Subject: Re: TURMEL: Why did Christ speak in parables?
drasley@nbnet.nb.ca (Lazarus) wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 1995 01:50:52 GMT,
johnturmel@yahoo.com writes:
>>
>> How can anyone
hope to understand Christ's true mission if
>>one cannot decipher "why I speak in
parables?"
>
>If I were interested in nonsense like
that, I'd be reading this
>drivel on a religious-topic newsgroup,
not a tax-topic newsgroup.
>
My, what a short
attention span. Someone else recently asked
what this had to do with taxes and I answered
that it was
relevant. I guess poor Lazarus forgot
already.
>> In my next posting,
I will publish Christ's differential
>>equation and offer the one-word name
for it for those people who
>>did keep up with the topic.
>>
>>John "The Engineer" Turmel..
>>
>
>One-word name? Combining "Christ",
"John Turmel", and your brand of fantasy
>economics, three words come to mind:
Drivel, Tripe, and just plain Shit.
>
I'd guess you
never made it out of high school let alone
university where you might have acquired
a little more respect
for math. And I'd guess you didn't have
a good theological
upbringing or you might have acquired
a little more respect for
Christ.
As long as all
you can do is resort to name-calling, I'll
hope others judge you childish tantrum
as inane as I do.
bob@inforamp.net
(Bob Richards) wrote:
>
>In article <DAyqGt.HHD@freenet.carleton.ca>,
johnturmel@yahoo.com
>(John Turmel) wrote:
>
> Birds of a feather
flock together. It's too bad these guys have
>> nothing to contribute to the discussion
and don't mind telling
>> everybody about it.
>
> OK,I'll contribute
this,Turmel. Why dont give up posting
garbage and go back to being a failed
politician ?????????
>
You call that
a contribution? Just more of your childish
name calling drivel.
> Jesus Christ spoke in parables.
You "speak" only to
>hear(read) the sound of your own voice.
How dare you compare
>yourself to Jesus?
>
Christ objected
to the yoke of oppression. I object to the
yoke of oppression. Glad you noticed a
similarity.
>> In my
next posting, I will publish Christ's differential
>> equation and offer the one-word name
for it for those people who
>> did keep up with the topic.
>>
>> John "The Moron" Turmel..
>
> In your next posting,you should
commit suicide on-line...or I guess you
>like to keep nailing yourself to your
own self-erected crosses. Cling to
>the slippery stones of your self-annointed
importance,if you must,but you
>fool no-one except yourself.I guess as
long as you can keep fooling
>yourself,the end justifies the means,eh,spud?
>
I hear nothing
of substance about the topic. Grow up little
fellow. Name calling affects my mathematical
analysis like water
off a duck. Keep announcing how you can't
keep up with the math.
aa330@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Rod Manchee) wrote:
> In article <DAyqGt.HHD@freenet.carleton.ca>,
johnturmel@yahoo.com
> (John Turmel) wrote:
>
>> In my
next posting, I will publish Christ's differential
>> equation and offer the one-word name
for it for those people who
>> did keep up with the topic.
>
>hmm - a one-word name? how about idiots?
>
No. The idiots
and morons are the guys who aren't interested
in the discussion about the differential
equations and think
childish tantrums are going to impress
someone. I guess you fit
that bill too.
My, this discussion
about Christ and differential equations
certainly pressed a lot of their buttons.
Too bad it turned on
the foaming at the mouth.
I do so enjoy
battles of wits with unarmed opponents.
John "The Engineer" Turmel
---
Subject: Re: TURMEL: Why did Christ speak in parables?
One reader sent me a message:
> I've met a few "iron pinky
ring" types like yourself, and have
>found that none of them were stupid.
>
For non-Canadian
readers, Canadian engineers receive an "iron
pinky ring" after taking an oath to engineering
design similar to a
doctor's Hippocratic oath to physiological
design.
>If anything, they have good
>solid minds and generally accomplish
what they set out to do. I
>work for Canada Post as a computer programmer,
and two of my
>bosses were Engineers - one electrical,
the other mechanical. The
>only failings that I could find in their
methods, were that they
>tended to delve too deeply in details
which they should have left
>to peons in the programming staff.
>
I always thought
more people than less would be of the
opinion that the guys who get applied
science degrees aren't as
automatically stupid as some writers have
indicated.
> You are doing the same thing.
Your scathing retorts are
>humourous and quite entertaining, but
because of the time delay
>and nature of the medium, are largely
ignored by your debating
>opponent.
> You may or may not remember
my post, but I was so entertained
>at one of the exchanges that I posted
a very short reply to "Why
>
I can't resist
answering the diatribes because as I write my
retorts, I get a laugh out of them too.
I can't resist posting a
good barb hoping to entertain those who
are with me on the topic.
That the debating opponent doesn't see
that he's being made a fool
of himself is the reason they keep coming
back for more.
>> My, this
discussion about Christ and differential equations
>> certainly pressed a lot of their buttons.
Too bad it turned on
>> the foaming at the mouth.
>>
> Absolutely! It is amazing
how people choose to change their
>defecation location and modulate the
expulsion of air to
>approximate intelligible speech!
>
I have to disagree.
They don't come close to approximating
intelligible speech.
>> I do so
enjoy battles of wits with unarmed opponents.
>>
> Not so much unarmed opponents
as parrots. An unarmed
>individual can occasionally get in a
few shots, but alas, a
>parrot does not have the capacity...
>
True. I feel
to date totally unscathed by the barrage of
parroting.
John C. Turmel
---
One reader sent
me a message:
>
>All right, enough already :-) I came
late to this discussion, am not an
>engineer and not an expert on differential
equations, but I have suffered
>through all the personal attacks ( both
ways ) and the hints and am anxious
>to have the answer. I read can.taxes,
also wondered what this subject had
>to do with the price of tea in China
originally, but now you've got me
>hooked and I can't find the answer :-)
>Can you put me out of my misery with
the answer ( plus explanation in lay
>terms, if you don't mind.)
>Thanks,
>
I've received
so many posts that I'll answer them first and
post the solution on the week-end.
I would mention
that a "differential equation" is an
equation which describes how a system
works through time. It's
directly convertible into Laplace Transformations
which can then
be used to draw an electrical blue-print
of the system in
question.
I will do my
best to make it simple to understand and have
been quite successful at explaining it
to people who haven't
studied it so hang on for a fascinating
explanation of Christ's
true genius.
I was also challenged
by an engineer and I want to give him
a full opportunity to solve the puzzle
before I start making fun
of his university.
