Subject: Re: (for everyone) Simplex: Up for another iteration?
From: Jeffrey Reinecke <>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 00:44:46

I realised, I never sent this to anyone else but Tom.

>From: "Jeffrey Reinecke" <>
>To: Mueller <>
>Subject: Re: Simplex: Up for another iteration?
>Date: Sun, Sep 13, 1998, 00:38

>>At 09:27 PM 9/12/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>>Tom, I ask of you this: I will present a step by step explicit logic
>>>structure which shows that I was within my right with my decree. I don't
>>>want any speech and debate tricks, I want simple, straight out answers and
>>>explinations as to why any one step isn't legal. If you can't find a
>>>striaghtforward reason why, then it would suggest that I am not wrong. My
>>>interpretation is as legal as yours. But, as I say later, is one man's
>>>legal interpretation, backed up by logic, any better than the next man's
>>>logical interpretation?
>>>(1) By law 115, since I may do ANYTHING, not "prohibited or regulated by
>>>LAW" (not actions, law!!), I may declare my free will as I had done
>>>earlier, and that no one can ever trample on it in any way (to put it in
>>>normal words as opposed to legalese). If you don't agree with me here,
>>>point out the law which explicitly, or implicitly states otherwise. I
>>>want a law, not an action. If you can't do this, go to step 2.
>>It is the interpretation of this law which is our major difference. To make
>>sure that we are at least closer to resolution I will not explain myself,
>>but instead try to find out what you think about the first step in my
>>Imagine two cases, in case 1 law 115 reads thusly:
>>"Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a law is permitted and
>>unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the laws, which is
>>permitted only when a law or set of laws explicitly or
>>implicitly permits it."
>>and in case 2 the law reads:
>>"Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a law is permitted and
>>CITIZEN, OR changing the laws which is permitted only when a law or set of
>>laws explicitly or implicitly permits it."
>>What is the difference between case 1 and case 2?
>I see where you are coming from. And case 2 does make it so that you
>can't regulate what others think or do. And I agree, that by case 1, you
>do have power to limit us. I never was arguing that. I have always
>agreed that you have he power to limit someone. However, because of the
>way things are worded (specifically working with 101 and 115), it makes an
>equally fair (or should I use legal) interpretation that I have the
>contradictory power to deny your alagations. No I realize how you are
>reasoning that I can't. you are saying that since you did yours first,
>that, essentialy, by a cause and effect (yes, my term, but at the heart,
>it is the essence of your argument), I can't make mine. That is where I
>disagree. Since there is no regualtion, in the laws, as to the order in
>which to handle actions, a retroactive action is JUST as legal. I never
>once claimed your interpretation wrong. And I understand (I think) what
>you are telling me. However, I am merely coming up with an alternate,
>legal, and logically derived interpretation that contradicts yours.
>Therefore, we are both just as right, but in our own legal, and logical
>way. It would seem to me, that, if we aren't nearing an out of court, I'm
>going to have, as implied by 212, an automatic invoking of the courts on
>this issue. Unless you object, that would make you the plaintiff, and me
>the defendent. Whomever is Judge will not be one of us. Sound fair?
>Jeffrey Reinecke