R
R. Steve Walz
Guest
Mark Fergerson wrote:
he couldn't prove the Truth.
that is based only on the common human experience.
In fact I personally refuse to believe or even hold anything to be
important that cannot be argued solely from structure without any
assertion of spurious factoids.
Anything that is merely evidenciary can always be disingenuously
contradicted by anyone Evil enough to wish to do so, and any kind
of evidence can be undermined by enough repetitious deceit unless
offered in a majority-respected peer-reviewed setting where Evil
is simply denied a voice.
The only cure for Evil is to stifle or kill it.
milieu, because all falsehood can be misportrayed and all Truth
can be mischaracterized by you who seek to do Evil.
Our True statements are always dishonestly characterized by you
Evil-doers as being mutually contradictory using deceit.
The only cure for this is to torture or kill your kind.
mischaracterizations violates all principles of Science and Truth.
Any such forum that permits the dogshit you pretend is a POV is
doomed. At some point it must be admitted that no codification
can ever prevent the infinitely creative nature of Evil, and that
such Evil must simply be strangled to death by the Majority Will.
At some point your deceit, lies, and cheekiness should simply be
frightened back into hiding like a child who is intentionally
disruptive and should not be coddled under pretense of reasoning
with your sort.
RIGHTIST!!!
That pretty much sums up your failure to grasp here.
is but a sick weak semblance. But the two sides are NOT the same,
one is quite a bit better (less Evil) than the other!
and Newton.
is merely connivance to steal.
Even though pragmatically most items decay/depreciate.
technological amplification. If we did it yesterday without the
tools it took more manpower, and that cannot be denied, and those
workers must be paid. That is ALREADY true in ALL systems.
lift a finger some other day, then you have an ill-defined condition.
Whatever we are, we can be paid the same for our labor on any day you
can name. THAT is what is important.
Credit is altogether unnecessary in its present form. It is used
pretty strictly to buy things that need not even BE bought and sold,
or which can be earned before delivery and during their production
cycle. When a person buys a washing machine they sign up for the
extra labor that the society needs to produce it. If they work the
hours it will be produced by someone else who also signed up to work
ata washing machine plant who wants THEIR product. It is delivered
to them conditional on that work being done, and withdrawn if not
paid for. Whether it sits in a warehouse or his house during its
purchase is pretty unimportant.
using factory equipment. They will receive the same wage per hour
as everyone else. Their accumulated wealth on paper will cease to
exist when the baks are destroyed, and they will forfeit any more
than an average fair-sized residence to the rest of us.
and having them work for a living, after they relinquish their
wealth, is sufficient. The rest we can shoot.
upon closer examination. When lies are told to oppose the Truth,
that is the only time they're Evil.
Everything is founded on lies, some better than others, that's all.
And many lies are the Truth as well.
Now, if Laura Bush had said the same thing, why she'd have been wrong.
The fact that Laura Bush might be smarter than she is, is unimportant.
What is disappointing about Laura is how she can be educated and
still blindly believe in the moron she married. He must be good
in bed.
your deceit. First you lie about what I said, then accuse me of
changing my mind when I have to correct you.
They must also do SOME of the other things that need doing.
If you are specifically skilled you will be required to train
your replacement. Your education is a contract to use it for
the society. Just like astudent loan.
The "committees" are unrelated to the topic here, but since you had
nothing else you simply decided to be deceptive.
You're caught, you SHOULD feel stupid and embarrassed.
Two: California exports more food and tax money to the rest
of the USA than all but two other states. It's the 7th wealthiest
nation on earth in its own right.
land would simply wick it all into clouds.
mountain rainfall!
have to establish control over it as a Majority.
The kids FOUNDED those big cities!
in NE Missouri, but it gets boring.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
And that's just your disingenuous posture.R. Steve Walz wrote:
Yes, of course anyone can lie.
And, you sidestepped my question. What concerns me here
is not your lying to me, but to yourself.
