User talk:Samhook

Freedman talk

I think you inadvertently removed my comments. I've reposted the entire section. (By the way I appreciate your input on this page.) You can remove your own comments, but you shouldn't remove comments of other people. Thanks! Have a great day! Wjhonson 01:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It was not inadvertent. I reasoned that my edit had given rise to your actions and comments, that after discussion and reflection I thought your comments and actions were correct, that the discussion was said to be possibly too long and that to remove my part of the dialogue only would leave yours hanging in the air. (I've now removed my part and left yours hanging in the air.)

As you will have doubtless divined, I am new to active involvement here, albeit a Constant Reader who once published a long review of the 15th Britannica.

Wikipedia is an extraordinary example of the powers and pitfalls of web-enabled decentralization. On the one hand, the original author quickly attracted several line editors. On the other hand, even assuming the best of intentions on his part, the OA does not seem well-fitted to take part in a collaborative effort to produce an article on Freedman that meets all the reasonable standards. Every time I consider doing a thorough revision of this piece, I consider that the OA can revert at will, subject to the three-a-day rule. So can I, of course, but if I wanted to play video games--as I do not--I'd play video games.

Personal note--

My name is Sam McCracken. As a genealogist, you might recognize the name of my father, lomg-time editor and publisher of The American Genealogist. I never took up his interests seriously, but I'm a pretty wel-informed non-genealogist. There is a certain pleasure in knowing that when I meet a Van Buskirk, I am meeting a cousin, and when I meet a McCracken, if it's not my children or my sister, there is no way to prove a relationship. 1922 and All That.

Why do you say that of the McCracken's there is no way to prove a relationship? I don't know what you mean by 1922. Wjhonson 17:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps have said damn near no way. At some time before 1922, the Brtish gathered the parish registers of Ireland and put them in the archives in Dublin. (The English registers are still with the parishes, albeit copies are now made for the central archives of both the state and the CofE. When my daughter was married in a CofE church three years ago, the signings were interminable.)

During the Irish civil war, Republicans occupied the Four Courts in Dublin, which housed the archives. When they pulled out, as a Parthian gesture, they blew up the archives.

Tracing Irish ancestry is accordingly very difficult unless your Irish ancestors were propertied or titled. My McCrackens were neither, rather, Scots sent to Ulster to make Ireland safe for the Protestant religion. They tired of this after a century and lit out for Pennsylvania.

My father was able to locate the immoigrant McCracken--b. c. 1720, arr. here 1742--and his brother--and to trace all their descendants. The brother had only daughters, although one of them (piquant for the Freedman discussion) was the first Mrs. Benjamin Harrison. BH's second wife was a niece of his first wife, but I've not taken the time to see whether she was a cousin or not.

As to my ancestor, I and my son are the sole survivors in the male line. There's my daughter and my sister, both named Elizabeth. That's it. If I meet--as I do--another Samuel McCracken, he might be a cousin, but if my father did not establish the parents of the immigrant, it's not likely anyone else can, absent reversing the explosion of 1922.

Well that's the different between amateurs and professionals. There are ways to get around the 1922 destruction. Wjhonson 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your message on my user page

Hi Samhook

Obviously you wish to delete the quote of B H freedman's no? I think you should not it is directly related to the subject you made many a statement leading to the idea that B H Freedman was "Anti-Semitic" I showed you a quote that disagreed with this idea, so the statement must stay.

It is an important historical reference as to why he is not Anti-Semitic but that aside please do not go though and delete at will this important discussion everyone should have the right to read, you should not decide that these people do not have this right to read this discussion.

your questions:

just what is really wrong with fractional reserves?

very good but what i must state firstly to you is that you missed the question i said:

"Fractional Reserve Banking and the Bonds system in which money is Created from nothing an then interest is paid on that"

now I’m not sure why you left out the central banking issue? are you clear on the Bond system and you agree with me that it is the fundamental flaw and blot on modern human history?

