Tedious Hareholder:

You really need to reread my original post.

I can think of many other more enjoyable ways to waste my time.

I didn't threaten to go to anyone to impose force on
anyone.

Then why bring up the idea that The Gold Casino and dBourse are in the jurisdiction of the SEC? If you don't have wet dreams about Giuliani-style raids with executives hauled away in handcuffs for non-violent behavior, then why make up nonsense about the jurisdiction of TGC and dBourse? I think your claim that your inquiry wasn't threatening in nature is foolish. I'm not taken in.

The analogous situation would be if you were to ask if
the owner of TGC were within range of your rifle.
Why ask if the target of your inquiry is in range if
you don't intend to harm or kill that target?  The
SEC is a cruder weapon, but no less deadly.

I was merely requesting information and asking some
questions.

Horse feathers. Your requests for information and your questions indicated an agenda. You continue to espouse this very same agenda. You are a statist, and a statist is determined to initiate force against others. You should be ashamed. I'm very glad you aren't my customer. I wouldn't want you for a customer.

went on a mega-rage,

It is interesting to me that you equate my concerns about your statist agenda with mega-rage. You have never seen me enraged.

screaming how they're after you,

I don't think it is particularly difficult to see that the powers that be, who have twice arrested me for crimes I did not commit, have expressed thereby an agenda to make my life difficult. As I've said in other posts recently, anyone may be accused of a crime. It is just like being accused of witchcraft.

She's a witch! Burn 'er!

Your ideas about the state remind me of the fine
tradition of wrapping a witch in chains and tossing
her in a lake.  If she sinks, well, she wasn't a
witch, but her innocence would be well-received
by God and she'd go directly to heaven, so no harm
done.  And, of course, if she floats, well, she's
clearly a witch.  Burn 'er!

<voice="Eric Idle">Turned me into a newt!</voice>

<voice="John Cleese">You don't look like a newt.</voice>

<voice="Eric Idle">Got better.</voice>

 even taunting an imagined phantom lawyer to come
and "catch you" for insider trading, indicates that
you might be directly involved in TGCdbourse after all.

I see. Wonderful. And here you are proposing that *I* would be the paranoid one. Delightfully ironic.

The difficulty you face is to prove that I'm
"directly involved in TGC" or dBourse.  As above,
simply alleging that I'm involved doesn't cut it.

For all we know, Hareholder is the actual owner of
The Gold Casino.

 Maybe you were beginning to realize that all those
glittering gold bars you'd thought you'd scam out
of us well-meaning investors were starting to melt
away in the light of truth?

What truth? The truth that you are a statist doesn't make you wealthy.

If I cared for wealth more than liberty, perhaps I'd
be found, like you, crouching down, licking the hand
which offers crumbs, and gladly donning the chains
of abject slavery.  Instead, I consider liberty to be
a pearl of great price, worth selling everything else
in order to obtain.

As a matter of fact, all my questions were answered

Oh, that's too bad. I was hoping you could explain your continuing bad behavior as motivated by ignorance.

and most of my fears were confirmed.

I see. You are afraid of freedom, free markets, and individual sovereignty. So, go light a firecracker and celebrate your pseudo-independence. Or do they allow you firecrackers in your state?

TGCdbourse is not just an unlicensed casino

Whereas a licensed casino would have the stamp of approval of the government, and therefore could do no wrong in your imagination? The Gold Casino is a casino. Its domain is registered on Sealand, and at least some of its servers have been on Sealand. I see no information leading me to suppose that a license is needed to operate a casino on Sealand.

Of course, you don't care whether there are free
jurisdictions in the world.  You have previously
expressed the view that the SEC has jurisdiction
everywhere.

trying to attract attention to itself by means
of an unregistered securities offering...

The notion that The Gold Casino needs to do much to attract attention to itself is a bit silly.

Again, there is no evidence that securities offerings
need to be registered.  In fact, the overwhelming
evidence is that the registration of securities has
not prevented investors of registered securities
from being bilked of billions.  The list of very
thoroughly registered securities whose owners have
proven capable of swindling the public of billions
is long and tedious.  Check your local papers.

The process of registration has never been intended
to protect the public.  It has always been intended
to raise the barriers to capital, so that only those
approved entities which fit in with the preferences
of the powers that be have easy access to capital.
Much the same is true of product safety laws which
do little to protect the public, and much to limit
competition for existing vendors.

TGCdbourse depends for its livelihood on the acquiescence
of US authorities,

Your mere assertion here does not constitute proof. You might wish to offer information supporting your bizarre claims, every once in a while, just to keep things sporting. Otherwise, it is trivial to demolish your arguments, based as they are on mere assertion, and not really worth bothering with.

as TGCdbourse's weakest link is, ironically, its use
of e-gold.

The Gold Casino certainly accepts other forms of payment. I'm not confident that e-gold is a very safe currency for anyone interested in privacy to use. However, there seems to be a detente between the powers that be and e-gold. I have no idea how long it may last.

