Definitions

[eric]

Whenever I hear discussions of the word "idiot" I have to ask myself does that include Scott Duncan's (tender for law, surety for idiots, etc) definition of idiot and thus exclude what everyone else thinks an idiot means. Sorry, just me being silly again.... Frank doesn't realize that the "includes" argument pops up on quatloos at least once every two years.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

HaHAhahaaaaaaa . As you're careful to say , "colours 'correspond' to electromagnetic wavelengths" . That's Not saying wavelengths have color ! And as you say , "perception / 'seeing' color is 'made in the brain' " ! So you do agree with Me .
To believe there is more than one meaning of color is just being dumb .
You didn't ask for the undeniable proof !

OK, I'm on absolute tenterhooks now. Please oh great one, give us your undeniable proof. BTW, make sure you use easy words that a simple engineer with forty odd years working in colour science can understand.

Don't worry . I'll use simple words that anyone can understand .
Go into a room with no windows , seal the door shut , turn off any light .
What color is everything ? Oh !!?? There's no invisible electromagnetic waves entering your eye ???
40 odd years ?? Odd years indeed .

[eric]

All you have stated in the above example is that in the absence of any stimuli your brain perceives it as black. Whoopie, give me another hard one. Something like a "if a tree falls in the forest, etc...." Just because your eyes cannot or did not process something does not mean it doesn't exist. I'm sorry but this is not Monty Python world here, we are talking science. The eye/brain system can be easily tricked, but the optical properties of a substance do not change, colour is an absolute.
So let's throw an easy example. Take a sheet of copy paper or printer paper. Look at it under a conventional light bulb and then under a flourescent bulb - it will appear brighter. However go back in time to 20 June 1904 in Northern Germany, taking your paper with you. Go outside. The reflectance at 457 nm with a half width of 44 nm will be 92 if it is sunny and 90 if it is cloudy. It doesn't matter what you think it is, this is what colour science tells me it is. Somehow I have a mad desire right now to start quoting excerpts from the Walrus and the Carpenter because your argument is about the same.
https://poets.org/poem/walrus-and-carpenter
BTW, nice comments about the fact that you don't believe in colour science. Shall I paint your car in assorted graffiti and say in my defence that it all appears the same shade to me?

[eric]

I forgot to add you should go outside at twelve noon on that day to complete the experiment. And here's the technical explanation for my example. The optical brightness of paper is defined with the sample illumination under exactly the spectrum on the date, time, and location I specified. The reason for 457 nm measurement point is that any tinge of yellow or brown, a common impurity in paper, is exaggerated there. It's called R457 brightness or sometimes yellowness (its inverse). Copy/printer paper in North America typically has a value in the high 80's/low 90's. Anything over 94 has had UV enhancers added to it so your paper actually fluoresces to make it brighter under the right lighting conditions.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Oh contrare you intelligent being .
I admit physical things and their physical "properties" exist .
You see , it all comes down to "definitions" again and the Meaning of words .
Things don't have color ! They simply have properties that reflect certain invisible electromagnetic wavelength frequencies . And since ALL things are shall we say "bombarded" with the Same spectrum of wavelengths , generally speaking ,
they all individually reflect only certain differing frequencies according to their individual properties .
These physical wavelengths aren't "color" , but they can be measured and "assigned" to being associated with certain "colors" , only because the Brain "converts" those frequencies into colors ! Colors ONLY exist in/by the brain !
If a tree falls in the forest , and nobody or animal is around , does it make a sound ???
Sound is only Heard in the brain . The tree causes air molecules to vibrate at certain frequencies .
If you want to call that "sound" , well then that's your definition . Physical phenomena can Cause vibrations of wavelength frequencies , which the brain "converts" into sound/noise & colors .
Color can't be explained to a blind man . It can only be known/understood by seeing caused within the brain .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

