| Subject: | [socialcredit] IMPORTANT NOTICE | | Date: | Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:40:41 (-0800) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3216 (written by Triumphofthepast) |
Bullcrap. The problem with Douglas is that he comes
with too much baggage. The baggage are the Social
Crediters (with some notable exceptions whom I shall
not name). They and their pitiable "interpretations"
discredit the whole project. In any case, the project
can't get off the ground in the first place in any
meaningful way because one octogenarian anti-Semitic
nut case supposedly controls the Douglas copyrights,
and nobody will challenge him. And I'm sick of it.
So my participation is hereby finished once and for
all. Complete waste of time. I'll let the list stay
up for a few days for anyone who might want to scan
the archives, then I'll pull the plug on that too. I
guarantee it'll stay out of the socket this time.
This is my last posting to list socialcredit and the
last I will admit any association whatsoever with the
so-called "movement."
--- Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
Supposing Douglas wanted to convey, as a principle of
social credit economics, that production should be
financed with new credits, rather than savings, what
would you have him say other than what he did say? No
one with any ear for language or any respect for
Douglas would suggest that in three parallel
Principles using "shall be," one of them was a mistake
for "are." There is really no question what Douglas
SAID. The only question is whether he MEANT what he
said. Because he didn't work out by what MECHANISM
Swanwick 2 should be applied, some people refuse to
believe he meant what he said.
Michael
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Reply to this message