Another reader
sent me a message
>
>Some thoughts regarding your conundrum:
>
>B = Assets
>i = yield
>
>Let
>
>E = Expenses [taxes...etc] (Yearly, monthly
daily, depends on your unit of T)
>N = Net Income
>x = proportional fraction of 'i' indicating
advancing incomes
> x <= 'i'
>y = proportional fraction of 'i' indicating:
>
1) inflationary price pressures
>
2) the greed factor
>
Lets postulate something proportional to Assets/Expenses
> Hence
> y >> 'i' though mileage
may very
>
>Hence Networth(T):
>
>
(1+i)T (x)*T (y)*T
>Networth => B
+ I - E
>
(x)*T (y)*T
>If we assume no greed factor the Terms
I - E
>the limit as T approaches infinity yields
negative result since y>x.
>
>With a proportional greed factor (ie
standard of living improvement,
>
livin' large, etc...)
>This value goes negative even faster.
>
>The zero sum point will be when (1+i)T
cannot offset the other terms...
>
>While this may approximate the answer
you were expecting;
>
Actually, this
is far too complicated to fit Christ's
statement. There are only three variables,
Balance, Increase and
time. And this isn't in the form of a
differential equation.
>I do believe that Christ spoke in parables
because to taunt
>the established jewish orthodoxy with
his command of their
>inner teachings. In my honest opinion,
he was a reformer of
>the orthodoxy in that his message was
>"YOU can save YOURSELF, no one can do
it for YOU"
>
It's true that
use of Christ's differential equation does
allow his followers to save themselves
and I will get into not
only his mathematical description of the
oppressor system but
also the mathematical description of his
saving system.
Stephen Froehlich
<froehlik@physics.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>On Sun, 2 Jul 1995, John Turmel wrote:
>
>> Your
talk of linear, second order, sound like you have taken
>> the required math to answer the question
but your talk of "phase
>> space," "dimensions," and "conservation"
sounds like you haven't.
>> It wasn't in my study of differential
equations in engineering
>> mathematics.
>
>
I was thinking of numerical methods involving phase space in
>conservative systems (equal volume etc.)
I was observing that they
>wouldn't work either. In other
words, that with all the techniques I've
>been presented with, I see no equation
to write down, much less solve.
>
>> So again,
what is the differential equation for:
>> "To those
who have abundance will more be given but from
>> those who have no abundance, even what
they have will be taken
>> away."
>> Where
"B" is the original amount, "i" is the rate of
>> increase and "t" is time.
>
>
In a 1st order approx:
>dB/dt = (B-c) * B if B >= 0. The problem
here is what if B=c? (c
>is an arbitrary constant to determine
the threshold between
>growth and decay.)
>
Real close! But
it doesn't use the increase "i" and there's
no issue of decay in the statement. But
it's really really close.
I know that when I publish the result,
you'll see it right away.
>This is silly, though, how do you measure
spiritual gifts with
>numbers.
>
Maybe he wasn't
measuring spiritual gifts...
>> If they
are that easy to understand, why are there so many
>> different interpretations? And none
dealing with his stated
>> reason for why he spoke in parables?
>
>
How different are the various interpretations? Jesus is weird,
>yes, but he wanted to be understood.
I never found it that hard to
>understand what he was saying.
I get the feeling that the different
>interps come from agendas where points
were meant to be vague.
>
But the fact
that the interpretation I'm going to give you
has never been offered before is based
on a claim to have broken
His code so that His parables can be accurately
understood.
>> And yes
you will. It is quite an astounding revelation to
>> understand what he meant when he said:
>> "I speak
in parables because ""To those who have abundance
>> will more be given but from those who
have no abundance, even
>> what they have will be taken away.""
>> Breaking
this code opens up whole new meanings is everything
>> he said.
>
>
What ever happened to blessed are the poor, for their inheritance
>will be great in the kingdom of heaven,
or it is harder to pass a rope
>through the eye of a needle than for
a rich man to enter the kingdom of
>heaven?
>
I'm glad you
noted those particulate statements because it
all fits in and I'm sure you'll be delighted
by the connection.
By the way, I think it's a "camel" through
the eye of the needle
but a rope would work too.
>> >That's it, enough already. Call out
the guys in white coats.
>>
>> This
guy rarely manages to produce more than one line. And
>> it's usually lacking in wit as this
recent effort. Every time
>> I've challenged him, he's always backed
down and this is all he
>> has to resort to.
>
>
Well, here I is. I'd rather not fight, but if you insist...
>(BTW, I was expression frustration, not
sarcasm.)
>
I'm sorry but
I wasn't talking about you. I was talking
about the guys who said to call out the
guys with the white
coats.
>> To him,
people who've studied mathematics deserve being
>> taken away by the guys in white coats.
I never knew their coats
>> were white. I wonder how he did?
>
>
I guess that I deserve to be hauled off, as along with my degree
>in Physics, I'm putting in a Math degree
on the side.
>
I don't doubt
your degree as I doubt the degrees of the
others who haven't even come close and
therefore opined no one
else could. Again, I'm looking forward
to continuing our
discussion once the import of his equations
are published.
>> I will
add another clue.
>> The increment
of your abundance relative to the increment of
>> time equals the percentage increase
times your original abundance.
>
>B= B(n-1) + kB(1). This is a linear
increase. I personally have never
>seen a straight line in nature before.
>Stephen
>
It's not a linear
increase. Your first differential equation
provided the exponential increase I was
talking about.
The Lone Pilgrim
<75212.507@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
>I'm obviously in the middle of a discussion
I do not fathom, but
>if the question is: Why did Jesus Christ
speak in parables, the
>answer is interesting:
>
>1. "Parable" is a compound word coming
from the Greek "to throw
>or cast" and the Greek "along side."
So a parable is something
>cast alongside something else. In short
it is an analog. The
>something that is cast along side is
that which is known. For
>instance, I know a certain piece of wood
is exactly three feet
>long. It is marked in inches. But I do
not know how long, say, a
>piece of carpet is. I cast the known
thing (a yardstick) along
>the unknown piece of carpet, and I transfer
the truth of what I
>know to what I do not know. Thus, the
yardstick is a parable, and
>I gain knowledge about the carpet.
>
Thanks for explaining
parable. It certainly fits with what I
thought the parable did.
>2. Therefore, Jesus Christ spoke in parables
not so that someone
>would NOT know what he meant, but so
they WOULD know.
>
I think that
when you see the solution to puzzle and
realize what a challenge it was to the
status quo, you might
agree that the parable was meant to confuse
those with the power
into not seeing what a condemnation of
their system of oppression
it was. Had they understood, the publishing
houses would have
perhaps erased his message but as they
have taken it the wrong
way, in an exactly opposite way, his message
has spanned two
millennia to reach us today.
