote:

+++++++++++
I fail to see how Tesla is forcing “Joe” to think like Tesla.
+++++++++++

Fair enough: Bad Cop may not have understood the words I published here when he or she read those words, and then Bad Cop may have concluded something based upon that failure to understand, but my puzzle here, now, is to try and understand why Bad Cop is so ready to base conclusions upon misunderstanding – to a point where he constructs this Straw-Man with my name on it? Where does Bad Cop conjure up the confidence to continue making the same error over and over again? Is it self-interest? Is it mal-investment?

I am not being forced to think like Tesla; and I did not write that I was being forced to think like Tesla. There is a possible reason for the Bad Cop/Good Cop routine here; where the Tesla group, entity, whatever, has agreed to make believe that the imaginary me and me are one and the same thing – as if the Tesla entity thinks that it really knows me – when it obviously does not: what is that? Is there a word for that?

++++++++++++
Did Tesla have a gun at the back of “Joes” head when he said he didn’t have to be part of “that debt”, or is “Joe” twisting the context of Tesla sentence?
++++++++++++

Now, apparently, there has been some sort of altercation between Tesla and his Straw-Man, where some bad thing was, or was not done, by Tesla to his Straw-Man – while I sit and wonder how this drama will play out – as a spectator. Who is that “Joe” guy in that story line? It isn’t me.

+++++++++++
I think “Joe” needs to get a grip of reality or get some medical help urgently if he seriously thinks that Tesla would ever consider injuring an innocent person.
+++++++++++

If you ever paid a measurable amount of purchasing power to the legal criminals who have used your power to torture and mass murder; then there is a paper trail (or digital one) and you have injured innocent people by that measure. Not knowing that that is what you have done makes you innocent – until you know better – then you are no longer innocent.

As far as I am concerned, the real story here, my connection to you, as it is, is just exactly what it is, no more, no less, and the paper trail is very limited, or a “giant wall of text” depending upon how it is measured – precisely.

++++++++++
Has this “Joe” character ever met Tesla, why would this “Joe” character say such thing? Has he got an ulterior agenda?
++++++++++

At this point, in time and place, it may be a good idea to re-publish the words I wrote that preceded the fabricated story line above – and I can line all these ducks in a row by quoting what Tesla quoted of my writing followed by Tesla responding (assumed to be responding) to what he quoted of my writing:

Here are my words quoted by Tesla (before Tesla responds):

++++++++++
My view is such that people like “Tesla”, people so ready to employ any power they have toward the injury of innocent victims, are people who make it necessary to have more than one person in a trial by jury. The idea is to empower enough people so that at least one person won’t be so disposed as to abuse the power given to them. Such is my viewpoint, and such is not the viewpoint given to me by “Tesla” as “Tesla” speaks for me. “Tesla” can say that Joe doesn’t “have to be a part of that debt”, while Joe knows better. Joe doesn’t want to have “Tesla” as his conscience, or his voice, or his reason, or his ability to know the facts
++++++++++

Here is what follows those words of mine that were quoted by Tesla:

+++++++++
I fail to see how Tesla is forcing “Joe” to think like Tesla. Did Tesla have a gun at the back of “Joes” head when he said he didn’t have to be part of “that debt”, or is “Joe” twisting the context of Tesla sentence?
I think “Joe” needs to get a grip of reality or get some medical help urgently if he seriously thinks that Tesla would ever consider injuring an innocent person. Has this “Joe” character ever met Tesla, why would this “Joe” character say such thing? Has he got an ulterior agenda?
+++++++++

The ulterior agenda of mine is to access “open-source” interconnectivity; to discuss, to borrow other people’s brains, to combine thinking power, to better myself, to offer my thoughts to anyone who may be interested. In the specific case (the words quoted before the suspicions are published) above: my thoughts turned to Trial by Jury and the reasoning behind the choice of 12 people on a Jury instead of one person on a Jury, or even, as the thinking goes: 100 people on a Jury, or 1000, or 6 billion. That was what was within the text published as follows (again):

++++++++++
My view is such that people like “Tesla”, people so ready to employ any power they have toward the injury of innocent victims, are people who make it necessary to have more than one person in a trial by jury. The idea is to empower enough people so that at least one person won’t be so disposed as to abuse the power given to them. Such is my viewpoint, and such is not the viewpoint given to me by “Tesla” as “Tesla” speaks for me. “Tesla” can say that Joe doesn’t “have to be a part of that debt”, while Joe knows better. Joe doesn’t want to have “Tesla” as his conscience, or his voice, or his reason, or his ability to know the facts
++++++++++

Suppose, for example, that a person named Joe had successfully evaded the IRS for a number of years and then the IRS made an example out of Joe by taking Joe to a Trial by Jury. Now suppose that this Tesla guy happened to be the one guy on the Jury, and he recognized me from this forum.