Fractional Reserves , after money is issued from nothing by the federal reserve buy buying a bond that was issued from nothing by the government the "money" that is issue or borrowed (basically from the Fed) is then deposited into the many accounts in Commercial banks across the country, yes? well because of the "Magic of Fractional Reserve Banking" these account holders can now lend out money at a Ratio higher than the money that is on reserve, with me?

Money was issue from Nothing out of thin air that bears interest, then it gets deposited into commercial accounts to get loaned out at nearly 10 times the amount that those deposit accounts hold, now that also all bears interest.

Tell me what to think is the first problem you could see that may arise from this process?

If you said Cheese you where wrong if you said Inflation you were on the money you could have also said instability based on inflation.

but i would say instability created by inflation and the will of a few people at the top that create the issuance of the money and they can:

"..cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when ... business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check ... prosperity in mid career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest."

Charles August Lindbergh.

Let me try again

now i just re-read that i can see that it is going to make no sense to someone not well versed with Fractional Reserves, so i'm going to seek my training in symbolism and symbol association and put it this way:

The Fed is a Giant cog picture a giant cog in the centre of the country the commercial banks are smaller cogs connected to this central cog as the central cog spins to the right money is expanded into the country the smaller cogs spin at a higher ratio.

if the central cog spins left the money in the country is reduced.

because of Fractional reserves the smaller cogs are all geared at a much higher ratio , picture a smaller cog connected to the large cog, then picture smaller still connected to those.

when the Central Cog turns just slightly to the right money gets pushed out by the higher ratio in the smaller cogs, but then when the (Fed) or (central Bank) (central Cog) wishes to crash or stop the economies expansion it will stop the central cog and turn it to the left (all the outside cogs push money back at the higher ratio) the economy crashes.

Fractional Reserve is the Cog ratio.

Why would the (central Cog) do this well because no one will blame them they will blame the government an that is effective control.

-Theblackbay 05:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper welcome and more

Welcome!

Hello, Samhook, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch

I followed the link that you (properly IMHO) removed and found it bad enough to put for deletion. The rest of this horror story is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Thanks and happy editing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedman talk page

I'm not sure why you're doing all those edits, but it sure makes the flow of discussion hard to follow -- and changing comments that people have already replied too is kinda odd too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You like Vintage Cameras?

What type? STill Frame or Motion?

I love old Cameras also, I have a super 8mm Cannon Motion 814?

A Bell and Howell 70 DL 16mm hand wound

and a Bolex double Perf 16mm SBM the one that can be converted to single perf for "Super 16mm" also hand wound.

I would really love to get my hands on one of those old Russian 16mm!

Nothing like film hey? it makes video look so disgusting don't you think?

-Theblackbay 03:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd coincidence!

Yes, I do indeed. I collect them seriously. My rule is: only cameras I can use, and that means still cameras. I've never been able to get much interest up in making movies. For me, the essence of the photography at which I do fairly well is to freeze motion, not record it. But each to his own taste.

As it happens, one of my main collecting interests is Soviet-era cameras. But I know next to nothing about their cine cameras.

How nice to have a shared interest that will not lead to conflict. Samhook 02:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no conflict here!

It's the old Kinor Sx-2m I wanted to get hold of i hope to also , but I think I should use the ones I have A little more first..

[[1] 16mm Kinor]

Freeze motion that's great also have you seen this film clip by Wolf Parade i think you might like it:

[[2] modern world.]

the Director is Adam Biznaski.

from that site you can actually download so if your not doing anything on dial up maybe you can download to see it. I think it's worth it. although it's 23MB that might be over an hour coming down? anyhow check it out.

Theblackbay 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SS Sussex

Re your comments at Talk:Benjamin H. Freedman/Archive1#On the Veracity of Benjamin Harrison Freedman, I've recently expanded the SS Sussex article, and your comments have info whic is not currently in the article. Do you have a source with which you could expand the article? I note that you're currently inactive and am hoping that you have your preferences set so that you receive an e-mail on my posting this message. Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]