All you have stated in the above example is that in the absence of any stimuli your brain perceives it as black. Whoopie, give me another hard one. Something like a "if a tree falls in the forest, etc...." Just because your eyes cannot or did not process something does not mean it doesn't exist. I'm sorry but this is not Monty Python world here, we are talking science. The eye/brain system can be easily tricked, but the optical properties of a substance do not change, colour is an absolute.
So let's throw an easy example. Take a sheet of copy paper or printer paper. Look at it under a conventional light bulb and then under a flourescent bulb - it will appear brighter. However go back in time to 20 June 1904 in Northern Germany, taking your paper with you. Go outside. The reflectance at 457 nm with a half width of 44 nm will be 92 if it is sunny and 90 if it is cloudy. It doesn't matter what you think it is, this is what colour science tells me it is. Somehow I have a mad desire right now to start quoting excerpts from the Walrus and the Carpenter because your argument is about the same.
https://poets.org/poem/walrus-and-carpenter
BTW, nice comments about the fact that you don't believe in colour science. Shall I paint your car in assorted graffiti and say in my defence that it all appears the same shade to me?

So who's the real idiot ???

You don't know how words work do you!

Words work by the meaning they are understood to have , which can change by context .

[eric]

So Frank somehow believes that physical properties do not exist as a constant outside of human perception with all of its foibles. Just wow - using the knowledge gained from at the most an undergraduate philosophy course he wants to upend all human scientific knowledge. What is this secret knowledge he has gained? It's called definitions or as Scooter Duncan used to say, being an idiot. We have heard this one before. Scooter's method of being an idiot as he put it was to demand definitions of every word or phrase in any legal document sent to him. If the definition, "includes" being a typical example, did not match up to what he thought it should be, you didn't owe anybody anything. So whatever happened to dear old Scooter? Hmmm..... lost his condo and had to beg his followers for 50 K$ that he owed the tax man. His Quebec lieutenant, Pierre Daoust, lost his house, his business, and his wife and daughter left him. I'm sorry Frankie, being an idiot, including by Scooter's definition, and the commonly accepted definition as well, simply doesn't work. Since I referenced it before, perhaps I should remind you of the following sage words since you are using the same logic:

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all.

[Pottapaug1938]

So you do agree with Me

No. I think you are an idiot.
[/quote]

I know that's what you think !! But I proved you agree with an "idiot" !
So who's the real idiot ???
[/quote]

You. You did NOT prove ANYTHING, except in your fevered mind.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

So Frank somehow believes that physical properties do not exist as a constant outside of human perception with all of its foibles. Just wow - using the knowledge gained from at the most an undergraduate philosophy course he wants to upend all human scientific knowledge. What is this secret knowledge he has gained? It's called definitions or as Scooter Duncan used to say, being an idiot. We have heard this one before. Scooter's method of being an idiot as he put it was to demand definitions of every word or phrase in any legal document sent to him. If the definition, "includes" being a typical example, did not match up to what he thought it should be, you didn't owe anybody anything. So whatever happened to dear old Scooter? Hmmm..... lost his condo and had to beg his followers for 50 K$ that he owed the tax man. His Quebec lieutenant, Pierre Daoust, lost his house, his business, and his wife and daughter left him. I'm sorry Frankie, being an idiot, including by Scooter's definition, and the commonly accepted definition as well, simply doesn't work. Since I referenced it before, perhaps I should remind you of the following sage words since you are using the same logic:

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all.

Contrare you intelligent being . I DO believe and KNOW that physical properties DO EXIST as a constant outside of human perception ! Don't know how you came to that conclusion by the things I said . Unless you didn't understand the meanings of the words I used . I believe they all had pretty common definitions . I don't know about you , but words DO have Definitions which explain what the word Means ! Do you know what a "Definition" is ?? It explains what a word is supposed to Mean !

[FRANKENSTEIN]

So you do agree with Me

No. I think you are an idiot.

I know that's what you think !! But I proved you agree with an "idiot" !
So who's the real idiot ???
[/quote]

You. You did NOT prove ANYTHING, except in your fevered mind.
[/quote]
Sure I did ! You just can't admit being not as bright as you think you are .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Owl, shhh, I think he has us dead to rights, he has found out that the magic word "includes" makes a law totally invalid unless it is an exhaustive list where every listed item has to apply to meet the definition. That word also has the amazing ability to redefine the ordinary meaning of words, and allows us to ignore common sense, it is magic. He has darn well, cracked it. We need to all give up, now tax on income has been made irrelevant due to this glaring omission and now none of us have to pay taxes. Let's rejoice in his brilliance, being able to convince some legal minds of the true irrelevance of the code. We can all retire now. No one has to pay tax anymore, yeah.

