Reply #245: That is in no way trying to be polite.

[Trillo]

(Hannah Bell inspired me to post back to you once more)

The SDuderstat School of Politeness and Etiquette

You wrote: "I'll try to be polite".

Well, at least you tried, but failed. Of course, your assertion that you'll "try" could just be a false habitual assertion without honest inward intent.

You seem to be conducting an interrogation, not only of me, but also of others here. Do you really consider that politeness by any stretch of the imagination? Its one thing to pose a question, even two, maybe three, but a whole series of them interspersed by insults ain't polite. It seems there's a unique SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette, meaning that you have made up your own rules and redefined language and or custom to suit yourself.

First off, I will apologize for misquoting you. That error was due to not copying and pasting, but by reading, then typing. However, you also misquoted me:

"His or her claim was that it was 'not private'"

I actually placed double quotes around what I thought were your words, not private, i.e., "not private". Perhaps this is about the same level of distinction-of-difference as between private and privately held within the context of the FED, the two word misquote you jumped all over me for. I'd have to consult a style guide on nested quoting (I've never seen a reference to it in them, nor do I have easy access to a recent revision of them), but for preciseness, which you claim to extol, and which I agree is an honorable goal in formal use (as distinguished from discussion board types of places) I believe you would have needed to write it so it appeared:

'His or her claim was that it was "not private"'

or

"His or her claim was that it was "not private""

They way you did it suggests I used single quotes, and that's absolutely not accurate and is not what I wrote, and seems illiterate given your criticisms of my language use, unless we're simply exploring your inward/outward dishonesty again.

I'm having trouble reading the following sentence fragment of yours:

"Well, since you're since a crack researcher"

It seems a little adjective/adverb confusion presents itself. Normally I ignore other people's obvious typos, but after that reaming you gave me about some of my typos, and the delay of about a day or a half day in answering, I felt quite sure you probably composed your document in the word processor, ran it through every grammar checker you had on hand, perhaps even handed it to your colleagues for a proofread, since every experienced writer knows that it's 'nearly' impossible to find every typo in their own writing. I hope you got much joy from that, I can tell you I did not from reading it. It's pedantic. Does that give you a thrill, I wonder to myself.

This type of typo is likely because of a brain processing issue where the writer sees the correct word in the place that the correct replaced word should be. I would never consider such a typo an embarrassment unless it was published by a staff of folks whose job it was to produce perfect English. It seems that "embarrassment" comment of yours was just meant to demean, and seems rooted in the SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette.

"So, no businesses are run by honest people?"

I don't know, but people are supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yes, its true I have a personal tendency to hyperbole at times, yet, wherever I go (in reality), businesses seem to presume I'm guilty, so who knows what the actual truth is therein. I can't write a check without showing ID even if the cashier recognizes me, at most places I routinely shop. I can't enter the local courthouse without being searched (presumes I'm carrying something banned) until I prove otherwise, yet the last time I was there several years ago, there was a fast entry without searching for some attorneys and or staff to pass through. So, it seems our corporatist system does not presume innocence of us human citizens, except in some very narrowly construed ways.

I've had way too many experiences with dishonest businesses cheating in various ways, sometimes quite small, to presume that any business is honest, though I accept the possibility of an honest business, theoretically speaking. I did have one employer once who seemed honest, but he had a hostile workforce which was abusive, and that is, again theoretically, against the law as I understand it, so, perhaps his honesty wasn't perfect, and perhaps it was a clannish behavior shown to insiders that I saw, that perhaps I misinterpreted as honesty. Hard to say, actually. So I don't know.

Maybe someday I'll write a blog post on what honesty is, and what it isn't.

I'm not certain how to prove someone is honest, yet a K-12 school I went to when I was younger required all male students to memorize an honor code about honesty and discouraging others from lying, and the school would punish us severely if we were caught in the most minor of lies, among many other punishable offenses. Why would a school teach such a stupid lesson, without also teaching, using equivalent zeal and memorization techniques, how to detect when others are lying to you, if they were truly doing their stated duty of educating on survival(?). This question is not intended to be answered by SDuderstat and the SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette.

Perhaps it was just a technique of hazing, of knowing one's pecking order, this memorization of the honor code that has little to no relevance to survival in a dog-eat-dog economic system. It's pretty clear that most honest people do not 'get ahead' in the world I'm familiar with by direct experience (reality), it seems they're always undermined by others in various ways, a few of which appear quite complex in mechanism, but that complexity may just be a surface appearance created by those withholding truth.

