>This is dead-on, 100% true. Particularly because the way to keep your own
>e-gold in there is ... TO KEEP IT IN YOUR OWN 1mdc ACCOUNT! THAT is where
>any "extra" 500 grams should go, except it wouldn't be "extra" anymore -- it
>would be just another 1mdc liability to an account holder.
>
>This is so much cleaner accounting than having "extra" gold laying around
>belonging to some unspecified non-account holder. Your example hits it
>right out of the park, JP!
PC, I'm glad that I'm so right!
But please note, along the same lines of what i said in my other
email .... your "concession" there is sort of IMPLICITLY ASSUMING
you know "what" the extra gold is ... more below at [1] ...
in fact, you have no clue what the extra gold is!
>
>This gets right back to your "ideal balance sheet" for the E-gold Special
>Trust.
please note!
that was just a notion you came up with, summarizing something I had
said, and the only reason I'd said that was as part of one of these
bizarre extended debates about the internal logic of *one of* the
theories as to What The Gold Is
ok?
{Remember my example of the mechanics of confused internet
discussions.... "Steve being gay -- his housemate's name is Bill"
And then there's a huge argument about what Bill's name is, what the
etymology of that name is, what the FULL name is, etc. When you say
above "your ideal balance sheet", in the analogy that would be like
saying "JP says that Bill should always state his sexualtliy." Yes,
no, whatever, maybe, who gives a shit ...... the *FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTION* is "is Steve gay or not?"}
So!
[1] PC! there are actually numerous **very good reasons** that the
e-gold act 808081 might have more e-gold in in than the sum of all
1mdcGrams balances at that minute.
One can think of ten hypothetical examples off the top of one's head.
Note carefully, I *DO NOT* assert that all the extra Mystery Gold
Bullion in the ESPTrust should be converted to e-gold-grams for
better bookkeeping!!!!!!!!!
NOT AT ALL.
What I assert is -- how simple is this -- the
e-gold/GSR/Jim/Douglas/Barry/Hiberto de Frias/e-gold Ltd/e-gold
SPTrust/Omnipay entities simply need to STATE WHAT THE HECK THE EXTRA
GOLD IS.
"It's Not Complicated."
(Legally, the currently presented facts on that web site
("http://e-gold.com";) are probably a liability for Omnipay, as I
think Omnipay are the ones who have "care of" the web site, so
Omnipay should state in 5 words What The Extra Gold Is. I dunno
though. Whoever is suffering liability for that web site should add
the five words.)
You're a logical guy, I don't know how much more clearly I can state this:
all of this is merely minutia about the internal details *of some of
the theories* as to what the extra gold is.
You must understand that sentence man!
No, you have not discovered any "metatruths" about how it has to be
an asset or liability or something. (No one can even state WTF
*entities* *are* *involved* on that html table ... your assertion
about accounting metatruths is just daft man, sorry!)
>Yes, and it wouldn't be good enough to say "Well, 1mdc is backed 103.2% by
>e-gold." When you think about it, that's a meaningless concept anyway,
>because the extra 3.2% doesn't belong to account holders in any way, shape,
>or form.
Dude - once again - you're theorizing on theories.
I see no astonishing reason that the extra gold **MIGHT NOT** belong
to e-gold holders.
That would be totally, totally, totally, totally, totally normal.
There might be (*********TO MAKE BUT ONE RANDOM EXAMPLE FROM THE TOP
OF MY HEAD******) say a "slop factor" of 100 ounces that will just
always be in there. Sure, nowadays when there's only 160 bars of
gold in circulation, that "sounds like a lot", one would say "wow
that was a lot of gold for the programmers to throw in there as a
slop factor against ronding errors, and the like, yippee, everyone's
e-gold hodling is increased by 0.989%!!!" However in 5 years,
there'll be 5000 bars in circulation, and everyone will just say
"yeah, at the beginning of e-gold, as a business cost Mr. Jackson
donated 100 ounces overage in there as a slop factor, so as a
curisoity, your e-gold holidng is actually worth 0.00000001% more
than it says!"
You're a logical guy -- I know you follow that.
You must see my overall point Patrick -- this endless theorizing, one
way or the other (you agree with me, you don't, you concede, you dont
concede, or whatever ------ who cares?) ON THE *INTERNAL LOGIC* of
each of the theories, MEANS NOTHING.
More over its CONFUSING because it lends crednece (where there is
absolutelty none) to said theories.
{In the example just above -- we could have a mind-numbing argument
about *who*, what entity, donated the slop amount. Was it Mr.
