> Dear John Law, > > > Jim, whenever somebody does not agree with your views, you > > start attacking the person. > > I don't agree that I've attacked anyone. I've said what I > think about you, and what I think isn't favorable to you.
Jim, that's what I mean. You said what you think about 'me' , which is irrelevant to the points on the table. Publicly saying how unfavorable you think about a person is a criminal offense in all cultured places, including Texas; unless you have proof for what you say. When you call somebody a thug or a scammer the burden of proof is on you. If you go on saying how unfavorable you think about people, without any evidence, it won't be long until somebody sues you in the court and asks payment for damages. I have always solved my own problems, without running to courts, so you can safely continue. You go on addressing me with the name of a past criminal, which is already evidence of slander, but you need not stop it since it tells much more about you than about me. The bird shows his feathers, and it is only indicative on what level you are arguing with others. If you have so much need to put me down with all means possible, then it must be you have put me up very high. I'll take the compliment. > > Your messages often have an insulting tone. > > You are free to read other messages instead. That's an argument that doesn't cut. If you publish unfounded damaging statements about somebody, you cannot just get away with saying that he need not read the posts. Others are reading the post.. and that does the damage. > > If words are not violence, then what are you complaining about? > > Words are not violence. I don't like the words Robert > used to convey the idea that I had used violence on, > say, GK. Oh, words will do no physical damage, that's true. But they can damage the reputation capital of the person, and that is violent too. Otherwise there would be no legal actions taken against slander and libel. > > But don't shoot at the person who brings his views. > > Words are not guns, either. I thought you could understand a simple metaphor. Sorry. > > You don't convince anyone with personal attacks and > > insulting language. > > Perhaps you are under the misconception that I seek to > convince you or someone else. I don't. I write what > I think. I am fully self-expressed. If you don't > like what I've written, by all means don't read any > further. You can write what you think about the ideas and concepts that somebody presents. That's fully part of freedom of speech. But you can't simply write what you think about a person, without backing it up. That's not part of freedom of speech. > > But I am not attacking any person. > > TGC is an artificial person. There are persons (unknown) > involved. I think you've been rude to them. I have criticised the 'design' of their stock offering. That's perfectly ok. In fact I have been practicising what you preached in your post a few days ago. But you conclude that I was rude to unknown persons. At the same time you are obviously rude to me and others, but you put it away as "just saying what you think about me (or them)" Jim can just freely say what he thinks about anyone, but others cannot even criticise a design without being 'rude to unknown persons' That's what I call double standards... > > History is not a good yardstick. > > "I have but one lamp by which to light my path, and that > lamp is experience." Patrick Henry. Experience is not history. Patrick Henry means his personal experience, while history is nothing but the 'record' of others' experience in the past. That record can be very incomplete, or even totally false, and it can be out of date. > > An idea may have failed in the past, it doesn't prove > > the idea is bad. > > Thucydides would not have agreed. The future must reflect > the past. There are many ways of 'reflecting'. My most respect goes to these people who had the guts to try new implementations of old ideas that had failed in the past, untill they succeeded. They were not only fighting against bad odds, but also against people like you who go on sucking on anyone who dares to try something that has failed before. > > An idea may have succeeded in the past, it doesn't prove > > the idea is (still) good. > > The fact that there is evidence of your approach to e-land > not working when it has been implemented by others puts > the burden of proof on you. You have shirked that burden, > saying that you don't have to demonstrate that your approach > is workable. There is no burden of proof on me. I can discuss concepts before they are implemented, and you can either agree or disagree. But once you regress to criticising the person, the burden of proof is unto you as far as these statements go. > And I don't have to use e-land. And I am > quite willing to tell the world that e-land is designed > in the same way that John Law's Banque Royale scam was > designed. E-land is not designed yet, so how can you tell the world that it is the designed exactly like some scam from the past? You are criticising your own imagination of what the design will be. > > If I am determined to repeat mistakes from the past, that > > is my business. > > If I am determined to keep customers away from your clutches, > that's mine. No that's NOT your business at all. This saying shows the earmarks of a politician, and is as far away from laissez-faire as it can possibly be. This is what every politician in the world claims as his business: protect the people from this and that.. keep them away from this and that... It is the very foundation of all their regulating and other dirty business.. I knew you are in this company from the very beginning. Your talk about laissez-faire and free markets is just make up, pretense. You see it as your business to keep customers away from me, without any proof against me... Waaw, ideas like this will not bring you much sympathy here.. > > Criticising the people who try to do better than the > > fiasco's in the past, that's not ok. > > Criticism is the path to the growth of knowledge. If you > won't accept any