Bork's "Income Tax. Do You Volunteer?"

[Thule]

Yes, it is interesting. Total conspiracy to deny the people the truth. Not one of the "attorneys" that have ganged up on the article has given any valid point whatsoever to why is should be deleted per the Wiki rules.

Execpt that pretty much everybody mentions original research. Which is grounds for deletion per the Wiki rules.

See, unlike Pacforums, Wikipedia is not your personal soap box.

[wserra]

Here is the Wiki position on "original research". In most relevant part:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources.
...
Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research

Emphasis in original.

By this standard, LB Bork's screed is clearly original research, since [JoeySmith]no one who matters agrees with him[/JoeySmith]. While you'd like to be able to say, "This article should be deleted because it's gibberish", people's definitions of "gibberish" differ.

Still, it should be deleted because it's gibberish.

[notorial dissent]

You guys hate me, you really hate me!

So you finally admit who you are. My, big surprise! Like we didn't already know.

Your biggest problem, is that in an open forum your nonsense is open to the dissection and derision it so richly deserves, and you just can't stand that. The real world just doesn't see things from your twisted perspective and sees it for the outright mental flatulence it is.

Tough luck Lenny, you should have kept your nonsense buried under that rock you are so fond of, exposed out in the big awful real world, everyone can throw rocks at it now and they don't care if yo widdle fewings gets hurt. You can pout and stamp your feet all you want for all the good it will do you. One shouldn't put the family laundry out for public display if one isn't prepared to be laughed and snickered at. Obviously you aren't. No surprise there either.

[JamesVincent]

By interesting I meant

* Virginia Code § 10.1-1000. Definitions. "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association, trust, or corporation or other legal entity.

* Virginia Code § 10.1-1400. Definitions. "Person" includes an individual, corporation, partnership, association, a governmental body, a municipal corporation or any other legal entity.

* Virginia Code § 18.2-186.6. "Entity" includes corporations, business trusts, estates, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, associations, organizations, joint ventures, governments, governmental subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities or any other legal entity, whether for profit or not for profit. "Individual" means a natural person.

Virginia Code § 10.1-1000 is the definitions page for the Virginia Cave board, a government entity responsible for overseeing the many caves that are throughout Virginia. As Im sure you know the definitions of that law, apply only to that law and are used so they can say :

§ 10.1-1004. Vandalism; penalties.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person, without express, prior, written permission of the owner, to:

1. Break, break off, crack, carve upon, write, burn, or otherwise mark upon, remove, or in any manner destroy, disturb, deface, mar, or harm the surfaces of any cave or any natural material which may be found therein, whether attached or broken, including speleothems, speleogens, and sedimentary deposits. The provisions of this section shall not prohibit minimal disturbance for scientific exploration.
WIthout having to say individual, corporation, partnership, association, a governmental body, a municipal corporation or any other legal entity multiple times throughout the law.

Virginia Code § 10.1-1400. Same thing except now its the definitions for the law governing a panel set up for waste removal. How ironic.

Virginia Code § 18.2-186.6. Interesting that you chose to use Virginia's new law on how to notify of a § 18.2-186.6. Breach of personal information notification.

The laws you used to counter claim that you were right dont apply to what you used it for. They were specific definitions for specific laws, none of which had anything to do with your "theory".

[Imalawman]

You dullards are such a laugh. You sit here and pat each other on the back thinking you have a handle on everything. Too bad you wasted so much getting an education to be told what to think.

As far as Evans worthless gibberish, the term "de jure" is found in Ballentine' s 3rd as:

By right; by lawful right; rightfully complying with the law in all respects.

Accordingly, I have just shown Evans to be a fool, so the rest of his blather really does not have to be addressed.

Ha, now that's funny. So stupid that it's funny. You really have no idea what "de jure" really means do you?

[silversopp]

In principle, I should always love de jure soup as it my favorite. In practice, sometimes I wish I had ordered de facto soup instead.

[Cathulhu]

Skanky, you sad little thing (can't really call you a man, sorry, I've got a hangup about honesty), like many delusional morons, you think being venomous makes you right. But you're somewhat entertaining, do go on.

And naturally the thread gets longer, when you post four different replies to it.

[Demosthenes]

Had the jurist read any threads other than his own, he would have known we dropped the 100 post limit several days ago. It was a hold-over from an earlier version of the bulletin board software where threads that got too long were unstable and would crash.

[The Observer]

Yes, it is interesting. Total conspiracy to deny the people the truth.

And the above statement just confirms the mentality of sovereigns. Look at the comments that "Pacgroups" made on the Wiki discussion page:

Furthermore, after investigation it is noted that "Famspear", "Wserra", "Evansdb" appear to be, or are, attorneys (or tax attorneys) that frequent forums such as Quatloos (http://quatloos.com) and Sui Juris Club (http://suijurisclub.net) and ridicule people who have alternate viewpoints, right or wrong.

