Monetary Reform

[Ryan] Again, I've inserted some comments.

>From: "Norman G. Kurland"

>Reply-To: monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu

>To: monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu, "Bell, Dan" ,"Shakespeare, Rodney" ,"Logue, Ph.D., Dr. John"

>Subject: Re: MONETARY: Re: "usury" is NOT the problem

>Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:01:42 -0400

>This message was originally sent on Thursday, October 24th at 12:46 pm. Seeing that it was never posted, undoubtedly because of its length, here is an abbreviated version.

>At the end of his posting is a typical Ryanism:

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>[Ryan] He's treating other viewpoints, the opinions of others, as

>something repugnant and offensive. He's afraid that if he sees them

>in print, merely words on paper about economics, not pornography, he

>is in danger of becoming corrupted by it. Since he already knows the

>perfect truth, anything else could only detract from it.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Ryan has a nimble brain, but his behavior stinks. Whenever a discussant cannot understand Ryan's interpretation of the A+B formula, or disagrees with his interpretation -- in this case, Dan Parker, and in Ryan's previous postings, Mike Greaney and me -- he resorts to the same debating tactic.

[Ryan] Norm, that comment was in response to a comment that Dan made to Victor Bridger:

>Again, please remove my personal address from any e-mail
>that you might send out.

Rather than handling a lack of understanding, a misunderstanding or a disagreement as a good teacher should, with respect for the other person and a sense of responsibility to offer clearer explanations to the other discussant, he resorts to childish and uncivilized attempts to undermine the motives or character of that discussant. Ryan should

>look closely in the mirror. If he does and thinks about it he will come to realize that his comment above best describes himself, not Dan Parker.

>Dan Parker (despite our differences on the validity or political viability of social credit theory) deserves to be praised for standing up to Ryan and telling the truth as he sees it.

[Ryan] I have no problem with him expressing his opinion. The problem, Norm, is that you have never bought into the concept of free speech. Moreover, you can't entertain the thought that you might be wrong about anything. Your responses are like a machine - not a thinking person - replying according to its program. I've gotten to the point where I could almost write them for you. As a matter of fact, I might do that, and save you the effort.

Dan, he's doing a very unconvincing job of making his case. Dan's doing what other social crediters should be doing when someone like Ryan sullies the marketplace of thought. Ryan plays by his own rules and this can only result in driving open-minded, civilized and independent thinkers away from any dialogues on social credit.

[Ryan] This is a dialog, Norm. You just don't like the way it's going. Count the messages in the archive. More messages have been posted in the past few weeks, since I started participating, than were posted in the totality of the preceding months since the list commenced. By the way, who's posting to the ownership list now since I left? The answer is that nobody is posting. It is quiescent. Think about why, Norm. You can't blame it on me.

>When Rodney Shakespeare gets back to London, I hope that as the moderator of this group he will propose rules for discussants in this group that will hold people like Ryan in line with the goal of promoting intelligent and civilized discussions on monetary policy.

>Norm Kurland

>Center for Economic and Social Justice

>Web site: http://www.cesj.org

>"William B. Ryan" wrote:

[cut]