>Thus he
>fulfilled Scripture concerning the Jews
of His time that they
>"SEEING would not see, and HEARING, they
would not hear." The
>parables he told made sure they saw,
and heard. Then they made
>sure they didn't.
>
Actually, his
parable did make sure that they miscontrued
the meaning of the parable in a magnificently
tricky way.
sudds@unixg.ubc.ca
(Bruce Sudds) wrote:
>
>To those interested in the discussion
- why did Christ speak in Parables:
>
>first of all he was likely not a Pharisee,
as his teaching was so
>revolutionary, that they would have tossed
him out. Maybe he was in the
>beginning but he was quite young to have
that office.
>Personally, I like to believe that what
he was teaching was the core
>stuff to existence like Muhammad or Buddha,
and like life it's mysterious.
>Parables allow room for interpretation
and celebration.
>
That's what I
hope to show, that he was teaching the core
stuff to a Heavenly existence on Earth.
Parables do allow
room for interpretation but more
importantly, to misinterpretations. After
all, right after making
the statement, not only did he see that
"they will forever be
seeing without seeing and hearing without
hearing," as they have,
but also "It has been given unto you to
see the secrets to the
Kingdom of Heaven" on Earth."
So the key statement
describing the Yoke of Oppression that
creates a Hell on Earth instead of the
Heaven that could be Earth
was given to them to understand but to
the others, they would
forever never get it.
Doesn't sound
to me like he meant for wicked to understand
the hidden meaning.
bob@inforamp.net
(Bob Richards) wrote:
>
>> > OK,I'll contribute
this,Turmel. Why dont give up posting
>> garbage and go back to being a failed
politician ?????????
>> >
>> You call
that a contribution? Just more of your childish
>> name calling drivel.
>
> Whoa,Spud ! I didnt call
you a name.
>
"Garbage?" "Failed
Policitian?" That's not name-calling?
>You are a incredibly failed politician.
>
See. You're still
doing it.
>0 for 38 or is it 39? That is a fact that
in your never-ending
>craving for attention,you,yourself,Turdmel,are
submitting to the Guiness
>Book of Records.I guess craving recognition
for being a loser is what you
>have been reduced to.
>
It's a world
record 39 times in 14 years of trying. Sure
I've lost a lot of elections pushing the
Greendollar Local
Employment Trading System but I haven't
lost any of these
debates.
"Turdmel." Sounds
like name-calling again.
"Craving for
attention" is a cheap shot. All my efforts have
been to help the poor and I've repeated
umpteen times that the
reason I run is that the Greendollar Local
Employment Trading
System works and should be offered on
the Municipal, Provincial
or National levels.
I just received
a paper by Prof. Colin Williams of Leeds
Metropolitan University in Britain to
be presented to the 9th
Association of European Schools of Planning
at the "Regeneration
of Peripheral Regions" held at the University
of Strathclyde,
Glascow, Scotland, Aug. 17-19, 1995 on
the Greendollar LETSystem
whose development I've financed and promoted
since the mid 1980s.
In it, he points
out that "LETS are indeed helping the poor
and unemployed palliate their social exclusion,
poverty and
inability to participate in productive
activity.
"LETS could help
the unemployed transcend all the
constraints which prevent them from engaging
in informal work.
Such networks give the unemployed back
some self-esteem,
empowering them to participate in work
and to demonstrate their
worth through economic activity."
"LETS represent
a means for the unemployed to subdue their
circumstances thus lessening the probability
of them turning to
crime as means of getting by."
"LETS provides
a valuable vehicle for meeting the needs and
wants of the poor and unemployed in the
near future and beyond."
He quotes Peter
Baldwin, Australia's Minister for Social
Security:
LETS type schemes
are a useful community initiative. They
represent a form of activity that assists
our clients in keeping
in contact with labour market skills and
habits."
I've used 39
elections as opportunities to promote setting
large-scale LETSystems and if you want
to think that it was a
craving for recognition, then let it then
be craving for the
recognition that LETS can help save the
poor from their miserable
fate.
>> > Jesus Christ spoke in
parables. You "speak" only to
>> >hear(read) the sound of your own voice.
How dare you compare
>> >yourself to Jesus?
>> >
>> Christ
objected to the yoke of oppression. I object to the
>> yoke of oppression. Glad you noticed
a similarity.
>
> A more preferable
similarity would be if you were both dead.
>
You're not only
foaming at the mouth but rabid too.
>> I hear
nothing of substance about the topic. Grow up little
>> fellow. Name calling affects my mathematical
analysis like water
>> off a duck. Keep announcing how you
can't keep up with the math.
>
> You are not capable of noticing
substance. You are a demagogic raver
>craving the attention that has been denied
you all your pathetic life.My
>post was very explicit and totally non-ambigous.Your
mathematical "skills"
>are best described as 2+2=ME ! ME ! ME
!
>
I don't usually
mention this but I scored "genius" in the
math portion of my OSAT tests. How did
you do?
The fact that
others have offered solutions to the puzzle
which have come very close and you haven't
been able to get past
arithmetic doesn't inspire confidence
in your opinion.
>And watch who you're calling little fellow,there,runt!I
heard about you
>in your Rhino days and I know a guy who
be THRILLED to tell ALL bout
>Turdmel for the world to smell.Actually,now
that I think about it,a few
>people.John sends his regards.He may
send more...
>
My Rhino days?
What Rhino days? And if you really had
something verifiably bad to say about
me, I doubt you could have
controlled yourself.
So why don't
you get this guy, John, who would be thrilled
to tell the world about me and go ahead
and try. I know I've got
no skeletons in my closets to be ashamed
of so post or back down.
In a nasty new
post by kendall@io.org (David Kendall)
titled:
>Subject: Re: CHRIST: Why does Turmel
speak nonsense?
kamamer@io.org
(karl mamer) wrote:
>
>kendall@io.org (David Kendall) writes:
>>
>> That's it, enough already. Call out
the guys in white coats.
>
>I thought he was joking but maybe not.
cathar@passport.ca
added:
>
>The reason why he's acting like a babbling
idiot is merely
>because HE CAN!!!
kamamer@io.org
(karl mamer) continued:
>
>Christ did a lot of drugs. I think that
answers everything.
>Rise from the dead? He was so fucked
up on smack that they
>only thought he was dead. How do I know?
I was christ in another
>life. Baby.
>Listen up. Baby. I'm your god. I'm your
Christ.