Well, at least Pacgroups leaves room for the possibility that the article could be wrong. But it is totally irrelevant that the detractors are attornies; if anything you would want attornies to comment on an article that deals with the law.

Evansdb fails to understand that this is a layman's environment and things must be explained accordingly; and his(?) use of the word "gibberish" is childish insofar as there have been people that have said the article is beautiful. Another attempt at sabotage, so it appears.Pacgroups (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Wiki is not strictly a layman's environment, there are a number of articles that are very technical and require exactitude in definitions, terms and structure to covey accuracy. And the term "gibberish" has been used by the courts to describe excactly the type of nonsense that appears in the article. The use of the word "sabotage" is an indicator that rather provide detail as to how Evans, Famspear and other are technically and legally wrong Pacgroups is going to resort to smear tactics in an attempt to sidetrack the discussion.

What is nothing short of a coordinated conspiracy to suppress factual content supported by paramount references is an embarrassment upon some of these protesters.

Now we are in familiar sovrun territory with the unveiling of a "conspiracy", which definition appears to be whenever there are two or more people who agree that Bork is wrong.

This is clearly an attack by people who wish to see this information hidden from the public's viewing, I relate it, to the book burning, by the Hitler Administration.

And in less than 24 hours, Godwin's Law is already in play.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Someone has pointed out the obvious:

Delete. As I mentioned on the introduction to the delete discussion, this article is simply an effort on the part of the author to promote his original work which is only available via sale on his web site. Clearly this is little more than self-promotional advertising through an attempt to be found on web searches. NoGutsNoGlory (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

[Burzmali]

Whifh

Someone has pointed out the obvious:

Delete. As I mentioned on the introduction to the delete discussion, this article is simply an effort on the part of the author to promote his original work which is only available via sale on his web site. Clearly this is little more than self-promotional advertising through an attempt to be found on web searches. NoGutsNoGlory (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is usually enough for a speedy delete. Bork's crew would recreate without discussion and the article would be speedy deleted again for the reposting of deleted material and the article salted, ending the debate. But why do that when we can drag this argument onto the AFD pages

[Imalawman]

Had the jurist read any threads other than his own, he would have known we dropped the 100 post limit several days ago. It was a hold-over from an earlier version of the bulletin board software where threads that got too long were unstable and would crash.

Wait, what, where, when, why? Link? Thanks.

[Demosthenes]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=6466

[Unknown Named Agent]

How did Bork get so close to being on the Supreme Court?

[The Jurist]

Thought that you Marxist Monkeys would like to see some intellect from the "right" side of the fence.

This book http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Gadge ... 0307269647 was written by one of the computer scientists whom was aboard the research and development "team" of the internet, or the embryonic stages of the IT technologies,"team" for lack of another term, as there was no such thing as the internet yet. Hmmmm, maybe the "internet" should not be included on wiki because at one time it was not "recognized", hell it did not even exist.

Anyway...this book is somewhat damming of the contemporary "version" of the internet. And specifically condemns Wiki. What we have today as the "internet" is described in this book, to me, to be not unlike what American government has devolved to, a "hive mind" or mob, tyranny of the minority. A...democracy. A democracy of an oligarchy of "intellectuals" who know better than the "average" man what that man "needs", including...information. You see to these types, their livelihood is predicated upon the fact that the rest of us continue to "believe" the world is flat.

Think about the entire premise of Wiki; they only acknowledge "known" or "verifiable" information? Well whom is on the "panel" of verifiers, but in the instance of the State National article, attorneys? The ideologies of "credibility" are in question and this experience may lead to the shooting of the foot by our naivety in believing the people of wiki are anything other than a bunch of busy little maintainer bees in all their magnanimous intellect.

Yes this is but another book PAC members need to pick up to add to the plethora of knowledge one requires to even begin to understand the complexities and subterfuge that any new idea, verifiable or not, will have to endure, especially one which is based in politics.

Now you can go back to your worthless blather, you busy little maintainer bees with your magnanimous intellect.

[The Observer]

And specifically condemns Wiki.

Then why insist on using it? After all, Wiki is not a public utility and has no legal requirement or obligation to make rules that satisfy you. And there is no legal requirement or obligation that you have to post on Wiki. If you are unhappy with how Wiki is being run or operated, then go elsewhere and publish your article where it will be allowed. And you would be avoiding the ironic situation of a sovereign citizen complaining that another private sovereign entity has to play by his or her rules instead of their own rules. In other words, you don't see Wiki complaining that their editorial policy is not being put into practice on your web site. Common courtesy dictates that you should respect their right to operate as they see fit just as they are respecting your right to run things the way you want to.

