One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[bmielke]

This has got to be some sort of record. We've had Driveby Scammers before but generally they limit themselves to one topic, post a couple of times and leave. But this guy is going out in style.

If I was a Mod, I would move this to Flame Wars.

[Pottapaug1938]

If I don't call, you'll know it's me.

Why should I bother calling your idiotic program when it's obvious that 1) you won't answer a direct question unless it's your program and you can control the microphone; and 2) you cannot point to ONE verifiable instance where your (ahahaha) "advice" has resulted in a final victory for one of your... victims?

[Famspear]

It's obvious you guys are incapable of a discussion without insults....

In other words, marc-y-poo, you can't cut it here.

That's what I thought.

[Duke2Earl]

Here's the deal... your ridiculous assertions and stupid question games are an insult to the rule of law, the profession of law, and to this country that thousands have died to create and defend. Your words and stupid positions insult us all. You think you can come in here or go on the radio as an a--clown and we shouldn't be insulted. You think we ought to respect your insanity. Well, it isn't going to happen in this lifetime. The only way you could even hold your own against any of us is if you control the stupid questions, ignore reality or control your radio show so that only what you want to be heard is said. You think you were insulted here... you got more respect than you deserve. And of course, now you can go on your captive show and say how brave you were to stand up to the horrid insults here and declare victory because we were all scared of you. Well, we all knew your stock in trade was bullcrap... and you are about to prove it yet again.

[Number Six]

PM the general delivery or RR address and someone will make sure you get a book on social contract theory.

[Gregg]

Bye bye! Tell the listeners (both of them) who are not tuning in just for the comedy that I said 'Hi'!

[Gregg]

Tell you what, brainboy, if you're so brave why don't you play by our rules?

We have rules?

Suggestions

[Duke2Earl]

My rules are quite simple....

No stupid magic word or leading 20 question games
State your position straight out and back it up
Don't pretend that history didn't happen
Admit that the purpose of courts is to interpret the law
Acknowlege actual reality as opposed to fantasy

[webhick]

The only proof of anyone lying is about Wesley, lying that I limit access to my forum. But I don't see you attacking a proven liar. Why not attack Wesley for lying about me?

Which he thought because the captcha wasn't coming up for him when trying to register for your forum (which in effect blocked him from registering for the forum). Which it doesn't for me either in IE8 on Win7 or WinXP (Firefox is fine though). He later said that he mistaken.

That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him wrong. The fact that you can't tell the difference between a mistake and a lie says a lot about you. Just as much as you throwing a hissy fit and trying to agitate Wes by posting his picture over and over and over again on a public forum.

If you don't want people to question your "facts" and talk about you in private and in public, then don't put things out there like "the most controversial, informative and entertaining book to see print in years," run seminars on the same subject, and set up a website for the same. "Controversial" doesn't mean that people only get to say good things about it and the person who put it out there. "Controversial" means that people are going to argue about it. Arguments usually involve strong language. If you can't handle that, then maybe you're in the wrong line of work.

[LPC]

I think he got miffed that I guessed where he was going with his "standing" crap and ruined the "surprise" he had planned when we (verbally) walked into his cunning and, once sprung, inescapable trap of logic.

What he refuses to see is that his "honest investigation" leads to a conclusion that is absurd, which is that the government cannot enforce criminal laws and cannot collect the taxes that it imposes.

Which is the essential meaning of "sophistry." (Although my dictionary says that sophistry should be "plausible," and I'm not sure that Stevens's nonsense even rose to the level of plausible. "Patently frivolous" is much more apt.)

But I'm disappointed because now I'll never learn whether there really is a federal court in "Wyoming."

[Joey Smith]

Does it apply the to federal courts, including the one in Wyoming?

It is under this power that the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming (and other Districts) is (are) established.

[wserra]

That was pretty unbelievable. Less than fifteen hours from first post to leaving in a huff. Rant, rave, rant, rave, rant, rave, gone. In addition to Dan calling the shot on nonsense "standing" gibberish, consider the following exchange, which occurred before he arrived, spewing stuff in all directions and trailing pictures of me wherever he went:

Is he [Marc Stevens] so deeply into the cream cheese that he doesn't understand what happened?

I think so.

I think so also.

I think we're talking ga-ga land.

Ga-ga land or third grade, take your choice. But it all deserves to be in one thread, clearly identified as the product of one Marc Stevens.

[Imalawman]

Does anyone know if Spidey was Marc Stevens? There seemed to be a bit of difference. Just curious.

It was interesting they thought that the gov't was the plaintiff in tax cases. Had to be a bummer to learn that the whole underlying premise was just plain wrong.

[Brandybuck]

I get the very strong impression that he had played out a conversation in his head with the twenty questions, and he wanted to replay it in real life so he could scream GOTCHA just like he did in his head.

[notorial dissent]

Poor Marc, all primed to show off his “brilliance” and then stubbed his toe when no one bit.

Really a poor showing Marc, if you are going to whine and slink off, the least you could do is come up with a better excuse than everyone is calling you names, and hurting ums po po tender feewings, I mean really!!!! When in fact everyone here has been more than civil, certainly more civil than you deserve, and more civil than the denizens of your own board have managed to other visitors there.

