>Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 03:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@...>
>Subject: Re: The Clown
Marco, my naive little friend, the man has intruded himself
into public forums all over the place for years; he is a
judas goat leading people astray. The message I responded to
was not private; it was cross-posted to more than a half
dozen lists on Usenet. I have not only the right but the
duty to respond.

JCT: "leading people astray" sounds a lot worse than overly
badmouthing positive feedback. My math says "exponential"
"unstable" positive feedback on debt is genocidal and Ryan
says I'm leading people astray because "exponential"
"unstable" positive feedback is occasionally desired in
electronics. Notice though that he wants to argue about
desirability of positive feedback in electronics but can't
challenge my assertions against positive feedback in
banking. Are people to ignore the dangers of positive
feedback on debt because engineers sometimes make use of it
in electronics. The point is he alleges that since it's
sometimes useful in electronics, that counters my assertions
that it's bad in banking. I think this makes it pretty
obvious why he could never take my bet. Sad I have to take
the time to defend against such trivial lunacy. Still, he's
giving my grandfather Adelard's Social Credit movement a bad
name and it's always a pleasure to show him up for the nasty
lunatic he is.

>Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:28:36 +1000
>From: "Graeme Taylor" <telergy@...>
>Subject: Re: Re: The Clown
Nice one , um, which one won? So William, at least John
advocates for a certain alternate to the dominant mono
money, created by business principles of profit making by
the banks, but I'm unsure what it is you advocate. Indeed,
we need criticism, to see through "chain letter" types of
scams, but what is it, WBRyan, that you advocate as an
alternative to the mono money? And maybe CCs can engage them
dispaced people down Bourbon Street way, better than what
happened last time. cheers Graeme Taylor

JCT: What alternative does he advocate other than interest-
free banking? An actual useful solution? Har har har.

>Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@...>
>Subject: Re: The Cheat

WR: This is the statement from this phony "engineer":

"Both zero and negative feedback are acceptable while
positive feedback is always unacceptably unstable."
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm

This is his latest sleight-of-hand from today's post:

"I said engineers don't design with positive feedback
that blows up, when zero and negative feedback don't
blow up, and you come back saying sometimes we want
exponential growth to blow up?"

Try to reconcile the two statements, will you? See how he
twists the word "engineer." Engineers do in fact design.

The advanced engineering analysis you are asking people to
disbelieve is about positive feedback on debt, usury. The
fact that positive feedback is sometimes desirable doesn't
make it always desirable. Quite the flaw in my banking
systems engineering analysis, isn't it? Har har har har.

WR: With interest we are not talking about something that
is designed by an engineer but something that exists.
It is not a matter of design but understanding
something that exists.

JCT: He's getting less and less lucid. Anyone understand
what this means?

WR: It is utter mischaracterization to describe interest
as "feedback" in any sense but informationally back to
entrepreneurs, in that it is a subset of the larger
category of profit in the system of entrepreneurial
profit and loss.

JCT: Har har har har. So this means that not only does Ryan
not know about feedback, he doesn't know about the
differential equations for feedback. And it's in my
analysis so I can use the piece he says is wrong to prove my
point. I don't mind giving people a little taste of high-
tech math so here's the differential equation for the growth
of your bank balance over time from the Laplace Transform
1/(s-i).

The change (d) in your bank balance (B) over the change (d)
in time (t) equals interest (i) times your bank balance (B),
right? The differential equation for that simple exponential
growth of your bank account, whether positive or is negative
is dB/dt = iB.

At i=10%, if your balance is (-10), the change is
10%(-10) = -1

So the control system makes positive balances grow more
positive and negative balances more negative so that to
those who have abundance will more be given and from those
who have no abundance, even what they have will be taken
away. That's how Jesus explains interest.

So dB/dt = iB means that the change in your balance over
time is equal to the interest times your Balance. What's
hard. That's what happens. That's reality.

The Laplace transform of that whole differential equation is
1/(s-i) which generates exponential growth.

With negative feedback, your positive balance starts to
drain down and your negative balance starts to rise up.

With no feedback, your positive balance stays the same, like
LETS, and your negative balance stays the same too.

Positive feedback causing exponential growth is called an
instability because you can't divide by zero. Dividing by
zero pushes the result to infinity, an impossibility.

When s equals the interest rate +i, then the denominator is
(+i - i) = 0 causing the function to rise to infinity. In
this case, engineers say that the pole is in the right hand
plane with the instability taking place at s=i.

That's why exponential growth of debt is stupid. And Ryan
says that I'm wrong because exponential growth of signal is
sometimes desirable, though always with a turn-off switch.
I can't imagine wanting an explosive function with no cut
off unless it's something really good that's growing. I'd
love for health technology to grow exponentially. It does.
All good things do. But building it into an accounting
system is insane.