--------------------------
He told the Truth, he just didn't have proof of it. It's forgivable.Pretending Rather is not credible because of a misstep he admitted
is disingenuous.
No, stating that he's not credible because he presented
faked documents he _wanted_ to believe to be true, and
wanted to convince his audience were true _in the face of
counterevidence he suppressed_, is reasonable.
------------------------
Nonsense, he was misled to believe the Truth. It was still True.He selectively presented information that supported his
beliefs, and did not present information that contradicted
them, and in fact said that any such information was "not
credible" without stating his criteria for credibility. He
also went out of his way to suppress information on the
source of the faked documents.
---------------------------
He isn't obligated to tell your falsehoods for you just becauseAfter he was exposed he claimed to have "misstepped", yet
did not remedy his failure to report the contradictory
information, nor did he make any effort to report on the
motives of the source of the faked documents. He lied to his
audience and justified it by lying to himself.
----------------------------------
he couldn't prove the Truth.
Nothing I say needs any proof at all, it's all structural argumentAny credibility I *DO* have is based on *WHAT* I say,
But if you're lying...
You missed the point. Content determines credibility, not source.
There's the rub. Much of what you claim cannot be
second-sourced.
---------------------------------
that is based only on the common human experience.
In fact I personally refuse to believe or even hold anything to be
important that cannot be argued solely from structure without any
assertion of spurious factoids.
Anything that is merely evidenciary can always be disingenuously
contradicted by anyone Evil enough to wish to do so, and any kind
of evidence can be undermined by enough repetitious deceit unless
offered in a majority-respected peer-reviewed setting where Evil
is simply denied a voice.
The only cure for Evil is to stifle or kill it.
Disingenous. As I have said, that is disreputable and invalid.Examine what is said and why, not who says what.
Great. Provide cites to support your opinions in future.
---------------------------------
There is no such thing outside a Majority-Respected Peer-ReviewedNobody believes anyone else unless they agree with them.
Only if they can't distinguish between "truth" and "fact".
No, what I said applies to everyone. People agree NOT based on
whether something is true, but whether they share the same belief.
This contradicts what you said above. Agreement about
"truths" is based on a common belief system which does not
take note of, or deliberately rejects, objectively
verifiable evidence.
------------------------------------
milieu, because all falsehood can be misportrayed and all Truth
can be mischaracterized by you who seek to do Evil.
Our True statements are always dishonestly characterized by you
Evil-doers as being mutually contradictory using deceit.
The only cure for this is to torture or kill your kind.
Any Peer-Review forum that permits your intentionally creativeThis is the difference between religion and science. In
the latter, agreement comes from the presentation and
examination of _all_ evidence for a given POV, both
supportive and contradictory.
-------------------------------
mischaracterizations violates all principles of Science and Truth.
Any such forum that permits the dogshit you pretend is a POV is
doomed. At some point it must be admitted that no codification
can ever prevent the infinitely creative nature of Evil, and that
such Evil must simply be strangled to death by the Majority Will.
At some point your deceit, lies, and cheekiness should simply be
frightened back into hiding like a child who is intentionally
disruptive and should not be coddled under pretense of reasoning
with your sort.
Rather told the Truth. He simply didn't yet have the evidence.Rather is comparable to a Baptist tent preacher pounding
his Bible on a lectern, ignoring or shouting down doubters,
then turning his flock against them with pitchforks and
torches lest his lies be exposed.
-----------------------------------
I don't like him or the media at ALL, *I* think they're WAY TOOYou are one of his faithful because you believe his lies,
and accept his excuses for lying.
------------------------------------
RIGHTIST!!!
You do not specify the enumeration of our choices in that regard.The way we are changed from external influences is from within,
You used to say that we cannot change our minds from
within at all. Lying again, or changed your mind?
We cannot, through ANY act of supposed "will", change what we
believe, not even the smallest thing. But other things from within
and from without will change us, even if against our "will".
This is either your opinion or a lie.
-------------------
You are not capable of such discernment, so it isn't appropriate.Please present
objectively verifiable evidence so I may discern which.
