Comment: Hold on bear

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Open (see in situ)

Hold on bear

I may not be as guilty as your words appear to suggest.

When I say "that is nonsense" I usually quote the words that I think are nonsense, and then I explain why I think the quoted words i quoted were nonsense.

You are there, I am here, and the words are in between us, and I did not invent the words that I think are nonsense. Who did?

Example 1a:
"When I think of public this is what is in my mind: 6. Open to common use; as a public road."

Example 1b:
"To me public is opposite of personal or private."

Which is it?

If it is both at the same time, then that is nonsense to me.

Your words that convict me:

"You are telling me what is in my mind is nonsense."

No trial, no defense on my part, just you punishing me for that crime by convicting me of that crime right out here in public.

"You are telling me what is in my mind is nonsense."

If I said that, then you can quote me, and I can then know of my error. I don't think I said that, and I think my focus of attention was on the medium of exchange.

You are there.

I am here.

I ask for focus on the concept of Public, and you reply with words that appear to be nonsense to me, or duplicitous, or of a character of ambiguity to which the words I read can be read any way I care to read them, since the definitions of the words can mean any number of things where the many possible meanings can be opposite meanings.

You are there at one moment typing this:

Example 1a:
"When I think of public this is what is in my mind: 6. Open to common use; as a public road."

You are there at another moment typing this:

Example 1b:
"To me public is opposite of personal or private."

How can I know if the concept changes on a whim?

If the concept is unchanging then why are two sentences used instead of one sentence?

If one sentence is better than the other, how about picking the better one for me to begin understanding and I won't be confused by the second, lesser, sentence?

If both sentences are required, then why separate them with other words in between where I can be further confused as the focus of my attention wanders off the requested focus of attention?

What is public?

Please nail down the best possible explanation in the fewest words so as to then allow me to begin to know what you mean, not what someone else means, but what you mean by the concept Public, if that is a working concept in your brain at any given time.

If you have Public working as a concept in your mind one minute, and then another minute later you have another concept working in your mind under the same Label, this Public stuff, then why is there one word for two things?

If I am constantly thinking about having Jesus following me around then, OK, I've tried that, and as a consequence of that perspective there is no longer any private time for me, or do I misunderstand the concept of private as much as I misunderstand the concept of public?

I can wander in many directions all at once or I can focus my attention upon a sentence of your own construction whereby you nail down the working concept of Public in your mind, and then you tell me that is it, a finished product, a medium of exchange, that is yours, you own it, I have not even seen it yet, so then you transfer that POWER of understanding through the wires and it arrives on my computer screen.

You are there.

I am here.

There, all said and done, is the working concept of Public, from you, as requested, to me.

I then begin to try to understand how that concept works in your brain/life/existence/reality/day to day living.

Example 1a:
"When I think of public this is what is in my mind: 6. Open to common use; as a public road."

Example 1b:
"To me public is opposite of personal or private."

Illustration: You are circling it, I am looking where it is, but so far there isn't much of anything to see, a ghost of something in the dark, there it is in your mind, as we both figuratively circle this thing called Public.

What is it?


Example 1a:
"When I think of public this is what is in my mind: 6. Open to common use; as a public road."

or this:

Example 1b:
"To me public is opposite of personal or private."

It is not mine, it is not yours, per se, it will be a sentence, the one sentence, or the two sentences, whichever is the final product, and then I can circle it, and I can look at it, and I can ask you if I am seeing the same thing. I can quote the sentence you offer, and I can ask things about it, to see if my view of it is the same view you have of it, and if not, then why not, etc.

Isn't that how it works? Is there a point? Do we get to the point?

What is Public in no uncertain terms, and then I can circle it, and find out if I think I am looking at nonsense, and then you can help me see that it is not nonsense.

You keep your brain working well enough, and I don't attack your brain with insults.

I keep my brain working as it so far does for me, and I don't suffer attacks of any kind like this:

"You are telling me what is in my mind is nonsense."

I can even apologize for "telling" you "what is in" your "mind is nonsense."

Do I know what is in your mind? How do I know? If I assume to know, without taking the required steps to know, as well as I can, before concluding such a thing as knowing what is in your mind, then I have certainly made a serious mistake and I feel compelled to apologize by working to never repeat such a mistake again.

"We have public roads which are maintained by public funds."

Since I don't have a nailed down copy of a working definition for Public, from you, I have now 3 examples to toss up in the air, like a juggler.

Example 1a:
"When I think of public this is what is in my mind: 6. Open to common use; as a public road."

Example 1b:
"To me public is opposite of personal or private."

Example 2:
"We have public roads which are maintained by public funds."

Of the 3 examples categorized above the last on the list is most troublesome for me.

I am asking for a time out, and I am going to call in a fellow Friend IN Liberty (at least I think he is a fellow) to help me think:

I'm taking advice, using my own brain, and I don't want to settle for parroting what someone else said.

"We have public roads which are maintained by public funds."

What is "public funds"? If there is a flow of POWER flowing from those who earn that power, flowing, flowing, along the medium of exchange called Federal Reserve Notes, then in that case, "pubic funds" are criminally moved by fraud and extortion made legal, from the many people who honestly earn those measures of POWER, flowing, flowing, each victim working roughly half their working lives to keep the criminals in POWER, so that the criminals can live in the manner that they have grown accustomed to, and some of those measures of POWER are spent on Road Building.

Yes, that happens, and it is convenient for most people, and the "tax collectors" can arrive at your door more readily.

So I circled one example of many examples, I looked at it, and I am not finding it to be of much use to me.

"We have public roads which are maintained by public funds."