>
af706@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Sean P. Maguire) added:
>
>Actually, he's already got the helmet.
>John, on behalf of those few of us who
read ncf.federal-election.national,
>please take us out of the header...pretty
please....
>Sean P. Maguire
>List Owner, ECONOMY (Economic Issues
in Developing Nations)
>
It's amazing
that someone who purports to be interested in
economic issues in developing nations
wouldn't be interested in
the reason those nations are in the precarious
position they are
now in.
It's really true
that they'll forever be hearing without
hearing and seeing without seeing.
I won't contribute
to that stream but I will post their
ravings and let them speak for themselves.
Solution to Christ's
puzzle coming up on the week-end.
John C. Turmel
---
Subject: Re: TURMEL: Why did Christ speak in parables?
puttcamp@gate.net (Robert Puttcamp) wrote:
>In article <3tcg9e$1k0@news1.best.com>,
Jeffrey J Barbose
><barbose@HowLand.com> says:
>>
>>Perhaps it is only (or mostly only)
the parables which SURVIVED to this
>>day because one could orally relate
the parable, most could understand
>>the simple story of a parable, and MOST
importantly: with the changing
>>times, one could continue to find meaning
in a parable.
>>
>>The key point of the last item, though,
is that the MEANING changes with
>>the times: a parable related today might
and should be interpreted
>>differently than the very same parable
related 2000 years ago.
>
That's the beauty
of Christ's parables. Though there is only
one correct interpretation, it's been
hidden amid a plethora or
changing misinterpretations.
>The answer to the question is not further
away than the nearest copy of
>your Bible. Let us look at what
Christ Jesus had to say when he was
>asked why he spoke in parables:
>
>Matthew 13:10
>10 And the disciples came, and said unto
him, Why speakest thou unto
>them in parables?
>
>11 He answered and said unto them, Because
it is given unto you to
>know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, but to them it is not given.
>
>12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be
given, and he shall have more
>abundance: but whosoever hath not, from
him shall be taken away even
>that he hath.
>
>13 Therefore speak I to them in parables:
because they seeing see not;
>and hearing they hear not, neither do
they understand.
>
>14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy
of Esaias, which saith, By
>hearing ye shall hear, and shall not
understand; and seeing ye shall
>see, and shall not perceive:
>
>15 For this people's heart is waxed gross,
and [their] ears are dull
>of hearing, and their eyes they have
closed; lest at any time they
>should see with [their] eyes, and hear
with [their] ears, and should
>understand with [their] heart, and should
be converted, and I should
>heal them.
>
>16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they
see: and your ears, for they
>hear.
>
>17 For verily I say unto you, That many
prophets and righteous [men]
>have desired to see [those things] which
ye see, and have not seen [them];
>and to hear [those things] which ye hear,
and have not heard [them].
>Now, does that answer your question as
to why Jesus spoke in parables?
>Bob
>
Glad you posted
the whole story. I'll go over each paragraph
once the key to the parables has been
offered.
u9209263@muss.cis.McMaster.CA
(C. Currie) gave some useful
history on the Pharisees and wrote:
I may have been
dogmatic when it came to the Pharisees but
two passages come to mind. I've put every
passage relevant to my
interest to verse and will quote from
my 500 line poem:
In Romans 6:23, he says "The wage of sin
is death,
But know the gift of God is life with
an eternal breath."
The Pharisees loved money and they sneered
when Jesus spoke,
He said "What's valued among men is, in
God's sight, a joke."
In Luke 9:23 he said "For worthiness of
me,
You must take up your cross and be not
like a Pharisee."
I have an abhorence
for the love of money and may have
adopted his attitude without researching
their good points.
>I'm not intending to insult your religion,
by the way (I'm not even sure
>what your beliefs are, for that matter).
But you should at least make
>your beliefs open to historical scrutiny.
>
I think my beliefs
will be open to historical scrutiny once
the reason he spoke in parables is exposed.
>The phrase, "Do unto
>others as you would have done unto you"
as, in fact, sighted by Maccoby
>as simply an alteration of the Pharisee
saying, "Do not do unto others
>which you would not have done unto you"
>
If the Pharisees
were to practice what they preached, loving
money was a violation of that creed.
>BTW, why is this cross-posted on so many
different groups, most of them
>unrelated to the topic at hand?
This discussion belongs in a Christian
>or Jewish history group, not in "ont.general"
or "can.taxes". It doesn't
>really belong on "alt.conspiracy" either,
but I can understand why some
>people would wish to put it here.
>
Good question.
Since exorbitant taxes have always been one
symptom of the Yoke of Oppression, you'll
soon see how Christ's
differential equation relates to taxes.
The reason I
cross-post to ont.general is that I've been
involved in Ontario politics for the last
16 years and have many
supporters around the province.
Since within
Christ's teaching is the way out of the world's
destructive chaos, I decided to post his
solution to several
conferences who will see the connection
when it becomes visible.
Jeffrey J Barbose <barbose@HowLand.com> wrote:
>puttcamp@gate.net wrote:
>
>>The answer to the question is not further
away than the nearest copy of
>>your Bible. Let us look at what
Christ Jesus had to say when he was
>>asked why he spoke in parables:
>
>[bible passages deleted]
>
>Using the bible to explain the bible
is the equivalent of making
>a statement and then defending it by
only repeating "cuz I said so!"
>
Robert Puttcamp puttcamp@gate.net responded:
>Gee, I thought the question was why did
Jesus speak in parables, not
>are we using the Bible to defend the
Bible. I also thought that the
>best possible explanation of why Jesus
spoke in parables would be to
>quote him on the subject. Apparently
he is not to be accepted as an
>authority on why he spoke as he did.
Strange concept.
>
I agree. I thought
the reproduction of the whole passage was
a very helpful contribution. What would
you suggest using to
explain the Bible if not direct reference
to the Bible?
Jeffrey J Barbose <barbose@HowLand.com> responded:
>Have you no grasp of what 'tautology'
is?
>
Yes. Describing
the same thing twice in one sentence in
equivalent terms. What he really did was
offer the full text of
the passage.
Last hint to the differential equation:
To each who has
100 abundance will 10 more be given and from
him who has -100, 10 will be taken away.
Or to each who has
100,000 abundance will 10,000 more be
given and from him has -
100,000, 10,000 will be taken away.
So think of the
the increase "i" as a percentage of the
original balance.
On last point
about the Greendollar system. Prof. Williams
mentions that in 1992, there were only
two LETSystems in Great
Britain. By the middle of 1995, there
were 350 with over 30,000
participants.