Do I get a fair trial, or does the Straw-Man constructed by Tesla get strung up by the neck until dead – or worse?

The point being: I’d rather have 12 people on that Trial by Jury, so long as, at least, one member has veto power (as much power as the King) – the one that won’t punish an innocent victim.

Now, the reader could read that last sentence above and conclude from it that I, me, Joe Kelley, considers himself to be a victim here, which isn’t the case, this is merely a web forum. It would be a mistake to conclude that I, me, Joe Kelley, think that I am a victim here – far from it. This, to me, is a well traveled path, and hardly of any consequence whatsoever. Writing practice – at best?

I’m learning where to place commas and semi-colons, etc. How am I doing, so far: too many commas?

How about this:

How am I doing so far; too many commas?

Or this

How am I doing so far: too many commas?

Or this:

How am I doing so far? Too many commas?

The last sentence isn’t one according to the auto grammar checker.

++++++++++++
I think this “Joe” person is a serious hypocrite. He gives out to me because I said I “know” and the “know” wasn’t used in a bad context, unlike the above statement where he claims to know that tesla might want to convict a person for the “fun” of it.
++++++++++++

Here again is what happened (what I wrote):

+++++++++++
Now I (this Joe person) was “ranting and raving” and this Joe person is a suspected criminal, having indirectly confessed. My thinking here is such that this “Tesla” person isn’t someone I would want on a jury if I were someone who ended up on a jury trial for failure to pay taxes - for example. “Tesla” might convict me because he can, and no other reason, just for the fun of it.
+++++++++++

And after what I wrote is published what Tesla concludes concerning his misunderstanding of what I wrote (perhaps):

++++++++++++
I think this “Joe” person is a serious hypocrite. He gives out to me because I said I “know” and the “know” wasn’t used in a bad context, unlike the above statement where he claims to know that tesla might want to convict a person for the “fun” of it.
++++++++++++

Note my use of the word “might” and note the use by Tesla of the words “he claims to know that tesla might…”: a self contained contradiction?

If I claim to know that someone might do something: how is that different from my claiming that someone might do something?

1. The addition of the “know” word is superfluous
2. The addition of the “know” word is intentional – just for fun?

++++++++++++
Didn’t this “Joe” character insinuate not too long ago that avoiding paying taxes is bad?
++++++++++++

Again: there is a disconnection between what I write, and the meaning I intend to convey, and that which is concluded by the reader. Sending purchasing power to legal criminals who use that power to torture and mass murder innocent victims is a crime when the person who sends purchasing power to legal criminals is fully aware that such a gift will lead to the torture and mass murder of innocent victims – accessory to the crime – by, at least, the measure of the power given.

That above is my view; while the view of Tesla concerning his Man of Straw isn’t my view – and who can prove the fact: Tesla?

It depends upon who you ask?

+++++++++++++
What’s the difference between working and getting financial rewarded and avoiding taxes with someone working and getting rewarded by other means thereby avoiding taxes. Does this “Joe” character think everyone has the ability to choose at will this type of life style? Does this “Joe” character not realise that from his conclusion I can still conclude he’s a criminal because he chooses not to pay taxes by other means?
+++++++++++++

Is that an episode of “As the Stomach Turns”? That above does not, not even remotely, involve me – so – why is my name all over it?

What is the point?

+++++++++++
I think “Joes” objective and tesla objective are the same but we choose to use different path to accomplish the same objective, I will explain myself later on.
+++++++++++

I’ll read it.

+++++++++++
I’ve a different view on that. If more and more people learnt “the law” wouldn’t they have the ability to stop themselves from getting exploited? Thereby stopping the parasites from constructing a society that suits them? I fail to see how knowing “the law” could be considered as work; therefore I fail to see you’re “pendulum” theory.
+++++++++++

Failure to see something does not cause something to vanish.

+++++++++++
People are committing “legal crime” unintentionally by not knowing “the law”. If everyone knew “the law” they would have the ability to continue perfectly in society without empowering the powers that be. “The law” is design in such a way that it makes it very hard for people to commit crime against other people by using “the law”, as in common law.
+++++++++++

Which law is more powerful, and please be precise and unambiguous or your answer will be power-less?

++++++++++
You can’t mix the two together. Common law has been around for centuries and has remained the same for centuries, as far as I’m aware. So there is no win-win situation for the criminals. The only way the criminals can keep on “winning” are by keeping us in the dark about are rightful rights, as in hiding the knowledge that can set us free or by people been lazy.
++++++++++

You might be right, or I think that you might be right concerning what people can or cannot mix together. There is a word for such mixing so the precedence has been set, as if people do mix the two things, or similar things, together as one, and the word is duplicity.