[JamesVincent]

Think about the entire premise of Wiki; they only acknowledge "known" or "verifiable" information? Well whom is on the "panel" of verifiers, but in the instance of the State National article, attorneys? The ideologies of "credibility" are in question and this experience may lead to the shooting of the foot by our naivety in believing the people of wiki are anything other than a bunch of busy little maintainer bees in all their magnanimous intellect.

Yes this is but another book PAC members need to pick up to add to the plethora of knowledge one requires to even begin to understand the complexities and subterfuge that any new idea, verifiable or not, will have to endure, especially one which is based in politics.

Now you can go back to your worthless blather, you busy little maintainer bees with your magnanimous intellect.

I thought it was funny that you hold this book up and say how great it is. You provide a link to an Amazon.com review and the book review says " He brilliantly shows how large Web 2.0–based information aggregators such as Amazon.com—as well as proponents of free music file sharing—have created a hive mind mentality emphasizing quantity over quality."

So you use the link at Amazon, which the author seems to hate, to use to prove how bad the Wiki is, which the author also seems to hate. And while the author was one of the "team" that developed the intranet, he was not wholly responsible for the internet and has an opinion like most people do. And for some reason you think that should mean everyone else is wrong and you are right? You, out of everyone here, have done the most name-calling, expressions of indignant righteousness and overall expression of an opinion that you describe as correct when everyone else says is wrong.

Did you actually know the definition of the word magnanimous? I dont think you do since you used it the way you do

1
: showing or suggesting a lofty and courageous spirit <the irreproachable lives and magnanimous sufferings of their followers — Joseph Addison>
2
: showing or suggesting nobility of feeling and generosity of mind <too sincere for dissimulation, too magnanimous for resentment — Ellen Glasgow>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magnanimous

Your problem is when the facts become inconvenient you just ignore them and make up what you want to believe is right. Your whole escapade on Wiki brings that out rather well. When presented with stone, cold facts , you twist what is said and call everyone else stupid for not seeing this great idea you have. You have peddled this opinion to everyone and no one besides your fellows at PAC have cared one little bit about it. People that have never heard of you before think your a charlatan now. You really should have stayed at PAC and kept peddling your slop to like-minded people, youd be much happier and better received. And for Gods sake, get a dictionary and use it. You would make much better points if you actually used the correct word in the correct context.

[Cpt Banjo]

Thought that you Marxist Monkeys would like to see some intellect from the "right" side of the fence.

This book http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Gadge ... 0307269647 was written by one of the computer scientists whom [who] was aboard the research and development "team" of the internet, or the embryonic stages of the IT technologies,"team" for lack of another term, as there was no such thing as the internet yet. Hmmmm, maybe the "internet" should not be included on wiki because at one time it was not "recognized", hell it did not even exist [A semicolon or period is needed after "recognized. This isn't Joyce or Faulkner, after all.].

Anyway...this book is somewhat damming [damning] of the contemporary "version" of the internet. And specifically condemns Wiki [There's no subject in this sentence.]. What we have today as the "internet" is described in this book, to me [Unnecessary clause, or does the book not describe to anyone else?], to be not unlike what American government has devolved to, a "hive mind" or mob, tyranny of the minority. A...democracy. A democracy of an oligarchy of "intellectuals" who know better than the "average" man what that man "needs", including...information. You see to these types [Comma needed after "see".], their livelihood is predicated upon the fact that the rest of us continue to "believe" the world is flat.

Think about the entire premise of Wiki; they [it] only acknowledge [acknowledges] "known" or "verifiable" information? Well whom [who] is on the "panel" of verifiers, but in the instance of the State National article, attorneys? The ideologies of "credibility" are in question and this experience may lead to the shooting of the foot by our naivety in believing the people of wiki are anything other than a bunch of busy little maintainer bees in all their magnanimous intellect.

Yes this is but another book PAC members need to pick up to add to the plethora of knowledge one requires to even begin to understand the complexities and subterfuge that any new idea, verifiable or not, will have to endure, especially one which is based in politics.

This isn't intellect -- it's a demonstration of atrocious grammar, spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure.

[JamesVincent]

And I think one of the points you missed in the books intent was that the internet allowed people to talk to other people through messaging, forums, blogs etc. etc. unlike the way you would talk to them in real life. And, again, you are one of the worst. What do you think would happen if you talked to someone and called them the names you do on here and in your forum, in real life? Before or after someone ripped your head off and handed it to you? The majority of posts I have seen in dealing with you have been relatively free from slander, but I would say none of your replies are. Like calling people morons, idiots, stupid, ass-kissers, assholes, etc. etc. I think you should count your blessings that you have not yet had to defend yourself in a slander case as they would be able to bring plenty of evidence to support their position and you could only sit there looking foolish.

[grixit]

How did Bork get so close to being on the Supreme Court?

ROFL!

The other Bork had long scraggly beard.