Australia has
nearly 200 systems and I'd guess another
20,000 members there. New Zealand has
almost 50 systems, Canada
has a dozen, the United States has several
Time Dollar systems
which use the same software and are supported
by Ralph Nader.
They're also starting up in several European
countries too.
All of them are
based on Christ's differential equation and
all of them are bringing relief to the
oppressed poor.
J.C. Turmel
---
Subject: Re: TURMEL: What National Debt???
hawley@ibm.net wrote:
>johnturmel@yahoo.com (John Turmel)
writes:
>
>> I'm sorry but I assumed you might have
been following the
>> discussion about the differential equation
used by Christ to
>> explain the cause of the world's ills.
>
>This is pretty far fetched,
John. No biblical prophets used
>differential equations. This
idea is something that you are
>trying to impose upon an existing framework,
and it just won't
>fit.
>
Isn't this amazing.
One other reader comes close to the
solution to Christ's differential equation,
another comes really
close to the actual differential equation
and this guy still has
the nerve to say that he just can't see
it ever being done.
Boy, isn't he
going to feel less than smart when it is shown
that Christ's statement was a differential
equation describing
the Yoke of Oppression enslaving mankind.
danp@bowsoft.com (Dan Paslawski) wrote:
>I was snooping in can.politics and I picked
up on your threads regarding
>Christ's differential equation.
Unfortunately, I showed up late, so I have
>not seen your original posting.
>If you still have the original posting/"puzzle",
could you email me a copy.
>I am curious.
>Thanks,
>Dan Paslawski, Software Engineer
Email: danp@bowsoft.com
>
This is the original
post:
WHY DID CHRIST SPEAK IN PARABLES?
In Matthew 13:10
of the New International Version Bible, it
states:
"The disciples
came to him and asked
"Why do you speak
to the people in parables?"
He replied:
"The knowledge
of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have
been given to you but not to them.
Whoever has abundance
will be given even more but whoever does
not have abundance, even what he has will
be taken away.
This is why I
speak to them in parables."
So, why did he speak in parables?
In one word, what
is the meaning of "To everyone who has
abundance will more be given but from
him who has no abundance,
even what he has will be taken away?"
What is the differential
equation for "To everyone who has
abundance will more be given but from
him who has no abundance,
even what he has will be taken away?"
John C. Turmel
Over the subsequent
postings, I included several hints.
I pointed out that it involved three variables:
"B" = Balance, "i" = percent increase,
"t" is time
I'll post the
complete stream after the week-end which will
include the solution to the puzzle of
Christ's differential
equation.
John C. Turmel
---
Subject: Re: TURMEL: Why did Christ speak in parables?
graham@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Jim Graham) wrote:
>John Turmel (johnturmel@yahoo.com)
wrote:
>
>> If they
are that easy to understand, why are there so many
>> different interpretations? And none
dealing with his stated
>> reason for why he spoke in parables?
>
>Precisely. Christ did not speak
in parables to make difficult
>concepts EASIER for the masses to grasp.
He spoke in parables so
>that the masses did NOT understand, unless
they were "ready".
>In short, he spoke in parables to confuse
the masses, as they
>were not yet prepared within their hearts
and spiritually to
>follow him. At least that's how I remember
the reason for
>parables.
>Jim Graham
>
Thanks Jim. I
was only guessing that all the
misinterpretations were part of his plan
to hide the true meaning
of his mission.
But if that's
what you were taught, then it certainly
conforms with my deduction.
>"If ye love wealth greater than liberty,
the tranquillity of
servitude
>greater than the animating contest for
freedom, go home from us in
>peace. We seek not your counsel,
nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the
>hand that feeds you; and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen."
>(Samuel Adams)
>
The contest for
true freedom was part of Christ's mission.
After all, he did say that he didn't come
to bring peace but to
bring a sword. Though he did end up using
a whip.
drasley@nbnet.nb.ca (Lazarus) wrote:
>What amazes me is the audacity of these
"Christians" who try to
>substantiate their failing positions
with "biblical
>interpretations".
>
What until you
find out what Christ's differential equation
stands for and then tell me if my "biblican
interpretation" is
substantiating a "failing position" or
not.
>A) Mathematical formulae for these
positions you espouse did not
>exist until centuries after the existance
of "Christ";
>
The Mathematical
formulae may not have been known until
after the existence of Christ but they
have existed for all time.
Would you say that algebra didn't exist
until it was discovered
or it wasn't known until it was discovered?
The formulae were
always there, only their discovery was
lacking.
>B) Not everyone subscribes to the
"truth" which you indicate
>exists as a matter of simple scholarly
pursuits;
>
I haven't even
told them my "truth" yet so why would they
already be not subscribing?
>and by no means
>what is written in the "New Testament"
can be taken as fact by
>any student of empirical studies as you
profess to be by your
>postings.
>
If Christ's statement
is the truth, how can the fact it
resides in the New Testament suggest that
it not be taken as
fact?
>Religion is based on faith, mathematics
on true science.
>
Who says religion
can't be based on true science too?
>Differential equations? I'm no self-proclaimed
expert in
>differential equations,
>
I'm not a self-proclaimed
expert. I'm proclaimed by my
university professor after I passed his
course.
>but didn't advanced calculus begin with
>the Newtonian Era of thought? If
such methods of analysis
>existed back when this "Christ" was around,
do you not think that
>there would be some substantiable evidence
of the fact which
>would be available for discussion?
>
That's what I
hope to provide on the week-end when I publish
his differential equation. The fact he
described the oppressor
system in prose is not reason not to be
able to see that he
described it in the form of a differential
equation.
Besides, Stephen
Froelich, an impartial scientist, figured
out 99% of the differential equation on
his own. If he can see a
differential equation in the prose too,
how can you publically
state that you have doubt?
>Excuse me for pointing out FACTS, but
economical questions back
>then were for the most part dictated
by Roman occupational forces
>and Empirial dictum -- now that
was economic power!.
>
Rome was just
another national empire within the orbit of
the world-wide gold-bullion-brokers empire
stretching from Europe
to Asia just as every nation on Earth
today is under the control
of a Global Banking cartel. All nations
are enslaved by the same
device to the same group.
>To attribute modern mathematical theorums
to those times
>related by the "testaments" written about
that time (centuries
>after the fact, actually) is sheer folly.
>
Oh, so what was
true in the past is necessarily not true
anymore? I have to disagree. The root
cause of poverty and
slavery then is still the root cause of
poverty and slavery now.
That's why Stephen Froelich has a science
degree and you don't.