If that one serves best, then I need to know which fund is the working example of a public fund. Is it a Gated Community road, a family road, a county road, a corporate road, a city road, a State road, a "Federal" road, or an International road, where this list of people here, this guy, that gal, is afforded (through THE FUND) to enforce any behavior deemed right, or wrong, on that specific road?

Is that what Public means?

I don't know. I'm circling one of three, which are not yet known to be the best one, the working one.

"So now I am on the hook for using the word invite."

So now I'm fishing?

I can care less as to what your working definition of Public is at any given moment. I can play my guitar. I can read. I can play games. I can make a cup of tea. It is 2 am and I woke up after a dream where I was crying and hugging my mom. I did not want to leave my wife in bed, but had I stayed in bed she would not be able to sleep. I was awake, having just hugged my mom, who is dead as you know, so why was I crying in my sleep? I can care more about that, or I can care less about that, what do you want me to do?

I am yours truly. I thought that was understood. Take the hook out, I put no hook in.

"I don’t mean formally, I mean here it is have at it. Here is the road…use it."

So we are working on the Public Fund used to build Public Roads concept now, and that is fine, are we sticking with this, or moving on soon?

The criminals need to have their subject making them things to steal, so they build roads. If that is Public, and nothing more, then I can return to that understanding henceforth whenever speaking to you and I see you use the word Public again.

Public means criminals who steal anything they can and then using the stolen loot to steal more from their victims.

Are we now on the same page?

Please take the hook out.

"Here is the road…use it. Here is a park…use it. Here is a water fountain at walmart…use it."

City park, State park, International Park?

I'm not fishing, no hooks.

The correct word, the accurate word, as far as I can tell, is "questions" not hooks.

You can bypass any question as you see fit, there are plenty of other worthwhile things for both of us to be doing.

Walmart may or may not be intimately connected to Legal Crime, in ways not limited to the Single Money, or the "Federal" roads, or The IRS, and that is another avenue or branch off this public tree, added to the list.

Public corporation? Private corporation?

Without a working definition of public to have, to see, to circle, to inspect, to measure, to know, to understand, I'm wandering at this point. I request one working sentence, and then a point, getting to the point, and then a point from which to know better.

I can repeat my request many times. I am not fishing. Fishing is a person in need of something to eat, and a fish is caught, for fun, for profit, for fuel to feed and nourish the living body. If you think you are a fish and I'm out fishing, then you have me mistaken with something other than me, or I am so far gone into falsehood that I don't even know what I have working in my own brain.

"For use by people in general."

I could work on that too. What is "use" and are any "people in general" not invited? Can I use it to make money? Can I guard the door and charge people to pass through the door?

You were not put on the hook by me for asking who does the inviting.

It is a valid question when working on one of the many definitions of the concept of Public.

“Walter Lippmann said … You steal the key language of the person or group you want to overthrow and you redefine it and people then become confused.”

My daughter won first prize in a college essay contest, while she was still in High School. In that essay she sent a similar message as the one offered by Walter Lippmann.


Then closed.

The open.

Who does the opening?

Who does the closing?

Who cleans the toilet?

I clean toilets. All my life I've found that I get the dirty jobs. The dirty jobs are open.

"Sometimes that is what I feel like you are redefining language. I saw a comment on the DP that said Anarchists would throw away the dictionaries."

I'm not fishing. If it is a good idea to find out what you use as a working definition of Public, then that is what you will do, with or without my help. Why should I care?

I'd like to hear what someone at the Mises Institute has to say about Andrews since no one, ever, touches Equitable Commerce from that group, it is like crytonite to superman, or sunlight to vampires, or water to the Wicked Witch of the West, no one from the Gold Bugs. Imagine, I can't, a Gold Bug honestly discussing Equitable Commerce.

Thanks for the link, I'll book mark it and work on it later.

"Did Andrews write a book called History of Socialism? Is that the same thing as saying the History of Studying Society?"

I can cut and paste the words as they were published in 1848 to "back up" my definition of the word socialism. I will cut and paste a small portion of the book, and so this is merely a reference, the book, in it's entirety, is the entire substance, root, source, of my use of the word socialism by my definition of socialism being the study of society. I've also found in The Communist Manifesto a rejection of socialism by the communists and it is that same socialism, in my opinion, spoken of by Andrews, same names of the same people involved, such as Fourier.

"What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all."

If I don't nail down the definitions of the words I use, then I don't think that I can actually say anything to anyone where the meaning intended is the meaning received.

Good enough for government work?

I want to know. Did you ever tell me that you know one absolutely true fact, and every attempt to disprove this fact proves it?

I am not like the Russian, I want to be spoon fed.

Ask me one more time and I can consider the interval of time between now and then as a challenge to you. Once you see it, and work on it, you can then help me disprove it to no avail; meanwhile let me know if you figure it out yourself. Remind me in the nest reply, and I'm not fishing, I do not target you for consumption, remind me, and my next reply will offer up the one truth that every attempt to disprove it proves it itself, and I'll spoon feed it with a silver spoon, from a silver platter.

"so a token representing the value was my wish."

I take your messages to heart, or those messages that you pass on to me, such as, over, and over, and over again, to fear God is to hate evil, and I hate Federal Reserve Notes, so I am off the mark, not understanding well enough, and so I need help, measurably, accurately measurably, in need of help.

I keep asking.

Help may arrive in Federal Reserve Notes, and I can work on Hating Evil, not Federal Reserve Notes.

You help, so thanks a million.

If I were Federal Reserve Chairman I could say thanks a Trillion, and make good on it.