You know if any of that were true, and I give no credit to you as none of it is true and it's completely irrelevant, a mistake like that would swiftly be rectified by treasury or the government if need be. What your suggesting the regulations say seems to be completely contrary to the intent of the law, not to mention every single court opinion that has opined on this foolish argument. There are no magic words, there are no get out of tax-free cards, unless you're a tax exempt entity of course, but even some of them pay tax on something called UBTI which includes ECI what is income effectively connected to a US trade or business.

I think what he's failing to grasp is that this crazy theory has been litigated and has lost over and over again. And if it had won the regulation would be changed so that it complied with the intent. We know what a dog is, we know what a trade is and we know what a business is. This whole discussion is idiotic. Does he really think his simple mind has cracked the complex mysteries of the code? I wonder what makes this self-professed expert think he is an expert. What training and understanding does he have of the legal system and how laws and regulations work? He's trying to figure it out, but doesn't have the framework to do so. This is grasping at straws and frankly pathetic. I long for the day at the smarter tax objector, who created new arguments or positions to be debunked. Unfortunately Frankenstein isn't even smart enough to come up with something unique and new He has to rehash old positions, that are so easy to disprove because they've been proven in court. The quality of tax objectors today has really sunk, I long for the days where we had real thinkers, who came up with original ways to contort the code and regulations to sell detaxing products to the masses. Debunking something new is interesting, repeating old disproven theories over and over again expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

Why do you think " if it were a MISTAKE" ? Why do you insist that it Means what you think it means ?
Are you desperately wanting to believe the Government has taxed what they may Not have actually taxed !??
Or may not Lawfully tax ??
Do you just believe anything that "seems right" or that others seem to believe ?
You know what a dog is ?? Yeah most people can generally tell a dog from something else .
But can you DEFINE what a dog is , that doesn't include anything else , but does include ALL dogs ?
While you're at it , why does the Law see it necessary to define "trade or business" to include
"performance of the functions of a public office" ? When if the "normal" meaning of trade or business
you'd think would include anything someone would be doing while performing those functions ???
Are there things being done when performing functions of a public office , that Aren't within the meaning of a
"trade or business" ??? If so , you'd need to provide the meaning of "trade or business" to identify the thing being done that ISN'T A "trade or business" .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

I just like to know the Truth ! I am pretty close to knowing everything so far .

To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven.

You can't understand what can't be understood ! Not a "high attainment" just Fact !

[FRANKENSTEIN]

If Frankenstein is truly "pretty close to knowing everything," I'd like to know who put the bomp in the bomp-ba-bomp-ba-bomp.

That's one thing I don't know .
Probably the person who put the bomp in there .

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I admit physical things and their physical "properties" exist.

Well. It's a start. You might get there in the end, although I'm not holding my breath.

[NYGman]

This has strayed way off topic. Either OP posts his theory with case law, or case citations prove his point or this thread should be locked so his idiocy can be on display forever.

He needs to prove the use of "includes" in the definition trade and business is limiting language and a requirement at the same time, and anything not within includes, or not meeting the terms of includes, is not included.

Prove this or get out. Changing the topic to color or calling out users is not going to cut it. I like the smart tax denier who can actually attempt an argument. With you it's more "no it isn't" even though we are not saying just "yes it is'" as Wes even posted the why it is.

Finally you don't seem to grasp that if you were right the code and regulations would just be changed, as what you are saying is clearly not the intent of the law. Again there's no need to do that because all but a handful of idiots don't understand the definition of trade in business. There are no magic words, there are no gotchas, tax law has been very well litigated over time and any issues have been addressed with changes to the regulations. This "issue" has been litigated and determined that no changes are needed everybody agrees This is not allowed. The reason nobody does what you're suggesting is because everybody knows it's not supposed to be done. I think a lawyer could probably be sanctioned for bringing a case like this. The fact is you're dealing with settled law where there is no problem and if your position ever got to chords there's enough precedent to ensure that you lose.

Care to continue and actually state your position, I think this was asked is one of the first few questions when you initially posted. Tell us what you actually think and justify it using the law and court cases if you can do this we will listen. However, we all know this is impossible, well maybe you think it's possible but you're wrong.