Now I will admit that repeating what that nasty awful judge had to say about your carefully thought out “brilliant” and carefully crafted logic in in your “arguments” in the Edwards case might just have hurt your poor tender feelings just a smidge, after all, he poo pooed all of your brilliantly and carefully, one might even say lovingly crafted legal, well sophistry, might as well call it what it was after all, in the interests of truth and veracity, that you claim to be so concerned with. And then to add insult to injury, the mean old appellate judge flat out laughed at your stuff, tossed it out as nonsense, and then more or less in plain judicialese called it that. Has to really sting to get laughed at twice on the same material. The problem is, that you were, and still are for that matter, playing word games, and while you may think it is clever, and your “clients” obviously think it is clever, when the plain fact of the matter, is that it isn’t clever, it isn’t productive, and it flat out doesn’t work, as you keep proving, or not proving as the case may be, since you are very sparing with anything resembling actual information.

I really don’t know where or how you came up with your “carefully crafted” view of how gov’t and the law works, but it bears no relationship to reality, and it is more than equally obvious that you have no idea of how any of it works, and instead have made it up out of whole cloth. You certainly don’t know how the courts work, and you obviously have only a nodding acquaintance with out system of law and jurisprudence.

In the final analysis, you are just playing word games, and playing them poorly at that. You have no understanding of the processes you are trying to insert yourself in to, and are failing miserably at it. What it all comes down to is that you are trying to play chess with checkers rules, and you can’t understand why you keep losing and everyone is laughing and pointing.

Now run along home with your tail between your legs and loudly proclaim your victory back on your own board where no one bothers to check and see what really happened.

[ArthurWankspittle]

... If any of you grow a spine call into the show and demonstrate where I an idiot ...

Can't be bothered calling the show, I'll just quote your own post where you an idiot, or do I mean where you come across as an idiot who can't write. Is the word "where" spelled correctly? (Do I say "I rest my case." now?)

[Famspear]

.....If you don't want people to question your "facts" and talk about you in private and in public, then don't put things out there like "the most controversial, informative and entertaining book to see print in years," run seminars on the same subject, and set up a website for the same. "........

The bad guys (like Marc Stevens) do seem to overlook or forget the fact that Quatloos is a web site that exposes phonies. A phony, by his or her nature, is in the business of trying to fool people into thinking that he or she isn't a phony. That doesn't work when the phony comes here to Quatloos.

To paraphrase the Eddie Murphy character in the original Beverly Hills Cop movie:

We at Quatloos love to write about phonies. We love to expose phonies. You people are phonies. So, we be enjoyin' this sh*t!

[Imalawman]

I get the very strong impression that he had played out a conversation in his head with the twenty questions, and he wanted to replay it in real life so he could scream GOTCHA just like he did in his head.

You must not have spent much time around TPs in a social setting. it's more than in his head. You see he will talk about this with other people around him. He'll go through a faux sort of Socratic method where he'll tell his peers how a conversation would go with an attorney/government official/judge. See, first you get them to agree with you on X. Then you ask them Y, and get them to say Y. (skip forward a few steps). See, once you have them at Z, they'll be trapped. They want be able to answer you and they'll have to do ____.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. It's pretty convincing to some people. When you get to form your own answers and confines of logic, you can put together a string of "gotcha" questions that results in victory. This really has a strong pull to it. Because you're revealing a secret - you're establishing your superiority. Some people really need to feel this. It can be very enticing.

Anyway, that's probably more than you wanted to know. But it's how they operate socially. Thus, the anger and frustration with real life when the answers aren't what they discussed among themselves and envisioned.

[Famspear]

.......Thus, the anger and frustration [felt by tax protesters] with real life when the answers aren't what they discussed among themselves and envisioned.

I get a sort of perverse pleasure in interacting with these people on the internet. Typically, these people have gone to great lengths to cobble together their theories. It's a huge shock to some of them when they realize that the court in such and such a case actually ruled the opposite of what they were led to believe, or that the "quote" they used is a fake, etc. Virtually none of the people with whom I've interacted over the years will admit they were wrong -- instead, they react angrily.

It reminds me of an incident that happened to me when I was about 19 or 20. I was working as a clerk in a convenience store. (I apologize if I've already told this story.) A very irate lady came in with her daughter. She claimed that I had short changed her daughter, who had been in the store alone earlier that day. We went over what the daughter had bought, and how much the charge was. When the mother realized that she was wrong, and that I had given her daughter exactly the right change, the mother became even more irate. Instead of apologizing, she "covered" her embarrassment by storming out of the store with her daughter, vowing never to frequent the store again.

Virtually all these people react with that intense, burning, boiling, raving anger -- a sort of defense mechanism, I guess -- to cover their feelings of embarrassment. The Marc Stevenses of the world have a lot of psychological "capital" invested in the idea that they are special -- in the delusional belief that they have Powers And Abilities Far Beyond Those of Ordinary Men. These are people -- and I'm talking especially about those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder -- who feel a special sense of entitlement or "specialness" but who have not accomplished anything to justify that feeling.

Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson is another classic example of someone with this mentality.

[Quixote]

But it's how they operate socially. Thus, the anger and frustration with real life when the answers aren't what they discussed among themselves and envisioned.

They also get frustrated if a non-believer has somehow infiltrated their ranks and won't play along. I went to a party in 1979 to meet a guy a fellow student had described as the smartest man he knew. The guy started a discussion by asking, "What if people with beards were given privileges not shared by others?" My response was that I would grow a beard. I think he was trying to make a point about affirmative action, but I never did find out exactly what he was getting at, because his prepared dialogue broke down unless someone supplied the "right" response to his beard question.