--------------------------------
Goedel's Theorem, look it up.below awareness, beyond our control.
True for those that will not even attempt to understand
how their minds work.
Nonsense. You cannot lift yourself into the air, and you cannot
encompasse your own nature with your awareness. Any believed
control is easily proved to be illusory.
Then kindly present a brief, concise proof.
---------------------------
Up to a point you're correct, but then you neglect their differences.Hold on, I did read it. It comprised four of the five
points on the Bush site.
Yeah, except in the opposite direction.
Uh, no. Same identical points.
So you'd like to pretend that there was no reason to see these men
as adversaries? You're an idiot!
Of course there's no reason for them to be adversaries;
they're from the same socioeconomic stratum, members of the
same "secret society", and have much the same ends in mind.
Their political platforms were conveniences of the moment
and will have as much effect on their subsequent policies as
past examples, which is to say none.
---------------------------------------
That pretty much sums up your failure to grasp here.
Nonsensical toss-off slur.Did you fail to actually _read_ the points on both sites
and note the similarity, or did you just prefer to not see
it because it contradicted one of your articles of faith?
-----------------------------------------
I have one well beyond it that I do, of which the American versionAs for the name-calling, Steve, do you really take the
American political dog-and-pony shows seriously?
-----------------------------------------
is but a sick weak semblance. But the two sides are NOT the same,
one is quite a bit better (less Evil) than the other!
Actually econonists have been doing that since shortly after LeibnizTax the rich back to the level of the rest of us.
Require any business to pay each person working the SAME per hour.
Dammit Steve, do you have to keep repeating the same old
zero-sum bullshit?
Ain't bullshit. At any moment the economy is finite,
There's your problem, trying to apply calculus to
economics.
------------------
and Newton.
Labor is the only cost, value is that labor. Any other assertionYou make the same mistake every economist from
Adam Smith onward makes; you willfully ignore the fact that
value and cost are in constant flux WRT each other.
------------------------------------
is merely connivance to steal.
Nope.FTM, in your stated ideal economy, a made object's value
must decline over time.
-----------------------
Even though pragmatically most items decay/depreciate.
Ever hear of dry rot? But nevermind, you're prating nonsense.A house built last week would have
less value than one built today, even if they're otherwise
indistinguishable.
------------------------
Nothing you maintain here is remotely my position.This makes no sense at all. If you wish
your system to be accepted, you'll have to resolve this kind
of inconsistency.
-------------------------
It does in fact cost more labor to do whatever without any certainOr find better ways to make things that don't involve
more hand labor.
Absolutely. Don't tell me that you have some delusion that I want
everyone to "plant a garden" or "make things by hand"!!?? By labor
I mean the maintenance and use of state of the art manufacturing by
manufacturing technician workers.
Yeah, I got that. But that means that an hour's labor one
day (before an innovation is installed) will produce less
than an hour's labor the next day after upgrading. Also, an
hour's labor in one factory will produce less than a factory
elsewhere with more efficient technology.
----------------------------------
technological amplification. If we did it yesterday without the
tools it took more manpower, and that cannot be denied, and those
workers must be paid. That is ALREADY true in ALL systems.
No, just that that's irrelevant.OTOH are you suggesting that every workplace everywhere
be upgraded simultaneously? Sure, that'll work.
-----------------------------
If filthy rich means having enough to eat one day and not having toHow about making us ALL the current equivalent of filthy rich?
You know damn well we're capable of it right now.
You know no such thing, we don't have self-replicating industrial
robots yet. This means we are limited in what we can have and
maintain by how much we can work and to what degree our industrial
base amplifies our production.
So? That doesn't mean that a more efficient distribution
of the output of the present means of production cannot make
everyone the equivalent of filthy rich in terms of not going
without neccesities or even luxuries (depending who's
defining "luxury"). What's stopping it from happening is the
popular addiction to bookkeeping in the form of
artificially-defined credit.
---------------------------------------
lift a finger some other day, then you have an ill-defined condition.