I feel like I am here and only paid for 5 minutes, except I don't want to go on.

[The Observer]

Care to continue and actually state your position, I think this was asked is one of the first few questions when you initially posted.

We already have determined his position and Frankie has confirmed it, one way or another, in his gibberish. Frankie is claiming that the definition of a trade/business is provided for in the IRC and that the statute, due to it using the word "includes", is saying that only businesses/trades that performs the functions of a public office can be taxed. He maintains that this definition supersedes any other definition of the word "includes" that we commonly use.

In order to maintain this illogical position Frankie has to ignore IRC 7701(c) which states that the word "includes" does not mean what Frankie wants it to mean - namely that it is not a definition of exclusion but inclusion.

When a person has to work very hard to ignore a definition that is provided for within the statute itself, you know you are dealing with a mindset of being intellectually dishonest on purpose.

So the real question to put to Frankie is for him to explain why IRC 7701(c) does not apply to IRC 7701(a), and why would legislators have bothered to include IRC 7701(c) as part of the statute if it doesn't apply? Frankie's answer should show us how far down the rabbit hole that he has gone.

[wserra]

Either OP posts his theory with case law, or case citations prove his point or this thread should be locked so his idiocy can be on display forever.

I'm inclined to agree with Gman.

It isn't uncommon to see visitors here who begin threads with "I was just asking" something, usually something dumb. Upon further pursuit, it virtually always turns out that they have certain silly ideas about what they think the law should be, which they then proceed to confuse with what the law actually is. Even when confronted with proof of the actual state of the law - as Little Frankie has been in this thread - they persist with their own delusions. Sometimes they present bogus support for those delusions, other times (as with Little Frankie) they present no support at all.

On one hand, this gets old. On the other, this board has a strong policy of letting everyone who can behave speak. Frankie has behaved, so he gets a last chance. State a proposition and defend it, or this conversation ends.

ETA: I also agree with Obs' formulation of the question Frankie should address, which he posted while I was writing this post. One way or the other, no more "I believe something, therefore it is".

[Pottapaug1938]

So you do agree with Me
[/quote]

No. I think you are an idiot.
[/quote]

I know that's what you think !! But I proved you agree with an "idiot" !
So who's the real idiot ???
[/quote]

You. You did NOT prove ANYTHING, except in your fevered mind.
[/quote]
Sure I did ! You just can't admit being not as bright as you think you are .
[/quote]

No you didn't, either. I'd match my education against yours, any day, any time -- except that I have as much interest in dealing with you as I have getting root canal without anesthesia.

[Pottapaug1938]

Either OP posts his theory with case law, or case citations prove his point or this thread should be locked so his idiocy can be on display forever.

I'm inclined to agree with Gman.

It isn't uncommon to see visitors here who begin threads with "I was just asking" something, usually something dumb. Upon further pursuit, it virtually always turns out that they have certain silly ideas about what they think the law should be, which they then proceed to confuse with what the law actually is. Even when confronted with proof of the actual state of the law - as Little Frankie has been in this thread - they persist with their own delusions. Sometimes they present bogus support for those delusions, other times (as with Little Frankie) they present no support at all.

On one hand, this gets old. On the other, this board has a strong policy of letting everyone who can behave speak. Frankie has behaved, so he gets a last chance. State a proposition and defend it, or this conversation ends.

ETA: I also agree with Obs' formulation of the question Frankie should address, which he posted while I was writing this post. One way or the other, no more "I believe something, therefore it is".

I also agree.

Charles P. Pierce wrote an outstanding book titled "Idiot America." In it, he gave us the Three Great Premises:

1. Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units.
2. Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough (or on television).
3. Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it.

Frankie personifies #3.

[Cpt Banjo]

From your posts, you wouldn't know what the law defined something to mean if it slapped you on the arse with a banjo.

As the noted scholar Jerome "Curly" Howard once said, I resemble that remark.

The banjo should not be associated with cretins straight out of Deliverance. It is an instrument capable of playing sublime music. Viz:



Speaking of cretins, it seems that if Frankie read an article that said, "The crowd at the game included the mayor and his wife", he would think that only two people attended.