criticism, you cannot learn. Criticising ideas, yes. Criticising the person , no. That's another earmark of the politician: he thinks it is right to criticise and harm the person who doesn't agree with his ideas. > > If somebody sets up e-land, it is his business. > > If somebody does, would it be you? I thought you said you > were too lazy to undertake it. So, since it won't be you, > it isn't your business, either. That's why I say "it is *his* business" You can read English, do you? > What has happened? Nobody has set up e-land. You've > come here with this idea for e-land and how it should be > set up and you've discussed it. Discussion invites more > discussion. Here I am discussing e-land. Because what I > have to say about it makes you look foolish doesn't mean > I'm going to stop saying these things. You have not discussed e-land, you have carefully avoided every point made. Instead, you have said what you think about 'me' , because your arguments against the idea of e-land alone do not make the cut. > > If some people agree to use it, it is their business. > > I believe contracts must be entered knowingly, freely, > and competently to be valid, and consideration must be > an element for a contract to be valid. As long as you > are telling the folx on this list about your ideas for > e-land, I'll make some effort to point out holes in those > ideas where holes are evident. But you did not point out any unsoluble holes in the e-land idea. And more of your efforts went to create holes in my personal reputation. > Doing so enhances the > freedom of those who may seek to contract with e-land > in the future to do so knowingly. That's another beautiful saying I always hear from our good friends the politicians. They are enhancing our freedom.... Other's freedom is also not your business, unless they ask you > > There is no such thing as a risk free investment. > > It is possible to hedge risks. One can, for example, hedge > the price risk of holding gold by holding a short position > at the same time. Which proves my point. If gold was a risk free investment there would be no need to hedge it. > > Land investment comes with greater reward too, since it > > is a productive asset. > > Land investment comes with a greater cost, too, since it > is taxed nearly everywhere and since it is not portable > to places where it isn't taxed. If the taxes are more than the produce, people will abandon the land (which does happen in some places). So, even with taxes the land remains net-productive in most places. Btw, in some places gold is taxed as well. > > Fine, but as far as I have seen you have not been nearly > > that critical on the design of TGC shares. > > Why should I be? TGC shares are a very well designed > investment. Well, a little bit before you talked about contracts and how they have to be considered before regarding them as valid. You mention this in the context of 'holes' you found in the e-land concept I have brought up. I agree that a solid and clear contract is a conditia sine qua non for any well designed investment vehicle. But, what valid 'contract' is there in the TGC shares? None at all. There is not even a known party to honor a contract if there was one. But TGC you call a 'very well designed investment' So, with the e-land idea you insist on a valid contract, while with TGC you conveniently forget about it. Again double standards... Get real man! > JP May has previously pointed out that your various predictions > about TGC shares on dBourse have proven to be worthless. Yet > you don't seem willing to admit you were wrong, wrong, wrong. Just because everything seems to be well for 6 months now, does not prove me wrong. In fact, DBourse not allowing any other company to list on the exchange, indicates they agree with me that this is not a sound way of issuing shares. Let a 10000 'entities' list on the exchange along the model of TGC shares, and make your own bet how many of them would turn out complete scams... Then we can make a fair comparison with the nyse or nasdaq. > > but had he set up shop with the same design as TGC you > > wouldn't even know his name... > > And yet, I don't need to know the names of the TGC owners > to know their reputation. > > The moderator/owner of this list, Jim Ray, invited all of > us to join him at multi-player poker on The Gold Casino > tonight. I have other things in play, but his invitation > was very courteous. Why do you suppose he did that? So, if E-land sets up shop in the same way like TGC did, and Jim Ray buys a couple shares and talks favorable about it, then suddenly all will be right for you? In my country we call such people 'sheep(le)'. They can only move if somebody else moves. They are only in favor of something if somebody else is in favor. > Why do you suppose the Gold Casino has lasted all these > years? It has lasted because when people win hands at > video poker or slots or blackjack, the Gold Casino pays > off. So, if E-land lasts for a couple of years all your objections will disappear like snow before the sun? > You've complained endlessly > and bitterly about TGC and dBourse.com, but why? Bitterly? I just pointed out the 'holes' in their design. And I found a little too many of them considering the rather small roi > What > did they ever do to you? Did you lose at blackjack? No, I am probably the only one who won money there. I played only a few times and got more comps than I had lost there. > My investment in TGC is doing really great. How about > your investments? How is your investment in e-land > doing this week? > > If I were to sell my position today, I'd realize a gain > of over 11%. That's in just about 60 days. Wheee!!! That supposes you are easily able to sell. Are there any bids on the book? My gold stocks are up 50% since July, so 11% in TGC doesn't look that great really. I took profits on my gold shares this week, and it took me less than a minute to sell since there were plenty of bids. Now awaiting a probable correction and lower prices early next year to get back in. Danny --- 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.
