eListas Logo
   The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
      HOME    SERVICES    SOLUTIONS    COMPANY    
Home > My Lists > socialcredit > Messages

 Message Index 
 Messages from 6721 to 6780 
SubjectFrom
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
RE: 100 percent re John G R
Re: 100 percent re Franšois
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
RE: 100 percent re John Her
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
RE: 100 percent re John G R
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
Re: 100 percent re John Her
Re: 100 percent re Kenneth
Re: question regar Kenneth
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Re: Re: 100 percen Joe Thom
RE: question regar John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
Re: 100 percent re william_
RE: question regar John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T GeorgeCS
Re: Signs of the T GeorgeCS
RE: Signs of the T John G R
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Re: True belief ra William
The Heart of Frede Arian F.
Re: Signs of the T William
Student Debt in Ca Wallace
Student debt in Ca Wallace
Re: Signs of the T William
RE: Signs of the T John G R
RE: Student Debt i John G R
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Student Debt i Kenneth
a "well-researched william_
RE: a "well-resear John G R
Re: a "well-resear Jamie Wa
Re: a "well-resear william_
Re: 100 percent re Brock Mo
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Student Debt i Wallace
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Why jobs disappear Per Almg
Re: Why jobs disap Wallace
Re: Why jobs disap william_
RE: Why jobs disap John G R
RE: Re: Why jobs d John G R
Re: Why jobs disap terence
 << Prev. 60 | Next 28 >>
 
socialcredit
Main page    Messages | Post | Files | Database | Polls | Events | My Preferences
Message 6780     < Previous | Next >
Reply to this message
Subject:Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part
Date:Wednesday, May 27, 2009  15:55:48 (+1200)
From:William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
In reply to:Message 6771 (written by John G Rawson)

HI John
          Your points are very relevant, and emphasise the idiocy of the present financial system. I believe we are on the brink of serious environmental collapse, caused virtually entirely by the "robber Baron" effect of that financial system. It is why I stay with SC and monetary reform.
              BILL McG
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:35 AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part

Bill, you are cynical. And I tend to agree.
But bear in mind that, with the best intentions in the world, a businessman under the present system may have to choose between going bankrupt and harming the environment.
For example, take the case of a farmer with a huge debt load who just can't afford to fence off his stock from internal streams.
Regards.
John R.