So finally, Ryan's point is to ignore my declaiming danger
in exponential debt because there's exponential signals are
sometimes wanted. Ignore the general danger because of the
occasional benefit in another field? So Ryan would have
everyone ignore my whole analysis against positive feedback
on debt because positive feedback in signals is sometimes
useful. That's it. He's a nut. Read my debates with him at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan00.htm

WR: Taking an irrelevant block diagram from electronics or
hydraulics and labeling something as "interest" tells
us nothing about interest whatsoever. The phony quack
"engineer" with his crank irrelevant diagram.

JCT: I bet no engineer will say my blueprint of the 1/s or
1/(s-i) control system is wrong. Ryan will now back down and
shut up.

WR: Con-man, pure and simple.

JCT: So far, other than his "positive feedback is sometimes
useful in electronics so it's useful in banking too," is his
only point.

WR: If you want to waste your time with cranks like him, go
ahead.

JCT: You mean betting that guys who will put their money
where their mouths are versus the Ryans of the world who
keep backing down?

WR: By doing so you identify yourself as an ignoramus and
crank along with him. And completely waste your time and
neutralize whatever good work you may endeavor to do.

JCT: Anyway, now that the differential equation for usury
has been explained so that most people should be able to get
it, I think the truth speaks for itself.

WR: Just take one example from today's post, the bowl and
upside down bowl as supposedly telling us something about
"feedback."

JCT: I always thought it was a great analogy. If it's on an
even plane (always barring friction) and you give the ball a
pulse of energy, it moves along at a constant speed.

If it's in a bowl, it rises one side of the bowl and gravity
works on it to slow it down and pull it back. Due to
friction, it will go up the other side a little less and
then gravity will pull it back, and forth and back until it
settles back to it's initial state. That's why negative
feedback is so useful. Something knocks you off target and
the farther off target you are knocked, the stronger the
feedback generated to bring it back to on.

Finally, if it's on the inverted bowl, the ball accelerates
due to gravity with its velocity equal to (at^2)/2 where
a=32 feet/sec^2. After 1 second, 16 feet per second, after 2
seconds, 64 feet per second, 3 seconds, 144 feet per
second... Barring air resistance, it grows and grows.

I think these are wonderful analogies of zero, negative and
positive feedback. And Bill Ryan's only criticism is that
positive feedback is sometimes desirable?

WR: The example has nothing to do with feedback whatsoever.
The man is just an ignoramus spouting complete nonsense:
The bowl is an example of stable equilibrium; the upside
down bowl an example of unstable equilibrium. That's all.
"Feedback" doesn't enter the matter at all.

JCT: I think it's pretty obvious that two forces are at
play, the pulse and the feedback of gravity. Geez it's easy
correcting this lunatic.

WR: It tells us something about equilibrium, not feedback.
It is an illustration about equilibrium that has been
utilized by physics and chemistry teachers for centuries.
And he claims he invented it!

JCT: The gravity acted as the feedback. What's hard to
understand. The gravity either took away from the speed of
the ball or it added to the speed of the ball. What's hard
except to a nut like Ryan. Again, check our debates and see
how many times I corrected him with no response out of him.
How many times I bet him and he backed down.

WR: Like I said, it's deja vu all over again. I answered
his bowl scam two or three years ago, and here we see it
again, repeated again verbatim by this cheat, this putrid
card sharpe.

JCT: I guess he answered it no better then than he did now.

WR: Even this example from today's post is such complete
nonsense that even the most rudimentary technician
wouldn't make: the example of the speaker "blowing."

No, no, no Turmel! The "sequel" is an equilibrium at
constant frequency and volume. The speaker "blows"
only if it is uunderrated for the amplifier to which it
is attached if the volume knob is turned too high. If
it blows it would have blown regardless whether or not
the signal is a sequel.

JCT: So all those people who keep their mikes away from the
speakers to avoid the positive feedback don't know what
they're doing? I think it's a beautiful example of feedback.
The signal issued by the mike is amplified and emitted by
the speaker which is picked up by the mike and amplified and
emitted by the speaker which is... Why does this analogy of
positive feedback not get through Ryan's brain? Almost
everyone else I've ever explained it too knows about
speakers and mikes.

WR: All electronic music, beginning with the Moog
synthesizer and similar instruments invented more than
half a century ago and continued today in digital
devices, utilize positive feedback to generate
"sequels" of varying frequencies and tonalities.

JCT: And so, positive feedback on debts must be pretty
useful too?

WR: I don't think the man has completed even a basic
electronics course. He couldn't have.

JCT: I bet I got an A in Fourth Year Electronics? Does
"never bet" Ryan wanna bet?

>Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@...>
>Subject: Re: the hate-filled

WR: Of course, you too have amply demonstrated in previous
postings that you are one of the paranoiac little pissants
who are hate-filled against Western institutions and
especially the United States of America.

