HeinRich W. KocH wrote:
.
All this made me realize that there is only 1 form of true money;
physical gold in your own safe.
...
I can assure you, after hurricane Andrew, cold beer on ice seemed
a LOT like money. I've read that in wars, chocolate and tobacco and
hard liquor perform
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Patrick,
We (mybizniz.net) have been doing offshore banking with many of the
baltic countries and their banks.
Many of the Major banks are very secure and solid, and even
sister banks to big banks like barclays and credit suisse.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Nick,
I'm not even sure that issuing
anonymous cards is legal in Latvia.
The thing is, Paul, that as far as the banks are concerned, the
cards are not anonymous. They have ID for one company or individual
who just happens to have
I have reported you to your ISP.
regards,
Michael Moore
Vice President
eCurrency Trade Association Inc.
www.exchangeprovider.net
'Setting the standard for the Gold Based Economy'
- Original Message -
From: X-Cards Management [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 24,
I get to see counterfeits every so often.
While polymer notes are harder to do to a 'good' standard, they do pass
casual inspection by shops.
Counterfeits range from plain colour laser copies to ones with the vignette
pattern suspended with sticky tape, to the crazy of slicing notes and
All this made me realize that there is only 1 form of true money;
physical gold in your own safe.
You are technically correct. Money is defined as a physical commodity that
is most easily exchanged for other things.
Gold and silver are money.
Notes denominated in gold or silver are money
On 23 May 2002, at 10:01, Kenneth C. Griffith wrote:
Transferable Gold Accounts (gold currencies), fiat money, and paper
certificates are all money substitutes.
Ken, of course, you think you are right.
But James Turk, GoldMoney and their lawyers also think they are
right about GoldMoney
That is why GoldMoney holdings are called holdings and not
accounts. I agree that if a GoldMoney holding really is title to a
specific gold object, then it is gold money, as opposed to a gold
liability.
Well that is what the user agreement says.
As you know, I simply don't believe that
gold going off, enjoy
It passes the kitco test, kitco's servers are swamped, so its a real rush :)
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your
On 23 May 2002, at 11:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It passes the kitco test, kitco's servers are swamped, so its a real
That is my strongest indicator -:)
Claude Cormier
Ormetal Inc.
http://www.goldcurrencies.ca
http://www.ormetal.com
=
Claude
Hello Claude,
Why? WHat exactly in the user agreement should be changed so
its constitutte true title. I read it many times and it seems clear.
The GM user agreement is fine, as long as they can deliver on the promises
made in the user agreement. Their current system cannot deliver on one of
seen on goldmoney
GoldMoney Administrator wrote on 2002-May-14 at
13:59:27:
Hello,
As part of the audit of our financial statements
for the year ended 31 March 2002 and the audit of
the GoldMoney customer assets, our auditors would
like to confirm directly with a selection of
users the
On 23 May 2002, at 13:12, Kenneth C. Griffith wrote:
1. Ownership must be specific: The custodian has to be able to
identify which particular gold object(s) in the vault belongs to each
Holder. If it cannot identify which piece of gold belongs to which
Holder, then it is a deposit currency
From: C. Cormier - Ormetal Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 23 May 2002, at 13:12, Kenneth C. Griffith wrote:
1. Ownership must be specific: ...
Why must it be specific? There is no need to.
There are many exemple in real life of this kind of ownership. They
call it undivided property. Very
On 23 May 2002, at 14:33, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
think that's the whole sticking point, Claude. Ken does not agree
with this premise.
That is what I realized.
Basically Ken is saying that you must be able to point to a distinct
piece of something and say that's mine. If you can't pick
On 23 May 2002, at 15:16, Kenneth C. Griffith wrote:
I'm sorry, Claude and Patrick, but CLEAR TITLE requires 100% ownership
of a distinct assett so there are no questions of ownership. This is
a legal term. If you and several other people each have an undivided
interest in something, none
currently we are offering the following rates:
e-gold to GoldMoney - 0.25% (yes, one quarter of a percent!)
GoldMoney to e-gold - 1%
http://metal-escrow.com/c_c.cfm
All exchanges are instant!
~~~
http://two-cents-worth.com/?sidd
http://pecunix.com
C. Cormier - Ormetal Inc. wrote:
Since physical gold is money and not a money substitutes, he
owns money, not a money substitute. It is as simple as that.
I figure this (our) gold, as held by GoldMoney and e-gold, is not money but PROPERTY.
This property is held in trust. Attached to that
SEE BELOW -- CAPITAL LETTERS ARE USED TO ALLOW EASY DISTINCTION (ONLY).
From: C. Cormier - Ormetal Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Basically Ken is saying that you must be able to point to a distinct
piece of something and say that's mine. If you can't pick it up and
carry it away with you, you
Colonel Bosco:
I'll address you point-by-point without quoting too much.
I said it's possible to own a portion of something without specifying
exactly which portion. I even gave specific examples (e.g. Microsoft,
water, network bandwidth) which nobody has yet refuted.
You say no, unless it
You are referencing Joint_Property (bad example)..
If your wife AND you have a $100 bill in your safe you BOTH have claim to
the asset -- you have claim to $50 and she to $50.. Now, you could change
the $100 bill for Two $50's and settle the matter --- OR you could cut
the bill in 1/2
From: Kenneth C. Griffith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The water bank owes you 1,000 liters. But you don't own the water
in the tank.
You do own the 1,000 liters. That is why the water bank owes it to you. If
you didn't own it, they wouldn't owe it to you. Why would they owe you
something you don't
You're missing the point. completely
You are comparing apples to oranges here with this ridiculous *water*
example.
You are comparing unallocated and unsegregated storage to allocated and
segregated storage!!!
Your water example is UNALLOCATED AND UNSEGREGATED water - you have
From: Colonel Bosco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On to other examples... Your shares of Microsoft,, guess what? Corporate
Shares have SERIAL NUMBERS.
My broker does not know that I own three specific shares #12038375,
#87289738, and #22703611. He only knows that I own three shares.
You may THINK
My broker does not know that I own three specific shares #12038375,
#87289738, and #22703611. He only knows that I own three shares.
Wrong. UNLESS you have the shares physically delivered to you, he knows
that YOU OWN a claim to three shares which are in the name of the brokerage
house.
Your point was that GoldMoney would have to implement some kind of serial
numbering system in order to have a patent claim. They don't. The
GoldMoney system in its current form conforms to Patent #5,671,364.
That wasn't what I implied -- it was a expression example to make a point
regarding
26 matches
Mail list logo