Last night I was listening to a lawyer on Net2 TV talking about credit card disclaimers and how, even with her education, she was unable to understand the 'fine print' in the contract. In her words (paraphrased by me), people see a smiling face telling them how low the interest rate is (in the advertisement), then the company hires a staff of MBA lawyers to insure they can never lose a dime (all of that was paraphrase, I was sort of half listening while doing something else) and can legally justify all their extra charges above and beyond the advertising image they presented, and part of this is in writing incomprehensible legal boilerplate (not her chosen word). Much of this cryptic legal boilerplate, the company counter-spokesperson offered, was required by law, including the precise point size and typeface used.

When I was in public elementary school, one of a teachers lectures (not sure they formally gave "lectures" in those early grades, consider its usage a figure of speech) explained to us how ignorance of the law was not an excuse for breaking it. Therefore: 'How reasonable is having contracts that are so complex another lawyer cannot understand them given their typical language skills' presents a question to ponder; 'How reasonable is having so many laws that a lawyer must specialize to be an expert' presents another related one; 'How does this relate to any typical citizen's (HS level education) ability to understand laws they are reportedly required to know' presents a third; and how that relates to my elementary-level grade school teacher's lecture to us regarding 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' are questions that don't seem to have honest or satisfactory answers in reality that are appropriate for sub-ten year olds. Ignorance of laws is apparently a defense against them in courts, I've read, that's one rationale for why you are required to be notified of them in so many places.

It's clear we live in a hierarchically organized, top-down civilization, where what happens above in a control sense gets flooded downhill, so to say. I've never been able to resolve these phenomenons to the phrase in the Declaration of Independence "pursuit of happiness" that is supposedly one of every human's inalienable rights. I see that phrase is absent in the UN's equivalent document type and is substituted with something about or similar to "security". Ben Franklin must be rolling over in his grave.

I've actually wondered about the hostility of some small retail business owners in our general area. Many retail businesses have a sign near the cash register that threatens anyone reading the sign with prosecution for writing a bad check, regardless of whether that reader has ever written any business a bad check or not. This seems a form of negative stereotyping. I've wondered about the intelligence of projecting such an intent onto generally nice and well meaning customers in the context of customer service. I've queried one employee of a busy, small local business and found out that any fraud they have is an extremely small percentage of their total cash business, the approximate figures he reported to me were in the 3% range (curiously about the same as a customer's credit card use merchant charge), but their total biz which nowadays is conducted primarily electronically with debit and credit cards (so "writing a bad check" isn't an issue) he indicated is much larger, but he didn't divulge by how much, so the 3% statistic is apparently much smaller when compared against their total gross cash flow. I also have to remember that an employee is not an "owner" with an "owner's attitude". At a very minimum, I find the signs hostile. The cashiers usually have smiling faces. So, there's a lie right there, having smiling faces indicating happiness to see you (false happiness showed by employee under duress of loss of job is one possible rationale) and threatening signs in the 'fine print' of their checkout areas if you look for them.

At the very minimum, this would seem to create a psychological framing that may not be healthy for people to be exposed to, bad check writing certainly doesn't seem to be a preponderant problem, yet these signs are apparently required to be on display to everyone, or this is a choice of the merchants. Citizens are routinely told bad check writing is a 'huge problem' by the media. When signs like these are repeated in enough business places, it represents a mass exposure, and could possibly represent some kind of mass psychological warfare conducted against humankind. Presumption of guilt created by a sick empire is one possible motive.

"Do you honestly think that anyone worries about your yammering (as well as that of others) so much that they would pay people to rebut you on a message board?"

Sure. There are many reports of just such activity in various places including the MSM. A police state, as I understand how they work, typically pays informants in one of the baser manifestations of the phenomenon. I've seen private business websites that have advertised they will defend your business from attack, though I am having difficulty finding one of those right now (if I happen across one in the next few days, I'll post it back as a reply to this post). It seems that the "your yammering" comment is, once again, from the SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette.

Here's just one possibility of several different kinds I've read of over the years:

...The Pentagon’s plans for engaging in “virtual warfare” are impressive. As BBC notes: “The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.” (BBC)

The enemy, of course, is you, dear reader, or anyone who refuses to accept their role as a witless-cog in new world order. Seizing the internet is a prudent way of controlling every piece of information that one experiences from cradle to grave; all necessary for an orderly police-state.
...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11901.htm

If this report is true, I wonder what the relationship is to the Declaration of Independence's clause regarding every human's inalienable right to pursue happiness. If common citizens are "the enemy" because of "thoughts" they have that they share with others, and these thoughts (that are not incitements to violence) are considered dangerous to our own military, then it seems a portion of the military could be usurping happiness from many, or at least some, of its own citizens; and if this excerpted report is true, it seems logistically likely they could have participated clandestinely in online message board discussions such as DU. It is undoubtedly true that humans are largely social animals, and survival, before civilization, likely was maximized by living in groups where communication with each other was an aid to the groups functioning. So, I'd presume, that the dis-hearting attempts at psychological manipulation, the 'dis-heartening' that would tend to occur in most people who have empathy, would be little more than business-as-usual or its equivalent, such as "their job", when viewed from the operatives point of view, and it's questionable whether they would do it if they weren't getting paid.

Hmm, I just now realized that that second paragraph, specifically "controlling every piece of information that one experiences from cradle to grave; all necessary for an orderly police-state" fits right in with my educational censorship comment. With all the privatization reportedly ongoing (Blackwater for one) today, these types of services could be contracted out, then possibly pieced and subcontracted.

I'm afraid I have no patience for you personally. You are rude, apparently a snob according to another poster, and you practice feigned ignorance, nor do you seem to exhibit any honor or respect towards truth. The attitude of some other long term DUers has been written to you in this thread that confirms some consensus regarding the futility of giving you what you ask for.

I think I'll call it quits (to this posting) real soon, as details that are required to be supplied to people such as yourself are never enough, you always need more more more to "understand", yet we are supposed to believe that you are "intelligent". This seems to be an interrogation technique you are practicing. I see that at the supreme court, similar interrogations are made of attorneys, but most of those attorneys get paid in some way for arguing there. I thought this was a "discussion" board. You know, something with some lightness and informality (never to be expected on DU in regards to candidates during primary season). But expressing lack of satisfaction can be one way of disheartening an enemy, so this could just be a debate technique of yours, one that would seem quite consistent with the rest of the online behavior patterns you display.

"Do you even know how the Federal Reserve and our monetary system work? Your silly assertions belie an utter lack of understanding of this area."

Tah dah, "silly assertions", from the SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette! You claimed you were trying to be polite, "I'll try to be polite". Perhaps I'm taking liberty with the context of your usage of it, as it's pretty clear to not only me, but other DUers seemed to have inferred similar conclusions as well, that you are anything but polite. Hmm, it seems this "polite" word of yours is a lie, but not unexpected. That could indicate some kind of psychosis or other psychological disorder of yours. Anyway, I thought I wrote to you above that it was unreasonable to require citizens to know things that have been censored. I haven't done a great deal of study of the FED in some years, but have posted some of what I've learned on DU in past threads in the archive somewhere.

Do you have a learning disability as well as a reading comprehension problem, or is this just the interrogator's technique of continuing to ask a question that has already been answered, in the hopes of gathering more information for the databases?

The monetary system it is claimed we have is known as Fractional Reserve, that's where banks are only required to keep a small percentage of deposits on hand, and may loan out the rest, and that prior phrase was perhaps a paraphrasing of something wikipedia has on the topic. It is a fiat money system, that means it's not backed by anything. However, that may be a deceitful way of wording the mechanism used to maximize profitability: if they keep 100% of their depositors cash on hand, and they create money (and this has implications with respect to the money supply, M1, 2, and 3) by creating it when making a loan (because they are legally authorized to do so), then that 100% can be a small fraction of the total of loans they are allowed to make. So, its really a Fractional Reserve OF DEBT banking system. The curious thing is that when the bank makes a loan, they create currency electronically by creating an account which shows as money deposited in the debtor's (loanee) account. This increases their balance sheet of deposits, which they may loan against. So, the actual percentage used from this POV changes dynamically again.

I make no claims of being a banker. Schools imbued me with a strong distaste for paperwork of many different kinds. Because of that, why would I desire to learn banking?

This type of monetary system is claimed to result, eventually or at some point in time, into hyperinflation. One of the German dollars had this phenomenon happen in the early part of the 20th century, I believe after WWI. Maybe it was called the Wiemark. Maybe something else. There are other examples, I've read. Anyway...

What we seem to have during most of my lifetime is continual inflation, with a surge of it during Bush's term, along with an acceleration in secrecy surrounding economic reporting (M3), among other usurpations of "open government". Inflation is a type of tax that all are subject to, but in a relative sense, is probably hardest on the poorest and therefore regressive, though I've never seen this explored by the popular or progressive media as a statistic versus other types of tax's progressive/regressive range.

When Congress authorizes spending, and since most all spending is deficit spending in the last few years, so when the Treasury needs money for deficit spending, a particular type T-Bill or its precursor is supposedly issued. I've read the Fed buys these from the Treasury, and creates that money to give to the Treasury.

Now, what does the FED use to purchase those bonds? They create money out of thin air, using bookkeeping entries to manufacture credit out of nothing. They used to do it with pen and ink, then typewriters, and now computers do the job. This artificial money would normally create very rapid inflation. This happened in Germany just prior to World War II, when Louis McFadden was a Congressman. It eventually took a wheel barrow full of Deutsche marks just to buy one loaf of bread. Imagine that, if you can!