The two things (in question):

1. Law (voluntary associations)
2. Legal Crime (involuntary associations)

Mixing the two, being duplicitous, tends to cake voluntary associations with mud, guilt by association with legal crime, and at the same time legal crime is more palatable as it is miss-associated with voluntary associations.

Truth is False
War is Peace
Etc.

Thinking that the two cannot be confused (duplicity) as one, and the facts, it seems to me, are two different things that shouldn’t be confused as one thing.

1. You can’t mix the two together.
2. The facts

+++++++++++
The only way the criminals can keep on “winning” are by keeping us in the dark about are rightful rights, as in hiding the knowledge that can set us free or by people been lazy.
+++++++++++

Power will be controlled. When the producers of it control it, there will be peace, or liberty, less-crime, less legal crime, not until then.

+++++++++++
Rothschild and co almost own everything including the legal criminals. The final piece of the jigsaw of the Rothschild and co is world domination, and it seems to me that this world domination that they have so desperately tried to achieve for centuries will be a totalitarianism society, if they achieve it. The best way in my opinion to stop their progress is by using the info in this thread, if one uses the info in this thread one can use this info against the powers that be, which is better than not participating in society – my opinion.
+++++++++++

The power required is in the mirror first.

+++++++++
I think the “Joe” character once us to go back to the Stone Age.
+++++++++

That is an example of “character assassination”. Please go on being a victimizer, if that is what you are doing, even as you may not confess to what you are doing to yourself or anyone else. It serves me to have you continue publishing such things as that sentence above, it proves to me or any reasonable person that you have your opinion of me, and then there is me; two different things.

++++++++++
Money is key element in modern society. Without it, it would be really hard for society to function properly. I think that if everyone could learn the knowledge that is/will be in this thread it would be very hard for the elites to carry out their agendas. How could the US fund the military industrial complex and CIA if individuals stop paying taxes?
++++++++++

Money is the medium by which people share, connect, and through which the power of specialization, division of labor, and economies of scale are accessed – a vital thing for human survival. Who thinks otherwise?

A: The Straw-Man constructed by the Tesla group
B: Me?

Who can you ask if you want to know what I want?

1. The character assassin
2. Me

If a voluntary association is threatened by something known, measurable, accurately accountable, then the members of the voluntary association can gain the power necessary to defend against that threat. If not – then what happens?

The source of power is voluntary associations - the members agreeing to gain the power through voluntary association.

++++++++++++++
The banks haven’t created enough money for individuals to pay off the debt; they created the money for the debt but not the interest on top of the debt.
++++++++++++++

Purchasing power is created by members working within a voluntary association. The legal criminals create falsehood; exemplified by the money they dupe their victims, and their “associates”, into employing.

I came across a quote that is germane at this point:

"The big thieves hang the little ones." - -- Czech Proverb

Anyone can get on that mailing list here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

That is one of many new holes in the legal criminal defense network. It isn’t perfect.

No one is perfect.

+++++++++++
The banks haven’t created enough money for individuals to pay off the debt; they created the money for the debt but not the interest on top of the debt. So if individuals learn the info that is/will be in this thread we (I’m not referring to a certain entity that goes by the name of “Joe”) the people will have the ability to stop getting ripped off by the banksters, thereby stopping the depression our nations find themselves in.
+++++++++++

If it walks like a nationalist, talks like a nationalist, do you have to smell it to be sure?

Alexander Hamilton was a nationalist – he sold out the revolution and probably had a big hand in fomenting it into violence. Is there some other example of a nationalist that may lend some clarity on what nationalism is – in fact?

+++++++++
What do you mean by “power”?
+++++++++

Within the context of the quotes preceding the question asked, thanks for asking, the word “power” can be as specific as needed when employing the Law offered.

Example:

Electric power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of electric power while purchasing power increases since electric power reduces the cost of production.

++++++++++
Do you mean people working?
++++++++++

That is a very good example to help illustrate political economy with the use of the law offered:

Human labor and human brain power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of human labor and human brain power while purchasing power increases since human labor and human brain power reduce the cost of production.

In order to be more specific, and more accurate, one more word is required within the political/economy Law being offered to you. The extra word isn’t superfluous; but it does clutter up an already complex relationship – or it offers greater clarity. You are the judge – and the jury in this case – since you have asked.

With the word added:

Productive human labor and productive human brain power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of productive human labor and productive human brain power since productive human labor and productive human brain power reduce the cost of production.

The opposite is true:

Destructive human labor and destructive human brain power produced into a state of oversupply increases the price of destructive human labor and destructive human brain power while purchasing power decreases since destructive human labor and destructive human brain power increase the cost of production.

ERGO (therefore, hence):

"The big thieves hang the little ones." - -- Czech Proverb