He didn't treat it like sheer folly.
>Need I add more?
>
I think you'll
have to try.
>To begin with, currencies in circulation
then
>were based upon actual valuable metals,
linked directly to
>verifiable "collateral" as the coinage
was in actual precious
>metals -- the coins themselves were minted
from valuable metals,
>and had value beyond any guarantees made
by sovereign states.
>
Not all currencies
were based upon valuable metals. The
original Roman Empire used fiat Aes Grave
copper money. Many
other fiat currencies were based on clay,
leather, etc. Actually,
the very best money has no intrinsic value
at all. Credit in a
bank's computer is working all over the
world now and how much
intrinsic value resides in the deposit
in your bank account?
>Fiat currencies were a long way from becoming
the current
>standard, let alone the system which
we now have, which is based
>on a country's promise to pay, and compared
against the
>international market for valuation against
other currencies.
>
And these fiat
currencies would all work fine but for one
fatal bug in the bank's computers' programming.
>Let me state, John Turmel, that your ideas
for a collateral-based
>economy are not original, and certainly
not new.
>
That's my whole
point. But the Masters of the World who own
the publishing houses have pushed the
successful examples down
the memory hole or falsely denigrated
their efficacity.
How many studies
of British Tallies have you heard of? How
many times have you heard of bankers calling
government
currencies "funny money" or have you heard
the denigration "not
worth a Continental" even though Benjamin
Franklin found that
pre-revolutionary "Continentals" worked
admirably until British
counterfeiting sabotaged their value?
All I know is
that collateral-based Poker chips are a
perfect liquidity medium and anytime I
hear that a government was
using a collateral-based currency (not
necessarily gold), I know
that it had to work as well as poker chips
and the bankers'
laughter only reinforces my belief that
they're conning us.
>I first read
>about a system such as you espouse for
governing money, interest,
>et. al. well over ten years ago, in a
publication from 1951 --
>more precisely, it is contained in an
anthology of SCIENCE
>FICTION stories ("And Then There Were
None" by Eric Frank
>Russell). The economy was based on "obs"
(obligations), basically
>IOU's based on the contributions of the
members of the society,
>which were tradeable for other goods/services
provided by other
>members of that same society. Yes,
the idea has merit,
>
YES THE IDEA
HAS MERIT. What you have described is "exactly"
how LETS Greendollars work. Everyone gets
a Greendollar account
starting at zero and the purchaser goes
negative while the
provider goes positive. In the LETS system,
they're called
"commitments" which is perfectly analogous
to "obligations."
>but it is
>also based on the universal acceptibility
of these "obs", which
>are identical to your "poker chip" analogy
you are so fond of
>using.
>
You are absolutely
correct. The monetary tokens are based on
people's time whether measured in services
or goods.
>Without a central unit of conversion (dollars,
for an
>example), these units are still completely
interchangeable except
>at the discretion of the users, basing
them on the "cost" of
>other goods and services which they will
want to acquire.
>
They don't need
a central unit of conversion as "obs" or
"Greendollars" are the unit of conversion
just as Poker chips
don't need any central unit of conversion.
>This
>is the same problem which arose from
the basic BARTERING system
>which was used before the introduction
of hard currency.
>
I don't see any
problem and neither did those in antiquity
who accepted a man's leather disc which
promised one cow.
>John Turmel -- All your "program"
does is keep track of the
>value of the bartered goods and services,
and serves as a "bank"
>for unredeemed credits.
>
Right you are
again.
>Now, how does this get translated into
>dollars for Revenue Canada and/or provincial
finance departments,
>so that the legal taxes may be paid on
this income? Do you feel
>that since your system doesn't use actual
"dollars" that it is
>exempt from taxation? Do you relay
this obligation to the users
>of your system, so that they may pay
the proper taxes due? (To
>not do so is to encourage tax fraud/tax
avoidance.)
>
As soon as the
Government starts accepting Greendollars in
taxes and then uses them to pay for things
government needs,
there is no problem. Until then, payment
of the taxes in federal
is still no barrier to the major advantage.
Example:
A school teacher
earns $25,000 a year which is deposited to
his bank account. He spends it all on
his family's upkeep.
If that teacher
earns an extra $5,000 doing extra work for
Greendollars and if he uses the $5,000
Greendollars instead of
$5,000 from his bank account to maintain
the same level of
purchases, he has $5,000 in federal cash
left in his account with
which to pay his taxes on $30,000 income.
After the extra
taxes are paid, the remainder of the cash in
his bank account can be spent or used
to pay down his federal
cash debts.
So this is not
a tax-avoidance system, it's an interest
avoidance system though it would work
best when the government
has it's own Greendollar account and accepts
Green in taxes.
This is not being
lobbied for in countries like Australia,
New Zealand and Great Britain.
>The moment you bring quasi-believable
religious interpretations
>to your debate over your proposed monetary
policies, you
>discredit yourself immensely (not that
you havn't done so
>already).
>
That's a problem
I've always faced. If I stick to only
scientific argument, many religious people
can't follow and may
not be impressed.
If I stick to
only religious argument for the same thing,
many scientific people adopt your attitude.
"If religion says
it's good, I won't take it seriously."
And of course,
economists always state that I've discredited
myself without once stating how.
You say I've
been discredited. If my using religious
instruction to bolster my argument is
all you have to fall back
on, I find that is discrediting you, not
me.
>"Biblical" interpretations have been used
as the
>justification for many, many injustices
throughout the centuries,
>
And because they've
been used to justify injustices, does
that mean to you that they are only used
to justify injustices
and never justice. What about where it
says "Love Thy Neighbor?"
Is that telling you to do an injustice
against your neighbor?
>and by hitching yourself to this bandwagon
you immediately bring
>your ideas and philosophies under extreme
scrutiny,
>
I don't mind
my ideas being brought under extreme scrutiny
though you've expressed your disfavor
before even hearing them.
That's kind of prejudiced, isn't it?
>without having to resort to the economic
realities which seem so
>far beyond your grasp
>
I think that
having participated in the creation of the
Greendollar system which is being hailed
around the world as an
economic life-boat implies I have a greater
grasp of the economic
realities than you do.
What you really
mean is that if I had your grasp of the
economic realities, I, like you, would
bow down and agree with
the economists that the problem is too
big to handle.
Fortunately,
an engineering background far better prepares
one to deal with realities than an economics
background.
>that you leave us laughing at your attempts
to
>construct a *real* argument for your
case.
>
Laughing before
you even hear the argument. Typical. Why
don't you wait until I publish the answer
on the week-end before
you start laughing.