 
> From: wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 15:31:49 +1200
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part
>
> HI Ken
> I believe the 'greenies' are idealistic "cloud cokooland dreamers"
> who have not come to terms with the basic inequalities of life. They seem to
> think everyone is basically good and honest, and will always act in a way
> that will benefit everyone around them. I am cynical and know that is not
> true especially in the financial sector. FInanciers don't care about
> anything but their 'profit', and they don't care if people suffer as a
> result of their manipulations. They have created a monetary system that
> enables them to "control ' the way the "wealth ' of the world is used and
> distributed. It is a wasteful and dangerously exploitive system that is
> doing immense damage to living conditions and environmants throughout the
> world. Only a new way of using money will solve the problem hence the need
> for monetary reform before ity is too late. Greenies don't seem to realise
> that the vast bulk of the worlds problems are caused by the inequitable
> financial system, until they do all their policies are simply hot air and no
> different from the political policies of the other political parties on the
> planet.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenneth Palmerton" <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Cc: <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 12:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part
>
>
> > In-Reply-To: <004501c9dce3$c5a98d40$e182c67c@HomePC>
> > Hi William.
> >
> > That is exactly the same problem that many of us have here in the UK.
> >
> > That and when the Greens have their sustainability, there is still social
> > work to be done.
> >
> > Ken.
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> >
> > From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
> > To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> > Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:51:52 +1200
> >
> > HI George and John
> > Some years ago the NZ minor parties formed
> > themselves into a coalition to fight general elections, The NZ Green party
> > were part of that group, and I remember quite clearly that during a social
> > get together one of the Greens asking me about SC environmental policy. I
> > had a copy of our manifesto with me and showed them our policy after
> > reading it the "Greenie" said to me "This is better than what we have". TO
> > which I replied, " Well it should be, because we have been working on it
> > for 20 years. You've only been around for 6 Years. We have had time to
> > cross the T's and dot all the I's". The upshot of the action was that the
> > NZ Greens simply adopted our policy statement entirely without any
> > altrerations. THe only problem with the "Greens" in NZ is that they are
> > unable to accept that a change in the way money is controlled is an
> > essential aspect of any effective environmental programme. "Orthodox"
> > economic theory cannot find any way of justifying environmental
> > protection because it does not have a direct obvious financial "profit".
> > This is the great stumbling block for the Green parties as they are
> > presently constituted, consequently their programmes cannot be implemented
> > because they are unable to conduct the necessary financial reformations
> > needed to implement those policies. It is one of the reasons why I am an
> > SC supporter and not a "Greenie". WE accept that both are necessary.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John G Rawson
> > To: Socred elistas
> > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 8:40 PM
> > Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments,
> > Part II)
> >
> >
> > Replying to George on some points:
> > Yes, we care about the environment. Our NZ party had extensive
> > environmental policies before the Greens were invented. We believe that
> > this and many other problems can not be solved satisfactorily until the
> > monetary system is reformed. We also care about wars, mainly resulting
> > from monetary problems. If you understand Social Credit you will see this
> > clearly.
> > Socialism is government control of the means of production, distribution
> > and exchange. I know they like to define it as "caring for people" and
> > pretend that they have a monopoly of that. In fact, when the chips are
> > down, they invariably turn out on the side of the bankers and oppose any
> > financial reform.
> > Social Credit would socialise the issue of the medium of exchange (only
> > its issue) and leave the rest to private enterprise.
> > You appear to have missed the main point of Douglas' analysis, that
> > industry does not pay out enough, in its normal functions, to buy its
> > production. This "gap" can be filled by expansion of industry; exporting
> > more than we import, (if everyone wants to do that, there is a cause for
> > trade war and then real war); producing non-consumer goods, especially
> > armaments. (which makes war still more likely); etc.
> > S C would overcome the problem by paying sufficient directly to
> > consumers so that all worthwhile production can be consumed and production
> > flow freely. We see some system that does this evenly to all citizens as
> > the most desirable and fair method, hence the "dividend" approach. But
> > many also believe that problems like catching up on infrastructure and
> > repayment of debt must be done before large amounts are paid out directly
> > to consumers. (This approach is heatedly debated by some, as you will
> > see.)
> > In the mean time, a universal income of any amount (as opposed to
> > guaranteed income to those who need it), would have to be financed by
> > considerably increased taxation, i.e. by socialistic restribution, and
> > because of the deleterious effect on industry, we do not support that.
> > Great idea, but totally impracticable in most nations at most times
> > How would we assess the goods etc. available? Douglas suggested, and we
> > accept, that a national credit authority should be set up, politically
> > independent, to make the best guesses possible based on current data, and
