To review a bit, we've been discussing the concept of e-Land which is a proposed currency circulated electronically which would be "backed" by land. The land would be held by the company issuing the e-Land currency, it would not be fungible so different parcels of land would have vastly different values, and it would not be available for redeeming the currency itself. It is a proposed design for a currency which the author says he is too lazy to implement, so all these discussions are taking place in the hypothetical.
You just spread yourself out of the village.
Hi, it's me again, here in the village.
The topic on this list is *money*, not your opinions about *me*.
The subject matter of each of my posts has been mainly money. I consider these ad hominem issues to be preliminary and of little consequence.
You are lying, Jim.
I would say that my memory isn't perfect. I write a lot more stuff than you post here, every day. Mea culpa. I was mistaken (nota bene). Thanks for pointing it out in such a courteous manner.
"You are an ignorant savage who knows nothing about the progress of the ages."
I think that's true, and I think it is an accurate expression of my opinion. By the way, I refer to myself with the phrase "sum homo indomitus" so it is not necessarily an insult to be called a savage by me. Ignorance can always be informed, though you don't seem to take on board much new information.
"You are the vicious thug who insists on imposing paper money on these workers, not me."
I think that's also true, which is why I wrote it, and I think it accurately expresses my opinion of you. It is inevitable that what I write is my opinion.
Just conveniently forgotten I suppose?
I will say inconveniently forgotten, though I doubt it makes you feel better.
So, I will skip all the rest of your pointless mumblings
You do seem to skip over anything that you don't like. So, I'll skip some, too.
The judge will laugh when you bring up that argument
Then let him laugh. I have the freedom to hold and to express my opinions. I don't much care what the judge thinks.
So, you are making judgments
I'm quite content with my own judgements. If you wish to influence my judgements, feel free. Your comments have not been inspiring in this regard.
And that judgment based on your prejudices against me,
What might my prejudices against you be based upon, John? It seems to me that I've gone over the meaty aspects of your e-Land concept. It is based on collective "backing" with land that is not fungible and is apparently not available for redeeming the currency.
There is difference between thinking something and saying it.
Neither thinking nor saying is provably damaging. There is no law against thinking badly of you nor of saying that I think so. It is implicit in any statement I make that I think it.
You forgot your *I think..* more then a couple of times.
Yet it is clearly a statement of my opinion.
That too will be judged as slander..
You are free to judge as you please. I like it when people use judgement. It isn't slander unless you can show damage.
Since you say that I am lying, you can't show that anyone would take me seriously. Of course, if I'm not lying, then I have a counter-claim of you making deliberately damaging statements.
The views that you might be an ignorant savage or a vicious thug are hypotheses which might be disproven. I haven't seen any evidence tending to disprove them. Your idea that you are entitled to shoot me because I wish to express my opinion that your e-Land concept is designed like scams of yesteryear does seem to be evidence that you are a thug, and a vicious one.
E-land doesn't exist yet, so there is no question of you seeing anybody being scammed by it.
A discussion of the hypothetical structure would seem to include orderly comments on how it would affect people. I've made such comments. I think it is also important to examine the issue of trust in money. A free market money should be issued by a trusted party and it is unlikely that any money issued by an untrusted party would be widely accepted.
You claim the right to keep customers away from my business.
I claim the right to express myself. If my comments keep business away from something I view as a scam, it is a consequence I can live with.
Then you are already interfering in my business,
Your hypothetical business.
then you are already regulating like every politician.
Not at all. Politicians regulate with compulsion. I use persuasion and information. If you don't think I can be trusted as a source of information, then what is your worry? If you think I am lying about thinking that you are a scammer, then you should expect nobody will take my comments about your business seriously, and you won't lose any valued customers. If I'm not lying, if I am a serious and credible source of information, then I do think you are a scammer and people would likely believe me. Your actions in either case are obvious - don't organize things to look like a scam and your business will be untouchable.
You *think* it will be a scam without any proof,
I think what I think. I consider the structure you have designed to amount to a scam, yes. If e-Land were put on the market with the features you offer, I'd expect the same bad results as obtained when the National Assembly issued their assignats or when John Law issued his Mississippi money.
and that entitles you to keep customers away from me..?
I have the freedom to express my opinion about it, yes. I have the freedom to use my best efforts to inform people of what I think. If you are not running a scam, then you won't mind if I express my opinion. If you aren't, then perhaps you would want to explain why your e-Land design has the same features as the assignat and Mississippi money scams.
Then, according to your own definition above, we have the moral obligation to shoot you as a thief who steals business from me, and even openly admits it.
Not at all. I am informing those who choose to read what I've written. If they then refuse to do business with you, as I think would be advisable, that is their free choice.
You want me to be silenced by your opinion that what I say is mistaken. That's not how free markets work. If you shoot me, then I may shoot back. Let's see how it ends. Got kevlar?
question: what can your TGC shares be redeemed for?
Non-sequitur.
The TGC shares are not money and are not being circulated as money. e-Land is supposed to be a design for money and to be circulated as money. To compare apples and oranges is silly.
I have never said that I think they are scammers.
Yet you've managed to convey that idea about them. Clever you.
With this design the shareholder is in the most disadvantageous position that he can possibly be.
Whereas with Enron, the executives are known by name, the stock exchanges listing the stock did so after various types of due diligence, the accounting firm that audited their accounts was paid by Enron, the SEC accepted various filings, and the shareholder is in...what? A more advantaged position judging by your statement. How can that be?
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
Free yourself, one day,
Jim
--- 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.