(In a way, it's like letting the fox guard the henhouse.)

Your very fatuous manner of writing doesn't always generate much clarity. However, if I take your meaning here, you are saying that the proprietors of e-gold are chicken thieves? That's a pretty mean thing to say about your hosts on their list.

With this in mind, I understand very well why the owners
don't want to reveal their identities to investors,

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you looked up the owners of a major casino in Vegas or Atlantic City before going there to gamble? And, just for the sake of amusement, what do you think the filings with the gaming commissions of the states of Nevada and New Jersey represent?

You don't think that organized crime bosses have any
difficulty investing in various casinos and whorehouses
without actually having their names in the paperwork
on file with the relevant registration agencies, do
you?  I mean, these are men who would be willing to
have your life snuffed out for a cigarette.  How
is the awesome majesty of the state protecting anyone
from them by requiring that they find front men to
file paperwork on their behalf?

or to anyone else for that matter.

The attack on anonymity always comes down to what you want. It never matters to you what the other party wants. Their privacy is their business. Taunting them certainly won't encourage them to reveal their identities. They are far more sophisticated than that.

If the deal goes bad

Like any number of deals that are represented by highly registered securities like Enron, WorldComm, Global Crossing, Adelphia, MClone, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

(and in my opinion

You may have guessed already that I don't form my investment choices based on your ill-informed opinions.

it could be a disaster waiting to happen,

How does registration prevent such a disaster?


good intentions not withstanding),

Intentions of whom? Are you now asserting that the owners of TGC and dBourse have good intentions? That seems uncharacteristically magnanimous of you.

the owners need all the privacy they can get,

Everyone needs privacy. I note, for example, that you continue to be an Hareholder rather than divulge your true name. Are you afraid of being exposed as not being a shareholder in TGC after all? Or just what is your hypocritical position here? Anonymity for thee, but not for them?

(Here, lest any Quakers be reading, I use "thee" to
indicate contemptuous familiarity.)

and they hopefully won't burn their investors...

Many investors seem to make the assumption that because a security is registered with the SEC or other state authorities that it is a safer investment. I think that idea is foolish. It is certainly not the case that the great expense of registration buys anything like safety for the investors.

assuming that they are legit,

Why assume? Why not show whatever evidence you have for their legitimacy or their illegitimacy?

if irresponsible, in the first place.

What is it that makes your anonymity responsible and TGC's owners' anonymity irresponsible?

Jim, do you still brutalize your cat and chase it across
the street every morning after you get up?

I don't own any cats. In fact, I don't believe that any cat is ever owned. It appears to me that cats have a natural autonomy which is much like individual sovereignty.

(It really looks like you come with a lot of baggage.

On the contrary, I come with a lot of property.


But just because you've had some bad experiences in
the past doesn't mean that everyone's out to get you.

Nor does it mean that you are any less of a statist because you choose to ignore my direct and personal experiences with government. It seems that some people are unable to learn from the experience of others. We may expect that you'll get to repeat them.

Get real, man!)

You couldn't possibly pay me enough to change the way I am.

Are these the kinds of questions a legitimate investor
who has put down his hard earned money is entitled
to ask?

You want us to believe that you are a legitimate investor, but you offer no proof. You want us to believe that you earned your money, but you offer no proof. You are a statist by philosophical view as expressed in your various posts. I suspect that you took money from the taxpayers - took possession of stolen property. Maybe you impose taxes as your chosen form of "work."

1) Who is the owner of The Gold Casino?

Who is TGCS-Hareholder? Who cares?


As far as the jurisdiction is concerned, now that dbourse
claims NOT to be a stock exchange covered by Sealand's laws,
don't they automatically fall under the SEC's jurisdiction, a
bureaucratic entity which would certainly consider this to be
an illegal securities offering? For all practical purposes,
dbourse's as well as TGC's e-gold accounts are physically
located in the US and are subject to confiscation at any time,
bagels and all not withstanding.

So, here we have Hareholder contemplating the forceful confiscation of TGC's e-gold account(s). We have Hareholder automatically extending the jurisdiction of the SEC to include The Gold Casino and dBourse. And we're supposed to believe that this Hareholder character is *not* contemplating action by the SEC?

There were some surprising statements from an official
e-gold address ("how did 7.2% of 40kg get to be 28.8kg?

Here's an excellent example of Hareholder being clueless, thinking that questions are statements and that Jay Wherley was posting in an official capacity as an e-gold representative.

which, considering both tone and content, indicate some
inside knowledge and possibly involvement.

Yeah. Talk about paranoia.


I'm all for free markets

Apparently as long as they are registered and examined by the minions of the state, and therefore not free at all.

I have serious doubts about the viability of this
deal and the honesty of those involved.

Whereas I have serious doubts about the honesty of Hareholder.

Free yourself,

Jim
 http://www.ezez.com/free/freejim.html


--- 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.

Reply via email to