Whatever we are, we can be paid the same for our labor on any day you
can name. THAT is what is important.
Credit is altogether unnecessary in its present form. It is used
pretty strictly to buy things that need not even BE bought and sold,
or which can be earned before delivery and during their production
cycle. When a person buys a washing machine they sign up for the
extra labor that the society needs to produce it. If they work the
hours it will be produced by someone else who also signed up to work
ata washing machine plant who wants THEIR product. It is delivered
to them conditional on that work being done, and withdrawn if not
paid for. Whether it sits in a warehouse or his house during its
purchase is pretty unimportant.
Yup, the formerly rich will be required to produce consumer items"Production amplification" is exactly the reason your
"work to live" scheme is pointless. People used to have to
work dawn to dusk just to eat. That's no longer the case.
It's down to, what, four hours a day (excluding "tax hours")?
We need to share the profit of production entirely equally, and
then we'll see the average buying power triple, when we prevent
the rich from stealing it all.
Exactly; there won't _be_ any "rich" by the old
definitions of accumulated wealth and buying power.
-------------------------------------------
using factory equipment. They will receive the same wage per hour
as everyone else. Their accumulated wealth on paper will cease to
exist when the baks are destroyed, and they will forfeit any more
than an average fair-sized residence to the rest of us.
I think employing those of the formerly rich who accept employment,But as I've tried to explain to you many times, those you
despise as "wealthy crooks" don't count their wealth as
accumulated buying power, but as accumulated ability to
influence and control the lives of those they perceive as
lesser beings. You propose to cure this misperception
through slow death by torture, which completely misses the
point.
-----------------------------------
and having them work for a living, after they relinquish their
wealth, is sufficient. The rest we can shoot.
Lies and Truth are NOT opposites. Most so-called opposites are NOT,So, why do Dems lie?
They don't, except obviously where appropriate and moral to do so.
Interesting; you forgive doublespeak when your side does
it. I don't forgive it at all.
Republican lying to steal versus Democratic lying to steal back,
of course!! Stealing is not forgivable, stealing back for the
victim is a virtue!
Bullshit. Exposing lies does not require lying. Getting
in the habit of lying _for any excuse_ merely makes further
lying easier. This is the doublespeak trap that forced what
_might_ have been Lenin's Socialism in the USSR to become
Stalin's Oligarchy. The leaders first lied to themselves,
then each other (with a wink here and there), then everyone,
because they'd gotten in the habit of not telling harsh truths.
-------------------------------------
upon closer examination. When lies are told to oppose the Truth,
that is the only time they're Evil.
No, that's merely you posturing disingenuously.You propose the same old thing; set up your Ideal
Socialism on lies, and it will go the same way.
---------------------------------------
Everything is founded on lies, some better than others, that's all.
And many lies are the Truth as well.
She happened to be right.Now you're merely parroting Kerry's wife.
Irrelevant, she didn't run, and is mildly insane.
She claimed that anyone who disagreed with her husband
was stupid, and you're doing the same for yourself. Simple
elitism.
----------------------------
Now, if Laura Bush had said the same thing, why she'd have been wrong.
The fact that Laura Bush might be smarter than she is, is unimportant.
What is disappointing about Laura is how she can be educated and
still blindly believe in the moron she married. He must be good
in bed.
Gee, now you're pretending that you're rewriting the future withWhat will you do when
your local Committee decides you're best suited to carrying
nightsoil?
Doesn't happen, ain't no "committee", just Majority Democracy, and
everyone gets the same work and the same chances.
What, you've revised your precious People's Committees
out of existence? How will your State know what the People
need to do?
By Democratic vote, of course, the sub-committees are merely advisory
executive/research organs.
Ah, the "local committes" now pop back into existence,
under a new name.
--------------------------------
your deceit. First you lie about what I said, then accuse me of
changing my mind when I have to correct you.
Everyone gets to do SOME of their preferred job if qualified.And if their research indicates there are too many people
doing your preferred job, and not enough nightsoil carriers?