By the way, I'd
just like to note that you haven't been able
to derive the differential equation so
I think that the laughing
should be left to me. He who laughs last,
laughs best. And as
long as you can't figure out what we're
talking about, I'm
laughing too.
What's saddest
is that you seem to understand the story on
"obs" and state that "YES THE IDEA HAS
MERIT" and yet you still
don't see the link to Christ's differential
equation. I guess
you'll forever be seeing without seeing
and hearing without
hearing.
You have to admit,
Christ came up with quite a relevant
insult for guys like you who not only
can't see but are too busy
laughing at an IDEA WHICH HAS MERIT to
try to see either.
John "The Engineer" Turmel
---
Subject: Re: TURMEL: Why did Christ speak in parables?
Stephen Froehlich <froehlik@physics.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Jul 1995, John Turmel wrote:
>
>> I would
mention that a "differential equation" is an
>> equation which describes how a system
works through time. It's
>> directly convertible into Laplace Transformations
which can then
>> be used to draw an electrical blue-print
of the system in
>> question.
>
>
I must admit that I'm not convinced that this isn't a
>joke. I think its time to do a
background check on Herr Turmel.
>How does a solution to a diffEq lead
directly to an electrical
>blue-print? Are we referring to
circuit diagrams here? Remember,
>I'm a lowly physics student. We
apply DiffEq to physical
>problems more than harmonic circuits.
>
Differential
equations can be converted into Laplace
Transformations from which we can draw
the control system. In my
next post, I will provide the control
system for your
consideration.
>> I will
do my best to make it simple to understand and have
>> been quite successful at explaining
it to people who haven't
>> studied it so hang on for a fascinating
explanation of Christ's
>> true genius.
>
>
This should be good. I would like to see your explicit
>solution also.
>
>> I was
also challenged by an engineer and I want to give him
>> a full opportunity to solve the puzzle
before I start making fun
>> of his university.
>
>
You're welcome to make fun of me and my University if you want,
>though I'm prob. not the one you're referring
to. I am simply fascinated
>to see where this came from.
>
You're right,
you weren't the engineer I was referring to.
That exchange took place under another
stream but since I posted
it to the very same newsgroups, I assumed
that the people reading
this one might have read the other one:
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: What National Debt???
>
> kduhaime@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
() wrote:
>
>>John Turmel (johnturmel@yahoo.com)
wrote:
>>:
>>: kduhaime@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
>>:
>>: >John, PLEASE! do us all a favor and
stop wasting bandwidth. I have both
>>: >an undergraduate degree in engineering,
and a Master's degree in business
>>: >and economics.
>>: >
>>: What
kind of university would have given you an engineering
>>: degree? Or did studying the brain-washing
topics of business and
>>: economics make you forget all the
good science you learned in
>>: systems engineering? Or did you find
your degree in a box of
>>: Cracker Jacks?
>>
>>The university was McGill, Cartoon U.
boy, and you have continued to
>>demonstrate that you are not worth the
bandwidth to bother with any
>>explanation. Might I suggest some
reading however; for starter's, just
>>about anything by Michael Porter of
Harvard on competitiveness, and
>>product life cycles. You might
also check out some of Roger Moore's work
>>at Western Business School (Roger is
an engineer as well.)
>>KEITH DUHAIME
email: kduhaime@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
>>
> I'm sorry but
I assumed you might have been following the
>discussion about the differential equation
used by Christ to
>explain the cause of the world's ills.
> I'm still waiting
for you to come up with the differential
>equation. It's one of the easiest and
I won't bother to read
>anything you think is important until
you prove you can handle
>basic engineering math.
> People have
been pushing me to publish the solution and one
>has recently come close.
> Considering
I gave you the Laplace Transformation, you have
>no excuse not to be able to solve the
puzzle.
> You can decry
what I'm writing all you want but everybody
>will know your school didn't teach you
to handle engineering as
>well as Cartoon U (Carleton) taught me.
> I'll be publishing
it on the week-end and you have three
>days to show me that you still have some
engineering knowledge
>left.
> If you can't
derive the differential equation given the
>Laplace Transformation, I'm sorry but
I just can't take you
>seriously.
> Also, if you
do take the time to work it out, and then draw
>the control system for the cause of the
world's ills, you might
>take me more seriously.
This is the McGill
University engineer who made fun of me
and Carleton University and who I challenged
to show he was worth
his degree. So far, he hasn't.
>> It's true
that use of Christ's differential equation does
>> allow his followers to save themselves
and I will get into not
>> only his mathematical description of
the oppressor system but
>> also the mathematical description of
his saving system.
>
>
If this is the case, I think this not only qualifies for being
>totally without basis, but also Christian
heresy. Whatever this is it
>has absolutely nothing to do with Christ
outside of Mr. Turmel's mind.
>
How can claiming
that Christ defined not only the oppressor
system but also gave us a system to save
ourselves be heresy?
>> >This is silly, though, how do you measure
spiritual gifts with
>> >numbers.
>> >
>> Maybe
he wasn't measuring spiritual gifts...
>
>
Jesus didn't care about wealth. The rich get richer and poor get
>poorer may be Medieval Christianity,
but it is not Jesus' Christianity.
>
No, no. "The
rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is
what the oppressor does. "The rich helping
the poor so that they
may later return the favor if the rich
should ever become poor"
is what he suggested. (Paul Corr II 8:14)
>> But the
fact that the interpretation I'm going to give you
>> has never been offered before is based
on a claim to have broken
>> His code so that His parables can be
accurately understood.
>
>
What does higher and deeper mean to you?
>
It means that
someone recognized that Christ said he spoke
in parables so they wouldn't understand
because of an oppressor
system he defined in a differential equation
which he also used
in two of his parables.
>> >
Well, here I is. I'd rather not fight, but if you insist...
>> >(BTW, I was expression frustration,
not sarcasm.)
>> >
>> I'm sorry
but I wasn't talking about you. I was talking
>> about the guys who said to call out
the guys with the white
>> coats.
>
>I remember saying that. I will
take the blame for it, gladly.
>
No, you're not
the one I had in mind. It was kendall@io.org
(David Kendall) contributed his usual
two cents:
>
>>That's it, enough already. Call out
the guys in white coats.
>
I don't remember
you being ignorant or insulting though
perhaps originally a bit skeptical so
there's no blame for you to
take.
kamamer@io.org (karl mamer) sent the message:
Christ says it's bad to POST people's private
email. I am your
christ. I say stop, kook boy. I am your
Jesus. Worship me, kook
boy. Christ knew his smack. Christ knew
his 'shrooms. Christ knew
me because I am your Christ. Worship me,
kook boy.