> > to authorise creation of the appropriate amount of new money to fill th
> > need over the next period. (Perhaps six months. My personal guess.)
> > Intelligent trial and error should appeal to an Engineer?
> > Regards.
> >
> > John R.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---
> > From: GeorgeCSDS@aol.com
> > Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 14:45:27 -0400
> > To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments,
> > Part II)
> >
> > Conclusion of "Comments on Comments" regarding Signs of the Times
> > discussion started in Part I
> >
> > In a message dated 5/16/09 3:51:55 AM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:
> >
> >
> > HI Wallace
> > There is a perfectly valid alternative to the dividend
> > system
> > that was touched on by Douglas namely a supplementary price subsidy to
> > keep
> > prices down paid from the same source that would furnish the National
> > dividend. This of course would be outlawed by GATT, but nevertheless I
> > believe that GATT would find it difficult to oppose the move if it
> > applied
> > to foodstuffs. Even GATT agreements cannot be enforced if a subsidy is
> > designed to alieviate starvation among people who cannot afford
> > socalled
> > "market force prices " for food. I sincerly believe that Douglas
> > intended
> > that both a dividend and subsidies should be used to enable people to
> > access
> > the necessities of life like food, shelter and clothing if necessary.
> > do you
> > have any opinion on that aspect of SC
> >
> >
> > Sounds a little socoialist to me. ;-)
> >
> > Said a man not dressed all that neat,
> > With shoes covering part of his feet:
> > That Safety Net's a joke,
> > For anyone who's broke.
> > Now me, I sleep in the street.
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 5/16/09 4:01:02 PM, kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk
> > writes:
> >
> >
> > In-Reply-To: <002801c9d5fa$0c4c5840$8b82c67c@HomePC>
> > Hi William.
> >
> > Certainly the "Compensated price" has not been fully explored as a
> > means
> > of augmenting a deficient income. But it will not work where there is
> > no
> > income at all :-(
> >
> > As for orthodox economists, in general they go bananas when it is
> > suggested that goods can be sold at less than cost, which is what we
> > "risk" if it is suggested that we have retail prices reduced.
> >
> > They generally have pat answers like the overriding need for "Hard
> > currency" that some east european nations had when they sold us cars at
> > less than cost for instance.
> >
> > Radical solutions to common problems are hard for some to take in I
> > fear
> > :-(
> >
> > Ken.
> >
> >
> > Of course, Universal Guaranteed Personal Income (UGI), democratically
> > set, resolves that very real problem. A Universal Guaranteed Personal
> > Income is a form of National Dividend, or, perhaps, vice versa.
> >
> > There once was an Economist who thought,
> > Which so outraged his peers that they sought
> > To label him extreme
> > (Which, to them, he did seem)
> > And have all his thought go for nought.
> >
> > In a message dated 5/17/09 1:10:14 AM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:
> >
> >
> > HI Ken
> > Good points, but under SC everyone will have acess to a
> > National
> > dividend which should give them some income. However this will not be
> > sufficient to provide all the necessities of life I am still workiong
> > on the
> > problem of ensuring that everyone has a minimum sustainable income.
> > This
> > cannot be a gauranteed minimum income provided by the government, that
> > cannot be accepted because it is too easy for unethical employers to
> > exploit. That was proven in the early days of the industrial
> > revolution when
> > there was provision for those who could not obtain an income
> > sufficient for
> > subsistance living to be compensated from a " Poor fund" maintained by
> > the
> > local authorities from rates etc. All that happened was that employers
> > simply reduced wages to a minimum level so that all employees were
> > forced to
> > get subsidies from that fund. Local authorities just increased rates to
> > provide for that fund. It was a blatent case of exploitation and
> > eventually
> > the government stepped in and abolished the system under pressure from
> > manufacturers who were being assessed at ever increasing local rates.
> > The
> > greed of the
> > early industrialists undermined the whole system. No government could
> > ever
> > accept any form of gruaranteed income unless every bit of earnings from
> > every industry and commercial enterprise was considered GOVERNMENT
> > INCOME
> > and the government than allocated this income to the enterprises on the
> > basis of earning capacity after taking a percentage from the bulk of
> > the
> > income for its own purposes that would include allocating an income to
> > every
> > citizen from those profits. I certainly could not accept this form of
> > socialist behavior because of its long term effects on the will of the
> > general population to work efficiently for the good of all. I don't
> > have a
> > solution to the problem you have set me yet, perhaps some of the other
> > people in the forum can offer one.
> > Bill McG
> >
> >
> > You say "I am still workiong on the problem of ensuring that everyone
> > has a minimum sustainable income." Bill! You rascal you! You're a
> > "socoialist" in disguise. You say "This cannot be a gauranteed minimum
> > income provided by the government, that cannot be accepted because it is
> > too easy for unethical employers to exploit...." Without (re)going into
> > the details now, that problem you sketch, along with many, many more, are
> > essentially, trivially, and democratically resolved by the economic
> > incentive created by a democratically set MAW (remember now, MAW = Maximum
> > Allowable Personal Wealth limit, not minimum annual wage). You say "...
> > the will of the general population to work efficiently for the good of
> > all." Question: Have you been just leading us on all this time? You can
> > do this, Bill. I know you can. Your heart is in the right place, I