Jackson, Omnipay, some earlier corporation, the Trust itself in some
way .. who knows! We'd have a multi-thousand word argument about
that -- people would bring up amazing legal and axccounting jargon
and technicalities, someone would prove -- perhaps we'd all agree -
that legally, it could only be so and so! We've solved the
problem!!!!!!!!! We all agree and have determined that the slop amont
was put in there by party X!!!!!!! But so freaking what? The whole
theory was IDLE SPECULATION, in fact, just an example I made up. the
fact that the intenal argumnt is "sovled" has no bearing at all,
whatsoever, on the fact that "it was a wild guess" as to What The
Extra Gold Is.}
If YOU don't understand what I'm saying, I give up!
You wanna know something really funny ? There will NOW BE
speculation and argument on that example I just made up in the curly
braces above. People will be arguing at great length over which
party it would have been that did that, etc. You watch.
Note: in your other email you say:
At 10:53 AM -0400 6/4/02, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
>
>Again: IF IF IF IF IF the extra gold is a liability THEN they can
>avoid the problem by opening new e-gold accounts.
You have a meta-problem here PC!
There may be no "problem to avoid!" or there may be a very big
problem indeed! What we need is *information*
NOW you're saying you feel a compelling reason that there SHOULDN'T
BE extra gold in there .. right?!!?
Further, you think it should "all be" as e-gold accounts .. why?!
Beats me .. that's a novel idea to me .. who knows? I can think of a
thousand perfect reason that thet ESPTrust SHOULD have "extra" gold
in it.
At 10:53 AM -0400 6/4/02, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
>JP! There are only TWO possibilities man! The extra gold is EITHER a
>liability to other parties OR it is equity. THAT IS SIMPLE ALGEBRA AND
>ACCOUNTING.
Nonsense, dude. it may simply be "unaccounted for". (This would be
the most normal, boring, expected, everyday solution to the puzzle.)
the final explanatory note may read:
"The extra gold bullion owned by SPTrust represents bullion under dispute"
or
"The extra gold bullion owned by SPTrust, accumulated under previous
informal accounting practices by the following mechanism ... blah ...
and will be formalized by March 2003"
or
"We do not know what the extra gold bullion owned by SPTrust is"
or
"The small amount of extra gold bullion owned by SPTrust is an
accounting anomoly under investigation"
or
"The physical gold bullion which is part of the physical gold bullion
owned by the SPTrust, which is in excess of the e-gold account
balances, is not an asset of SPTrust but has been assigned caretaker
status under .. blah blah .."
or ..
"is leased .."
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
>We only know that the extra gold is EITHER a liability to
other parties OR equity of the Trust itself.
Here's on you'll like, PC!: or a mix of the two.
or an unknown mix of the two.
etc etc etc etc etc
>You're talking as if nobody should ever say anything until they're 100%
sure. Well gee, with that attitude no scientists or detectives would ever
get out of bed in the morning!
Certainly, people can discuss things!!!
But there is a tendency for the EXISTENCE OF the internal debate on
one of the theories, to be seen as, to build to a consensus that, one
of the theories is correct.
You must understand that sentence, and yes, IMHO it is a common,
broad, failing of internet discussions (see my "gay" example), and
yes it is happening here.
For example, you now think (correct me if I'm wrong) that "no matter
what" the "solution" is to convert that extra gold to an e-gold
account. But that's not the case, because "you have no clue" what
the extra gold represents. Once we find out you, may slap yourself
on the forehead and say "my god, isn't it funny that I was suggesting
THAT be converted to an e-gold account!"
Craig, you say
At 3:13 PM +0000 6/4/02, SnowDog wrote:
>Moreover, I'd like to reiterate that E-Gold is listing their assets and
>liabilities correctly. Meaning that this is the information WE WANT.
they may be "listing their assets and liabilities" somewhere, but not
anywhere I know of.
As I have pointed out - and really, this is SO BASIC it ends the
discussion - the table here
http://www.e-gold.com/examiner.html
is entitled "e-metal balance sheet!" (ROFL) (WTF is "e-metal"? a
trademark?!)
that's a bit like when your minister says "and now, let's look at the
Balance Sheet of the family..."
also (LOL) the two columns have different entities (for gods sake) on
each side and (ROFLMAO) no one can even clearly state whether
"e-gold" "e-gold Ltd" and "the SP Trust" are or are not the same thing
back on planet Earth, we'll wait for Omnipay (or whoever) to add a
five word explanation of What The Extra Gold Is.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"If it can't scale fast and big you got nuthin'"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s)
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common
viruses.