What will you do, move away? You never did answer me when I
asked you about that the first time. Suppose the committee
decides you're too valuable to allow to move away?
--------------------------------------
They must also do SOME of the other things that need doing.
If you are specifically skilled you will be required to train
your replacement. Your education is a contract to use it for
the society. Just like astudent loan.
All you're doing now is attempting to confuse issues.How can any State function if everyone does all the same
jobs? Shit's gonna pile up real quick.
You're becoming confused.
The jobs are all different, but they just PAY the same.
Well, now that the "sub-committees" are back in
existence, no problem.
----------------------------
The "committees" are unrelated to the topic here, but since you had
nothing else you simply decided to be deceptive.
You're caught, you SHOULD feel stupid and embarrassed.
One: You haven't the vaguest idea who I am or what I do.Yeah, right. Which coast do you "live" on?
The Left Coast
Why am I not surprised?
Why do you posture irrelevantly?
Not irrelevant posturing. Please secede ASAP. Then try
living on the resources within your borders.
---------------------------------
Two: California exports more food and tax money to the rest
of the USA than all but two other states. It's the 7th wealthiest
nation on earth in its own right.
Your lattitude and solar flux and desertification means that yourwhere we have the most productive farms on earth.
Using water stolen from other states.
Who can't use it when they're frozen or parched 7 months of the year.
I live in AZ, one of those places parched seven months of
the year which is exactly when that water is most needed.
----------------------
land would simply wick it all into clouds.
That thing you CALL the "Colorado River" starts HERE from OUROh, wait; the People's Republic of Kalifornia has greater
need because You Say So, right? Try living on your own
rainfall. We can, and have. But the Imperial Valley will dry
back up to the desert it was before it was irrigated with
Colorado River water stolen from other states.
-----------------------------------------
mountain rainfall!
Any that are used.They're automated and corporate
Which displaced lots of farmers.
Farmers as owners are ridiculous. The arable land belongs to everyone
who eats from it.
By which farming technologies?
-----------------
Yup. Actually. The Human Species owns it all collectively, we simplyYou forget that things
change; does that mean you think you have a part-ownership
in land in Sri Lanka that produces grams of saffron? Is it
equal to your part-ownership in land in Kansas that produces
megabushels of corn?
----------------------------------------
have to establish control over it as a Majority.
Nonsense, they were cattle ranches before they got more water.meaning the People can run them
just as well as ignorant rich bastards by taking over and controlling
the corportation by Majority Democracy.
Yet those "ignorant bastards" are the ones that set up
those extremely productive farms,
No they weren't. They were set up as" family dynastic farms and
werfe gobbled up when their kids wanted to move to LA.
You left out a couple steps; the "family dynasties" could
not produce at the corporate levels because they couldn't
mechanize the same way. They couldn't afford to do so
because they couldn't reach larger markets. The kids moved
out simply because they were dirt-poor.
------------------------------------------
The kids FOUNDED those big cities!
Try because most of them neither had nor wanted land, maybe??not a bunch of long-haired Co-op ex-hippies.
Which is also irrelevant and unrelated posturing crap.
Really? Communes are not "family dynasties"; they're
closer to a corporate setup with all members making
decisions, eliminating the takeover steps. Why couldn't they
outproduce their own needs and sell the excess?
-----------------------------
Self-sufficiency doesn't take that much, but I've done thatWhere are the extremely productive
communes, Steve? There aren't any.
"Communes" weren't FOR that, you stupid fixated redneck.
Because they refused to look beyond themselves, pursuing
the sweet lie of self-sufficiency.
---------------------------------------
in NE Missouri, but it gets boring.
A practice we need to expand to EVERY industry in the land!But NON-profit, publically owned utilities span the nation.
Because they're _prevented by law_ from making profit.
-----------------------------------
Nope, most of them PAY the govt coffers substantially.And don't try to put up utility bonds as counterexamples;
you know damn well they're artificially supported by taxation.
Mark L. Fergerson
------------------------------------
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public