> > think.
> >
> > Economists come from the Left and the Right.
> > Either way, it's a terrible sight.
> > Using arguments centuries old,
> > Worse yet, confused when retold,
> > They're as much cause, as cure, of the fight.
> > fright.
> > blight.
> > plight.
> >
> > In a message dated 5/17/09 1:10:38 AM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:
> >
> >
> > HI Ken
> > Supplementary to my previous e-mail. What about GATT?
> > would we
> > simply pull out of those agreements. I see no reason why not because
> > we did
> > not agree to those provisions and were in fact quite adamantly opposed
> > to
> > them, because they would interfere with our financial reorganisation
> > in NZ
> > under SC principles. There would be intense economic pressure for us
> > to stay
> > in those agreements
> >
> >
> > Who's "we," NZ or Humanity?
> >
> > Mr. Smith's Invisible Illusion
> > Has grown to the present delusion:
> > "Cooperation is attained
> > When Competition's sustained."
> > Hence, the planet's confusion.
> >
> > In a message dated 5/17/09 9:07:02 AM, kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk
> > writes:
> >
> >
> > In-Reply-To: <000e01c9d68e$420a2130$4982c67c@HomePC>
> > Hi William.
> >
> > I agree with you that in a civilised society a sustainable claim to our
> > sufficient, if not equitable share of what we are able to produce, is
> > one
> > of the marks of that civilisation.
> >
> > The eternal constraint upon that sufficiency is the effort made by
> > humanity in converting natural resources into consumable goods and
> > services.
> >
> > The question needs to be asked, how can we guarantee any particular
> > level
> > in advance of knowing what it is we have available to distribute ?
> >
> > One valuable contribution to this debate for me was the idea that in
> > fact
> > a large proportion of what we had available was never monetised and
> > made
> > available. An old SC insight, shared in medieval times even by some of
> > the
> > bookmen.
> >
> > The reason why I personally prefer the name "Dividend" is because it
> > implies something an individual is entitled to, not any sort of
> > "handout".
> >
> > Though I fail to understand why some people, and now you seem to ally
> > yourself with them, who totally denigrate the place of Government in
> > our
> > attempts to make our individual needs constitute a market. Government
> > "owns" nothing, it is an essential link that is, or should be, of our
> > making.
> >
> > Although I think I understand the point you make about unscrupulous
> > employers ability to exploit a basic income, I believe you to be wrong.
> > Though it might take a little time for employees to throw off their
> > victim
> > attitudes, a basic income would in fact hand them the most powerful
> > anti
> > discrimination tool they have ever had.
> >
> > For the first time it will allow a worker to refuse any employment on
> > conditions or remuneration that is not to their liking. For the first
> > time
> > ever it will allow the classical theories of a market to apply. It will
> > allow the theories of supply and demand to apply without crushing the
> > weak.
> >
> > This depends of course upon our money system being reformed in a manner
> > that reflects our ability to produce. Without debt. For we must
> > remember
> > that the product of industry is goods and services, not money. So how
> > can
> > you argue that such reforms would mean that all this would belong to
> > Government ?
> >
> > To repeat, Government own NOTHING. And how you can call such a
> > possibility
> > "Socialistic" I do not know. For this argument destroys the bedrock of
> > Socialism totally, the Labour theory of value.
> >
> > Such a possibility requires a political reorientation that is NOT being
> > proposed here.
> >
> > One of the issues that I have had to counter over many years is the one
> > about "Handouts". Since at least the 1940s in my own party there have
> > been
> > some who have agonised about the effect upon production if all had
> > enough
> > to live on through their dividend.
> >
> > Time has allowed us to hammer out the likely realities, Some WILL laze
> > their time away, the effects I feel would not last, for some do that
> > now.
> > Most will turn to work that they find rewarding, with society probably
> > being better off with better quality goods, and more contented workers,
> > for what we propose prevents no one from topping up their dividend with
> > whatever the market can provide by way of opportunities.
> >
> > The argument about who will do the dirty jobs also engaged our
> > thoughts.
> > With a reformed money system it would be possible to offer financial
> > rewards sufficient to make it attractive, and until someone came
> > forward
> > to do them under conditions that were acceptable. Why should a brain
> > surgeon be paid more that a road sweeper? as society needs both of
> > them,
> > and with an enhanced financial reward for keeping our roads clean we
> > may
> > even come to respect them more :-))
> >
> > Its a complicated debate William, and I don't think we have exhausted
> > all
> > the possible ramifications such reforms could bring, good and bad.
> >
> > Ken.
> >
> >
> > "The reason why I personally prefer the name "Dividend" is because it
> > implies something an individual is entitled to, not any sort of
> > "handout"." But wouldn't a rose, by any other name, smell as sweet?
> > Excellent arguments for a Basic Income! BIEN and USBIG couldn't do
> > better!
> >
> > Just think of the millions unemployed,
> > Whose lives are seldom enjoyed.
> > The Economists say: "So what?
> > They deserve what they got.
> > And besides, inflation's destroyed."
> >
> > In a message dated 5/17/09 9:07:16 AM, kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk
> > writes:
> >
> >
> > In-Reply-To: <002a01c9d691$886ce650$4982c67c@HomePC>
> > Hi William.
> >
> > Quite frankly I think that GATT is a noose about our necks.
> >
> > Its a total denial of economic democracy :-(((
> >
> > Those Grandees who pontificate now about "Free trade" should be
> > compelled
> > to study what "free trade" actually is, or rather was.