I'll shove the outrageous slander against the President of
the United States and the American political system to the
side for the moment. I'm more interested at the moment in
this little snippet of true brilliance:

"Sorry to have to be so blunt, WB, but as Mr hardhat tries
to explain, interest on our 'means of exchange' is a
positive feedback mechanism..."

WR: 1} Interest is definitely N_O_T a "feedback" mechanism
in the sense the term is used, for example, in electronics.

JCT: Actually, it is. Bet him and watch him back down.

WR: It is "positive" or "negative" only in the sense that it
is positive or negative information flowing back to
entrepreneurs from transactions in the market reflecting
profit or loss.

JCT: No, it is your bank balance growing more positive or
more negative with money flowing, not information.

WR: To call it "feedback" in the sense of physical systems
is the con-man's play on the nuances of language.

JCT: As long as he won't bet, who cares about his wrong
opinions.

WR: 2) For the sake of argument, even if it were true that
interest was indeed a feedback mechanism in the sense the
term is used in electronics, feedback in electronics does
N_O_T in the least work the way the quack "hardhat" guy says
it does.

JCT: He never finishes my making a point. We still don't
know what in particular he says is wrong, do we?

WR: In particular, if it were not for "positive" feedback we
wouldn't have modern communications and the very computers
the hate-filled little pissants write their screeds on. The
"hardhat" con-man is utilizing his phony "engineering"
credentials to push his lie about feedback.

JCT: I have phony credentials??? A lie about feedback? While
he keeps being wrong and keeps backing down from explaining
exactly what I say is wrong. Or betting?

>Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@...>
>Subject: Re: Blondie demonstrates financial insecurity

The Blondie story is good though it says nothing whatsoever
about interest or "usury." It is a leap of logic to think
so. Moreover, interest has nothing to do with "positive
feedback."

JCT: I pointed that while the amount of money remains
stable, the debt for the money grows exponentially due to
usury. So there is insufficient money for all borrowers to
repay both Principle plus Interest when everyone only
borrowed the principle. Someone must always be knocked out
into unemployment and poverty. Dagwood exhibited that
insecurity and I think most people saw it except for Ryan.

WR: The technically correct explanation for debt that is
increasing exponentially in respect to real production is
the A+B theorem of C. H. Douglas.

JCT: Very similar to Turmel's P+I theorem. Actually,
identical except that his equation includes B costs of which
interest is one while my equation only deals with the one
illegitimate cost. All other costs paying for people's time
are legitimate, only paying for money's time is not because
money does not work.

WR: The displacement of labor (whether through technology or
the "export" of jobs overseas) causes the flow of the costs
of production being impressed to the point of retail to
increase in respect to the flow of purchasing power being
paid to final consumers. In the language of the Douglas
theorem, the ratio of A is falling in respect to A+B.

JCT: A complicated way of saying that there isn't enough P
to purchase P+I of prices they charge so they can pay their
debt of P+I to the bank.

WR: In the modern creditary economy, the flow of the costs
of production represents the flow of debt. The reflux from A
is what in principle should amortize (offset or cancel) the
debt.

If, within the ratio A+B to A, the ratio of B is remaining
constant to A (the condition of dynamic steady-state), no
matter what is the instantaneous flow of A+B and no matter
at what rate it may be increasing or decreasing, the reflux
from A will amortize the resultant debt through the
conventions of double-entry accounting.

But if the ratio of B is increasing to A, the differential
between the incremental increase to A+B in respect to the
incremental increase to A represents increasing debt that
the reflux from A will never amortize (except during a
period of contraction with the depletion of savings and the
bleeding down of account balances).

The tendency therefore is for debt to increase exponentially
in respect to real production. Consequently, the information
flowing back to entrepreneurs through profit and loss over
the retail counter is distorted.

It is an inherent flaw in national accounting that may be
corrected or compensated through the Dividend and Discount
adjustments.

JCT: Har har har har. Did anyone understand what he just
said? Har har har har. And he's the best the English Social
Credit movement have to go offer! Har har har har.

I'm adding these latest posts to my
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan00.htm page but I'm
going to have to leave dealing with this lunatic up to
others from now on.

But I had to take some time to expose him to world for the
nut that he is. Sure, we've all seen him foaming at the
mouth at ijccr but the rest of the world may not be up to
refuting his monetary reform ravings. So I have to get my
hands dirty once in a while and deal with his crud. Luckily,
it's all on the internet forever.

Finally, I cross-post this to the sci.engr USENET newsgroup
where every engineer in the world can read this. There are
so many who are upset with my qualifying my LETS and medpot
posts as engineering that if I were wrong and Ryan were
right, there would be plenty who would like to prove me
wrong. The fact the same nut who keeps sprouting bad fruit
is all alone and that no one will back him up helps prove
the point that explains why he can't ever bet that he's
right while I can always bet that I am right.

John "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel.


--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics