|
Correction Bill.
I sent my message to elistas in reply to your
comment. I was right in assuming that Guido Preparata would see the message, but
did not send a copy to him. It would appear that I was also correct in assuming
that he would not put himself in the witness box. Apparently he would prefer a
letter which would be as long as his article and like him I have better things
to do. However if he wishes I can refute some of his statements and assertions
but it would be on my terms.Besides there are so many items that could be
attended to it would take too long to discuss each and every one. After all
he threw down the gauntlet and it is the right of the defendent to choose their
weapons.
Vic Bridger
PS If Guido Preparata is not on the list and I did
not send him a copy of my reply to you, how did he get it and from whom, and
why?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 4:10
AM
Subject: [socialcredit] correction: Re:
Social Credit post from SoCred group moderator William Ryan
Guido, the author of this recent message is Victor
Bridger, a Social
Credit activist in Australia. You
are not on the discussion group
copy list. As a
courtesy Victor apparently sent you a copy, since
you
were the subject of discussion. What's wrong with
that?
As for me, I do not think it is a waste of time to
discuss your
piece. I have discussed it and invited
you to join the discussion,
as you might remember.
The invitation remains. You ignore it
at the peril
of your reputation.
Bill
Guido Preparata
<ggprep@u.washington.edu> wrote:
Greetings,
I
don't know what this msg is, nor do I know who is writing me what, since no
one ever seems keen to indulge the luxury of addressing a proper letter,
expose some content, and sign his Christian name. From what I gather in this
garble about Douglas, his As and Bs, and what not, Mr Ryan, the fiery
chieftain of this list, thinks it a waste of time to discuss my 'verbose'
piece. Very well, I had asked for a written refutation of it (an honorable,
and perfectly legitimate request); since it is not forthcoming, I consider
him the loser, and kindly ask him therefor to erase my name permanently from
socred's net of virtual correspondence (I receive enough junk mail). I
s'pose we have all got better things to do.
Sincerely,
Guido G.
Preparata
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Levi Philos wrote:
>
>
> Here is the group home:
http://www.elistas.com/list/socialcredit
>
> HERE IS THE POST
JUST MADE TO THE GROUP (OCTOBER 16) FROM BILL RYAN:
>
> I agree
with the comments below. Apart from the excessive verbiage, it
> is a
regurgitation of other attacks made and based on similar
>
misinterpretation, incorrect assumptions, and complete ignorance in
the
> understanding of what Douglas said. It may not be ignorance but
simply a
> repetition of comments by other detractors over the last
eighty years.
> The opposition, although advanced on “alleged”
arguments against the A+B
> or any other financial consideration is in
reality an opposition based
> purely on philosophical grounds. I
covered this in my book A+B and All
> That.
>
> I would
like to think that Guido Preparata would take up the challenge
> and
put himself in the witness box but I doubt that he would place
>
himself in such a precarious position. He could do so of course, out
of
> pure ego and there is no doubt from his vitriolic comments
and
> innuendoes that he does have an ego. But if he did, I would be
prepared
> to bet that he would not concede any points which found him
“wanting”
>
> Guido Preparata is “obsessed” with money and
certainly gives the
> impression that he has no conception of the
difference between “Money”
> and “Bookkeeping”. As for his assertions
re interest, it is obvious that
> he has not read much of Douglas.
Given his lack of knowledge of the
> subject there is little point in
discussing his quite verbose article.
> At least I increased my
vocabulary by a few words, but then I am hardly
> likely to use these
words in common discussions as they are quite
> “nugatory” both in the
manner in which they have been used and the
> content of the material
he has presented.
>
> V. Bridger
>
> Guido Preparata
(what a cool name!) has just had "published" a "paper"
> in the
newly-minted "double blind peer reviewed" journal, "American
> Review
of Political Economy," entitled: "Major Douglas in the Witness
> Box:
Sparse Reflections on the Heresies of Social Credit."
>
>
http://www.arpejournal.com , where it is available for free download
in
> PDF format. (I have appended below a compressed "zip" of an
earlier
> draft version of the paper in Rich Text Format below that
can be opened
> with WordPad or Microsoft Word also archived
at
>
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/preparata-draft.zip
.)
>
> It is interesting that this "peer reviewed" journal is
into only its
> second Web based edition; it has no paid subscribers
at present, and
> "submission fees" are "presently waived." It is also
interesting that
> "Guido G. Preparata" is listed as "Managing
Editor." This attack on
> Douglas Social Credit should be familiar to
us, for the arguments, after
> pruning the verbosity, are exactly the
same arguments - which are not
> really arguments but assertions -
presented to us recently in this forum
> by Per
Almgren
>
>
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/almgren-09-12-04.txt
>
> that
B payments become A payments, and the real problem is interest.
> Both
Almgren and Preparata seem to be heavily influenced by the theories
>
of Silvio Gesell in contradistinction to Douglas. My initial replies
>
are at
>
>
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/replies-almgren.txt
>
> This
is how he puts it in the paper: "When this rudimentary theorem was
>
first enunciated in his [referring to Douglas's] second book,
>
Credit-Power and Democracy, it was immediately questioned upon the
>
precise nature and definition of these phantom 'B payments'. Weren't
>
these payments made to a party at some point in time, and wasn't
>
purchasing power thereby adding up, still, to the square amount
>
necessary to buy the entire production?...Only this much could be
>
conceded to the Douglasites; as to the concrete "vanishing" of a
sizable
> quota of purchasing power, there was no question...the
imposition of
> interest by banks for the employment of imperishable
money is the only
> true source of the accounting rift between prices
and incomes."
>
> I wonder if Professor Preparata is willing to
put himself into the
> "witness box" for cross examination in this
forum. I invite him to
> respond in defense of his
assertions.
>
> For preparation, I direct his attention to some
introductory materials
> at
>
>
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium .
> -
> Bill
william_b_ryan@yahoo.com AND
socred@ecn.net.au
>
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download
now.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo!
Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email socred@ecn.net.au
To unsubscribe, send a message to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
