Re: TURMEL: Castlef beating up Bill Ryan on Social Credit

From: Bill Ryan (william_b_ryan_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/08/04 

Date: 8 Nov 2004 10:35:17 -0800

JCT: This is funny because anyone looking at the control
system of the 1/(s-i) usury banking system drawn at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm can be asked
what wire would have to be cut to keep debt owed equal to
money borrowed. The "i" positive feedback wire stands right
out. And Ryan tells us that it's case closed that fixing
the system takes something else. Without offering any other
alternative.
------------------------------
---------------------------
You can draw any diagram you like. That doesn't mean
it has any relationship to reality. Interest is
neither positive nor negative feedback except in the
informational sense to entrepreneurs. So a diagram
that shows it is feedback in the flow sense is
nonsense.
-->

His greatest criticism of me was that I would not prove I
had an engineering degree from Carleton University.
------------------------------
---------------------------
No. The criticism is that you are not an engineer.
By your own admission you have never been employed
even a single day as an engineer. You are not
licensed in any jurisdiction. Your enunciations
regarding "Laplace transforms" and "positive
feedback" demonstrate your complete incompetence.
The request that you continue to avoid is the release
of your Carleton transcripts.
-->

JCT: To argue that monetizing credit isn't creating money.
What a nut.
------------------------------
---------------------------
What a jackass. Monetizing credit *is* creating
money. It is "out of nothing" in the sense that a
intrinsic commodity like gold is not involved.
The term is a translation into English of Bank of
England founder William Patterson's original Latin
term "fiat" in the legal document that is the
original charter. It means that the parties have
agreed on future performance. The agreement
documents are themselves "negotiable" and may be
traded from person to person in trade. The cranks'
perverse interpretation is that "out of nothing"
means that bankers are not performing a service for
which they should be reasonably compensated.
-->

BR: "Service fee" in the context of banking is simply
another name for interest. If you don't think so, it
is incumbent on you to explain the difference.

JCT: Har har har har. I've shown the difference between a
service charge and interest the two games at bankmath.htm
for the past 25 years. And he still doesn't see any
difference. So he's a nut or an agent provocateur.
------------------------------
---------------------------
You haven't shown the difference. Your "bankmath"
has no relevance whatsoever to the economy as it
actually works. It proves nothing.
-->

JCT: This is funny because anyone looking at the control
system of the 1/(s-i) usury banking system drawn at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm can be asked
what wire would have to be cut to keep debt owed equal to
money borrowed. The "i" positive feedback wire stands right
out. And Ryan tells us that it's case closed that fixing
the system takes something else. Without offering any other
alternative.
------------------------------
---------------------------
The diagram is meaningless. It is irrelevant to the
economy. Interest is neither positive nor negative
feedback except in the sense its realization provides
information to entrepreneurs. It is simply the name
assigned to projected gross profit in financial
contracts.

As to not offering any other alternative, both
explanations and corrective measures were suggested
by the founder of Social Credit, C. H. Douglas. See
the introductory materials archived at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
-->

JCT: He wants a better explanation of how interest on new
money hurts the borrowers who sign their death-gamble mort-
gages.
------------------------------
---------------------------
Not a "better" explanation, but an explanation.
You've provided no explanation whatsoever. Your
"bankmath" is irrelevant nonsense.
-->

JCT: See. Ryan just states something stupid that his debate
corrects, then he goes on to state something else stupid,
and it never ends. Castlef added some great quotes, all old
Socred staples that I've read so many times, I practically
know them by heart, and it never hurts to repeat the truth
since repetition of the Big Lie seems to work well. Maybe
repetition of the truth will benefit of the echo the same
way.
------------------------------
---------------------------
Several of the "quotes" are complete fabrications,
putting words into the mouths of "Ben Franklin,"
"Thomas Jefferson," "Abe Lincoln," etc. You are the
crank who repeats the "Big Lie," the buffoonish pied
piper to the credulous.
-->

JCT: Wow. All this time, a whole monetary reform history of
quotes and we get word from on high that they're all
fabrications.
------------------------------
---------------------------
Yes, you ignoramus. Perhaps not "all." Many of
them, particularly those putting words into the
mouths of the founders of the American Republic, date
no earlier than post United States Civil War
political controversies. Some of those relating to
later personages are on their face fabrications.
"Sir Joshua Stamp" was never "president" of the Bank
of England, for example. There was a real Sir Joshua
Stamp who bore but little resemblance to the money
cranks' version.
-->

BR: The Thomas Jefferson quote is the most egregious
fabrication of all, in league with the fabricated "Ben
Franklin." It is a fabrication of its face to even a half
way literate person. I am quite certain that Jefferson
never used the term "central bank."

JCT: It's incredible to think this defender of anti-social
usury credits should call himself a social crediter. Just
goes to show how organizations get taken over at the top by
their moles. Isn't sad to think that Bill Ryan promotes
himself as the Internet's Mr. Social Credit, especially when
he keeps backing down from the bets of the Social Credits
engineer.
------------------------------
---------------------------
Well, it's you who just backed down, you spineless
dip***, by posting your "diploma" after saying you
wouldn't do so unless I took up your "bet." But I
want to see your transcripts, which I will verify. I
never wanted to see the "diploma." I could care
less. I could post a more authentic looking
"diploma" to the Internet in twenty minutes. I find
it hard to believe you made it through any real
"engineering" curriculum. If you did, it would say
more about Carleton than your "qualifications." I
want to see your grades in courses where you would
have presumably been introduced to "Laplace
transforms" and "positive feedback." I want to see
if you even took them.

I take note that you have avoid addressing the
authenticity of the "Jefferson" quote. You really
are a con-man through and through, aren't you?
Shifting the subject is your modus operandi. As to
being a Social Crediter, I do not remember ever
claiming to be a Social Crediter. I have said I have
never met a Social Crediter except over the Internet,
which still stands. I do claim to be a researcher
who is interested in historical accuracy. I never
heard the term "Social Credit" before it was assigned
to me as a thesis topic. Through my research I
learned that Social Credit and particularly the
theory of C. H. Douglas has no relationship to the
crap you promote. It brings discredit to the whole
idea.
-->

JCT: Anyway, it's fun watching you push the math in his
face. Ask why he never bet I didn't have a diploma though he
accused me over and over again of being a sham.
------------------------------
---------------------------
You *are* a sham, John.

Quantcast