I realize that
he'd like me to observe Net Courtesy when he
sends his raving messages but I reserve
my courtesy for those who
send courteous mail.
He may think
that he can send his ugly messages and they'll
stay private but he'd better not count
on it from me. Though net
courtesy is suggested, it is not law.
Stephen Froehlich <froehlik@physics.utexas.edu> added:
>I thought it was high time to see just
who John Turmel is.
> finger bc726@freenet3.carleton.ca
>[freenet3.carleton.ca]
>*** freenet3: The National Capital FreeNet,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>*** You may search for users by name,
part of name, or (fastest) by userid.
>bc726 (John Turmel)
>Ottawa, Ontario Canada
>
>>User's interests:
>>L.E.T.S., Green Dollars, Time Dollars,
politics, law, gambling, poverty
>>User's affiliations:
>>Abolitionist Party of Canada
>>
>>Who are the Abolitionists?
>>Canada:1-800-NO-USURY [jct: now
changed to 613-820-8656]
>>
>>
ABOLITIONIST PARTY OF CANADA
>>
>>ABOLITION OF INTEREST RATES
>>
>>The Abolitionist Party favours the abolition
of interest rates,
>>the chains of financial slavery, by
the national and
>>international use of the world-famous
interest-free Local
>>EMPLOYMENT Trading System "LETS". This
public domain barter
>>banking software would replace the interest-bearing
programs
>>currently being used on the computers
of all orthodox banks. LETS
>>abolishes interest rates so let's abolish
interest rates.
>>---------------------------------------------------------
>
The Abolitionist
movement in the States freed the Black
slaves from their metal chains but didn't
finish the job of
abolishing everyone's debt chains. My
party is here to finish the
job.
>
This is not the first time I personally have heard of using the
>bible to justify a new currency system.
Usually, though, people are more
>blunt about the whole thing, using one
of the money variables. Like the
>one where all the workers are paid the
same wage at the end of the day,
>even though some had been working since
morning and others since late
>afternoon.
>
Oh well, the Bible's been used to justify far worse things
>Stephen
>
I won't bet on
my interpretation of this parable like I will
on the other two which quote Christ's
differential equation but I
always thought that parable was meant
to say that the work of
some is worth more to the buyer than the
work of others depending
on circumstances and that's what Christian
capitalism was all
about.
Some workers
were interested in the wages offered and started
work in the morning. Others may not have
been interested at that
wage.
Later in the
day, the master needed his crop in an upped the
wages to entice more workers. This hit
the minimum threshold of
more workers.
Later in the
day, the master still needed his crop in an
upped the wages to entice more workers.
This hit the minimum
threshold of more workers.
I see an interest-free
money system working in the same way.
Imagine a British
King using tallies wanted to have a sewer
unplugged. He publically offered tallies
worth 10 pounds of gold
for someone to do the job. No one came
forward. He raised it to
15 pounds of gold. No one came forward.
Finally he offered 20
pounds of gold and someone came forward
to do an unpleasant job.
I believe that
in the world of the future, people who do the
most unpleasant jobs will be paid the
most and people who do the
most pleasant jobs will be paid the least.
And I think that's
quite fair because it lets the free capitalist
market decide.
Stephen Froehlich <froehlik@physics.utexas.edu> wrote again:
>dx/dt = .1x
>
Correct for a
balance=x and interest=10%
>dx/.1x = dt
>t = 10ln(x) + c
>.1*t - c = ln(x)
>x = exp(.1*t - c)
> = C * exp(.1*t)
I agree with
every step but the last. I assume that c=0 and
you can't move the "c" out of the exponent
like that. But you had
solved the differential equation up to
that point.
>So?
>
Yes. dx/dt =
.1x has the solution x=exp(.1*t)
>> All of
them are based on Christ's differential equation and
>> all of them are bringing relief to
the oppressed poor.
>
>
The exponential equation is at the heart of interest.
>
Yes. The statement
does describe the differential equation
which is at the heart of interest.
>In its
>present state this is a system with interest
where banks and thiefs have
>the same credit rating. This has
nothing to do with Christ's teachings.
>
It is the reason
he spoke in parables so I would think that
it is at the heart of his teachings. Didn't
he sympathize with
the poor? Wouldn't he indict a system
which takes from the poor
to give to the rich? Wouldn't a system
where the rich helped the
poor become rich too be Heaven on Earth?
>
I've heard strange things out of the social gospel camp
>before, but this takes the cake.
>
Yes, it is an
unheard of interpretation which takes the cake
and you are only the second person I know
of who has solved it.
Why will it be so hard now to consider
what the social
ramifications are?
kamamer@io.org
(karl mamer) didn't like having his private
message relayed to the public and wrote
another message:
>
>johnturmel@yahoo.com (John Turmel)
writes:
>
>> You have
to admit, Christ came up with quite a relevant
>> insult for guys like you who not only
can't see but are too busy
>> laughing at an IDEA WHICH HAS MERIT
to try to see either.
>
>I think you insult christ with your kooky
claims. (I am christ).
>
>Note: private email not for reposting
to usenet. Any reposting on
>any usenet group is equivalent to an
agreement to pay the author,
>kamamer, the sum of $1000.00. Just thought
I should warn you,
>as your christ. I love you. I love engineers.
They drink beer.
>God loves you, i'm god. Do you wear bathing
suits at the beach?
>
So sue me. In
Canada, any communication I receive is
acceptable in a court of law. Even if
I tape record a
conversation without your knowing it.
I find it very unlikely
that a court would rule that a email-message
would be exempt from
the general law.
So if you think
you're going to send me nasty messages and
it's going to stay private, think again.
I've been called
the "grand-daddy of guerrilla lawyers"
because I do my own representation and
avoid lawyers' fees. I'm
not an easy man to take on in a court
of law. I've probably
initiated over 300 court appearances over
the last 15 years, 9
right up to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Most of them made the
news and will be posted in the future
so just watch for the
title: TURMEL: Press clippings
bn348@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ian E. Sherwood) wrote:
>Why doesn't John Turmel create his own
posting group so he can
>just put postings there and people who
want to respond to his
>idiosinchrocies can do just 'go turmel'!!!
And leave the General
>posting for more general stuff!
>
Every so often,
Sherwood complains about my posting though
it's evident he can't resist reading them.
Why doesn't he
just not read them rather than read them and
then complain?
He's another
who doesn't like having his nasty mail
published and I thought I had cured him.
Evidently not.
John "The Engineer" Turmel