Lawful Money ...??

[motla68]

Motla68 was banished for a spell, for pushing only the ethereal and whimsical side of the remedy. There are merits as found in Are You Lost at C?

Once again this is getting personally insulting.

- Are you not aware that " Are you Lost at C?" is a write up of some ones opinion?
it is just a story.

- doug555 asked about the era of Lincoln, did not ask about 1913 or 1933 as it has
no application to what Lincoln did himself.

- I gave a direct answer to a direct question and even stated a reference from Lincoln's
order. Shikamaru only stated a title name, but still you call my response "whimsical".

Thanks for showing us that your EGO cannot be controlled, you cannot let go of some
grudge you have against me for some reason, that is pretty clear.

[David Merrill]

Once again this is getting personally insulting.

- Are you not aware that " Are you Lost at C?" is a write up of some ones opinion?
it is just a story.

- doug555 asked about the era of Lincoln, did not ask about 1913 or 1933 as it has
no application to what Lincoln did himself.

- I gave a direct answer to a direct question and even stated a reference from Lincoln's
order. Shikamaru only stated a title name, but still you call my response "whimsical".

Thanks for showing us that your EGO cannot be controlled, you cannot let go of some
grudge you have against me for some reason, that is pretty clear.

I do not view it that way Motla68;


It is an edifying push and pull of ideals. In your Coresource Camp we find a bias toward trust structure, believing in a fully implemented Lieber Code with its integration into international law through the Hague and its conventions. On my side, I am not disqualifying that, simply pointing out how much easier this is to understand through the simple verbiage:

You did what you did and I banished you for it. I feel it necessary for the readers here to understand why I am correcting your posture - simply because people do not need to understand trust law to find remedy. However they need to understand trust law to understand you. When you omitted the effective law from your explanation, biasing remedy upon the untried rendition, I decided that was hurtful.

Here is an example:

The active verbiage is or Exchanged for [Lawful Money] on the prescribed stamp. By the handwritten verbiage you had actually restricted the presenter's available options:

The presenter does not need to go to the Treasury only.

In the explanation you so grudgingly gave us, you left the active ingredient of remedy off.

It is of benefit to examine your views though, albeit I mitigate the damage your bias might cause. For another example, this suitor writes of your style:

2. I don’t buy totally into the military thing although maybe I just don’t understand him totally. All of these guys write so esoterically that I cannot understand them since they do not explain themselves well. Teachers – they are not. Although I must say, the XX document was the best I have seen explaining things. His emails are all esoteric and I cannot follow

That comes from an engineer who designed power conditioning systems for complex off-grid systems like aircraft carriers, and who built a successful S-corporation to sell it too.

What you call my Ego is in my mind, curbing your tendency to try dazzling people with evasive explanations and partial misdirection. The example for which I banished you is the best one - to demonstrate your bias by pretending the verbiage was a big secret for a week, and then excluding the part I was expecting there all along. The Remedy - at least what we find written into the law.

The reason I lifted the ban after three weeks was it became clear that we could learn more from this push and pull debate style. If you would rather get insulting than defend by example, anecdote and evidence why the Lieber Code is still such a prevailing execution of law in America, then this just goes along slower than I had hoped.


Regards,

David Merrill.