The bankers realized that a mechanism was needed to withdraw this artificial money out of circulation as quickly as it was put into circulation. Enter the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is really a collection agency for the Federal Reserve. The FED pumps money into the economy, and the IRS sucks it out of the economy, like two pumps working in tandem. This has the effect of artificially maintaining the purchasing power of this "fiat money", as it is called by monetary experts.

This is one of the primary purposes of the income tax. We know this to be true, because a man named Beardsley Ruml explained it clearly in an essay he published in the magazine American Affairs in January of 1946. Beardsley Ruml was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, so he was in a position to know. The shocking fact is that federal income taxes do not pay for any government services; they are used to make interest payments on the federal debt. For proof, read the Grace Commission report. These interest payments are now approaching 40 percent of the annual federal budget.

The Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional for many reasons, foremost among which is that Congress delegated to a private municipal corporation a power which Congress never had, that is, to counterfeit money. It is unlawful for Congress to exercise a power which is not authorized to it by the Constitution. The people, you and I, and the 50 States reserve all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government.

The Federal Zone, Chapter 8

"You seem to be trying to blame the educational system for your own failure to grasp complex subjects."


There's that insincere (that's a polite way of saying "lying") flavor of "polite" that is reminiscent of the "witless-cog" noun, and once again The SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette jack-hammers common sense and human decency. For someone who doesn't like others to assume anything and who seems to require multiple repetitions of answers, it doesn't seem human for you to not hold yourself to the same standard. That question was already answered by me, but it seems you don't accept that.

Most complex subjects can be reduced to a simple and short abstract (for lack of a better word) that makes logical sense when the more complex parts are studied in greater detail and which makes sense no matter which POV it is viewed from. This is done in many "complex subjects". For one example, math is distilled down to addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, while higher levels of it are used with many cryptic symbols that generally require years of study to be expertly familiar with. Yet, at the basic level, math is still logical. Counting is logical.

In the case of concealment or censorship of a basic fact, apparently simple concepts can be made much more complex and when the dots are connected, well the dots really can't be connected without understand everything about the system under study, in order to detect the precise concealment and its nature. Without numbers (censor numbers and the number line), mathematics becomes hocus pocus that would be exceedingly difficult.

What they did in school was conceal some basic truths, then FLOOD us with various minute details which we were expected to cough up on tests. The problem with this is that it favored those with great memories, and denied to those brains that recall their memories based upon logical pattern matching (stereotyping?), because with the basic truths concealed the dots did not connect, we were told we were expected to 'believe them' essentially because 'they said so'. So, they would just give us reams and reams of useless, impractical information that would never be used by 99.9% of us (unless we got jobs working for the Federal Reserve, perhaps), and expected us to spit it back to them on tests. If we literally spit at them, they'd get upset at us, yet that's metaphorically precisely what they wanted us to do.

Most humans seem "fair", most humans seem cooperative, most humans have empathy. At a minimum your comment seems to indicate some kind of mental health issue of yours, to demand something of others that you are able but unwilling to offer back to them in reciprocity yourself. I wonder whether this is another debate technique of disheartening the enemy. If so, how this relates to my inalienable right to pursue happiness (were I to take you seriously as a person with any honor and integrity), is another philosophical conundrum. I'm not a lawyer arguing in front of the supreme court, yet, that appears one place where such interrogations might occur, potentially becoming feisty, but still with a measure of dignity and respect lacking many of the personal insults so common in the Sduderstat school of politeness and etiquette. However, I'm not a lawyer arguing in front of the supreme court, nor do you appear to be a supreme court justice slyly reading DU while the others think you're doing something else, rather, you seem to be playing a stupid game of dominance that is riddled with deceit and deception.

I was just rereading the excerpt above about the Pentagon's war on the Internet, and I saw "witless cog" in one of the sentences. Hmm, that pretty much sums up this attitude of yours that you habitually project to others including me in this discussion board. Perhaps "witless cog" is a noun that applies to your inner life. It is also seems a common attitude among a number of employers, sometimes rationalized in reports as a method of keeping wages low; perhaps it's just an issue with those kinds of people who are habituated to dominance and routinely practice economic warfare even when money isn't changing hands, whether they are aware of it or not.

You'll note that I didn't ask you any direct questions. I don't encourage further interrogation by creating it directly, at least with you, though I certainly can't stop you from posting, nor would I want to. But don't expect me to reply back to you, as encouraging people such as your self in your techniques of belittlement, coupled with disregard of your own lack of honesty or integrity, or possession of the hypocritical double standard and lack of respect of others, is likely not prudent of me.

I have already achieved my objective of warning by showing to others precisely what you are, and you did all the work. Thank you for being so cooperative and predictable.