> >
> > As written into treaty now violates every principle that was once
> > understood as free trade.
> >
> > But again I think the fault lays with we who have forgotten what we
> > once
> > knew, and how to make our voices heard :-(((
> >
> > Ken.
> >
> >
> > What?! Economic Democracy?! Now you're talkin'.
> >
> > Just what did humanity do
> > To deserve an Economist or two?
> > We'd be better sans any;
> > Instead we've got many.
> > No wonder the Economy's so skew.
> >
> > In a message dated 5/18/09 2:10:02 AM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:
> >
> >
> > HI Ken
> > I don't have any quibble with your arguments, but I do have a long
> > standing objections to :Socialism because I believe it is unworkable,
> > and
> > gives the impression that everyone should have free access certain
> > necessities of life without contributing to society as a whole. I,
> > like you,
> > have an inbuilt resistance to government "control" over every aspect
> > of our
> > lives particularly its ineffective management of finance.
> > Bill McG
> >
> >
> > Now, neglecting the crucial question of what, specifically, IS Socialism
> > (remember; it does have at least 57 varieties), may it simply be observed
> > that society might be/would be much better off (everything considered) if
> > a few "lazy bums" were just plain "handed out" the "necessities of life
> > without contributing to society as a whole." After all, some "lazy bums"
> > are not inclined to just lie down and starve to death. They can and some
> > do cause society all kinds of trouble. But the valid arguments of a valid
> > BI also significantly ameliorate even this small problem. And as
> > indicated elsewhere, a functioning Socioeconomic Democracy would vastly
> > reduce "governmental 'control' over every aspect of our lives...." If
> > this reduction in government control of every aspect of your life really
> > is important to you, I strongly recommend you try to think about
> > Socioeconomic Democracy.
> >
> > Economists live in a Strange Wonderland.
> > They talk of an Invisible Hand.
> > While no one can see it,
> > They seem to agree it
> > Somehow makes just Everything Grand.
> >
> > In a message dated 5/18/09 10:15:45 AM, kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk
> > writes:
> >
> >
> > In-Reply-To: <001f01c9d77c$ca812e70$c882c67c@HomePC>
> > Hi William.
> >
> > My rejection of Socialism is not on the basis that it cannot work, but
> > that the price in Human liberty is too high.
> >
> > As for the failure of MOST Governments to regulate our finance, I
> > believe
> > that is down to too many of our legislators being bought and paid for
> > by
> > the money power :-(
> >
> > Ken.
> >
> >
> > Again, a functioning Socioeconomic Democracy would vastly reduce
> > "governmental 'control' over every aspect of our lives...." But don't
> > take my word for it; think about it.
> >
> > It seems each Economist vies
> > To tell the most ludicrous lies.
> > If they say it with Math,
> > Then they're on the right path
> > To get the well paying Nobel Prize.
> >
> > In a message dated 5/20/09 1:51:13 PM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:
> >
> >
> > HI KEN
> > Thank you for clarifying that for me Ken.
> > Bill McG
> >
> >
> > And thanks from me for clarifying what many current Social Crediteers do.
> >
> > Could there be an Economist so rare
> > As to design an Economy that's fair?
> > "But why should we? they say.
> > "Who would give us our pay?"
> > Then away from the suffering they stare.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Let me, finally, repeat some of the unnecessary and painful problems
> > Socioeconomic Democracy can and will significantly reduce or fully
> > resolve. The discussion of how and why this is so appears in the last
> > chapter of the book Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic
> > System (Praeger, 2002).
> >
> > These problems include (but are by no means limited to) those familiar
> > ones involving: automation, computerization and robotization; budget
> > deficits and national debts; bureaucracy; maltreatment of children; crime
> > and punishment; development, sustainable or otherwise; ecology,
> > environment, resources and pollution; education; the elderly; the feminine
> > majority; inflation; international conflict; intranational conflict;
> > involuntary employment; involuntary unemployment; labor strife and
> > strikes; sick medical and health care; military metamorphosis; natural
> > disasters; pay justice; planned obsolescence; political participation;
> > poverty; racism; sexism; untamed technology; and the General Welfare.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > The admittedly sometimes somewhat stressed, stretched and strained
> > limericks from:
> >
> > The Economists: a Book of Limericks (CSDS, 1987)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **************
> > Recession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in the U.S.
> > (http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=eml
> > cntustrav00000002)
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---
> > Find someone to light your fire this winter at Match.co.nz Brrr... its
> > getting cold out there_
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > You're subscribed to this list with the email
> > kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk
> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Included Files:*
> > am2file:001-HTML_Message.html
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit


Download the new Windows Live Messenger! Looking for a fresh way to share photos?

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at 
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium 
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz 
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit 

Services:  HomeList Hosting ServicesIndustry Solutions
Your Account:  Sign UpMy ListsMy PreferencesStart a List
General:  About UsNewsPrivacy PolicyNo spamContact Us

eListas Seal
eListas is a registered trademark of eListas Networks S.L.
Copyright © 1999-2006 AR Networks, All Rights Reserved
Terms of Service