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

[Thule]

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

[JamesVincent]

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

lol.... Nice.

[grixit]

If he thinks the "right side" will treat him better, why doesn't he submit his text to the Conservapedia?


Actually what he and his ilk need is a whole new sovrun friendly project: the Wackypedia.

[Unknown Named Agent]

Bork knows less about tax law than Bjork.

[LPC]

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.

Does anyone have any idea who (or what) Bork is quoting here? It's not from a review on Amazon, and it's not from any of the discussions on Wikipedia, so what is it and where did it come from?

Bork seems to expect us to accept it as from "some intellect," but where is the evidence of intellect? A low level of errors in spelling and grammar?

The first paragraph, quoted above, posits something that is inherently absurd, which is that a fact cannot be treated as "recognized" if it was unknown at some point in time. So the fact that the earth is one of many planets cannot be included in Wikipedia because that fact was not known before Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus? And Wikipedia cannot include anything about airplanes because there was a time that airplanes didn't exist?

The author seems to be "projecting." He/she/it is certain of Absolute Truth, and so therefore Wikipedia must be certain of Absolute Truth and can be mocked because it's view of Absolute Truth is different from the author's.

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.

This is largely incoherent. What the hell is a "democracy of an oligarchy"? And in what way has the Internet, Wikipedia, or the American government become a "tyranny of the minority"?

There are obviously some noises here that Bork likes, but that's all they are, which is noises.

Think about the entire premise of Wiki; they only acknowledge "known" or "verifiable" information?

Well duh, that's pretty much what an encyclopedia does, which is collect facts. Not opinions or view or speculations or unproven theories, but facts.

So Wikipedia is being criticized for doing what it has clearly stated is what it wants to do.

Well whom is on the "panel" of verifiers, but in the instance of the State National article, attorneys?

Whom? But? And doesn't this "question" seem to try to answer itself?

Eliminating the noise words and the interjections, we're left with the rhetorical question, "Who is on the panel of verifiers but attorneys?"

Okay, there are attorneys reviewing articles about law. So what?

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.

WOW! That's what I call incoherent.

Why are the "ideologies of credibility" in question? What is "this experience" and why might it lead to "the shooting of the foot"? How does "naivety" [sic] lead to "shooting of the foot"? Who believes anything about "the people of wiki"? "Busy little maintainer bees"? What does that mean? And "the people of wiki" have a "magnanimous intellect"? Isn't that a good thing?

It's the voice of an idiot, full of sound and fury.

[JamesVincent]

I think youll find it its Borks own review and write-up extraordinaire, hidden deep in the confines of PAC, since the last statement seems to be "a call to warriors to arm themselves with the secret knowledge". The only thing similiar to any other write-up I saw were the quotes about the authors dis-like for anyone doing creative things with the internet.

[Cathulhu]

Poor little Skankbork. Being a Sovrun means that when Wiki correctly called "bullsh*t" on him, he has no recourse but to stomp his little feet and call someone else an idiot.

After all, it's not like he can fight back with logic, or established law. He has neither.

Boo f*cking hoo!

[JamesVincent]

"The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Keeping this AFD open seems to be a waste of the community's time. Jujutacular talk 03:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] State National"

[notorial dissent]

Lenny, Lenny, Lenny, you wanted a public forum for your mental masturbations, and you got it, and they laughed, well, more like snickered, and pointed at you, and now you take offense when you get what you wanted. Just no pleasing some people's children.

Wiki has a lot of flaws but it also has a lot of people who really do know how to think and discriminate between real material and BS, unlike your coterie of dim and bewildered, and unfortunately for you, your stuff sets off their BS detectors, and they have told you about it, and you don’t like it. Go back under your rock and let your chorus of the clueless sing your praises, since that is what you really want, not honest and open criticism or discussion, which is what you are going to get out here. The really funny part is that no one takes you seriously enough that you are ever going to be more than a very very minor footnote in TP history.

[Famspear]

"The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Keeping this AFD open seems to be a waste of the community's time. Jujutacular talk 03:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] State National"

The Borkmeister made the usual mistakes that non-Wikipedians with axes to grind make when trying to defend their soapboxing efforts.

I've been editing at Wikipedia for about five years. It takes a while -- and some effort -- to figure out how Wikipedia works. Many Delusional People (whether they be tax protesters or sovereigns, etc.) simply do not have the respect for others -- or the humility -- or the objectivity -- that is needed to learn "the ropes" at Wikipedia.

One of the basic mistakes that Delusional People make in Wikipedia as neophytes, over and over and over and over: Claiming that there is a "conspiracy" to "suppress" the "truth." Language such as this instantly tags the Wikipedia neophyte in the eyes of experienced Wikipedia editors as someone who is trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to spread the neophyte's beliefs -- and that's a big no-no in Wikipedia. When the neophytes beliefs are wacky, fringe theories, it's even harder to break into Wikipedia. Experienced Wikipedia editors can spot a Delusional Blowhard a mile a way.

Blowhardiness, however, is not what guarantees failure in Wikipedia. What guarantees failure is (among other things) impure motivation.

That was Bork's problem. His motivation was that he was trying to "soapbox" what he earnestly believes to be The Truth As He Knows It To Be, and he made it absolutely clear that this was his motivation. The result was an "article" that violated the basic Wikipedia rules of Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. The result was a discussion leading to the deletion of the article -- a discussion in which, because of his impure motivation and his delusional mindset, Bork could never make a cogent, coherent presentation.

[JamesVincent]

Do you think theyll even allow a review?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Do you think theyll even allow a review?

For what?

[dee_are]

They might. They're pretty open-minded over there.

That said, I do think it's really amusing the reason was "WP:SNOW" which is "This doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning, so even though we should leave it open for a few more days, let's close it, now."

-D.R.

[Nikki]

Borkie should really stop pouting.

He'll get all of his material into Wiki -- as background references associated with the article about him and his pathetic career as a tax denier.

[dee_are]

Borkie should really stop pouting.

He'll get all of his material into Wiki -- as background references associated with the article about him and his pathetic career as a tax denier.

Nah. He's not notable by their standards.

-D.R.

[Nikki]

That is truly sad:

That someone can spend his life on a career as a scammer, snake oil salesman, and tax defier YET be so bad at it as to not warrant a reference on Wiki.

Just think of it -- he failed at being a failure

[grixit]

Actually i do understand part of the rant. What he meant to say is that the internet is "a democracy of oligarchies'. Meaning that every member has the right to get a group of buddies together and set themselves up as an elite, capable of determining what everyone ought to know. And every member has the right to follow or ignore any such oligarchy.

[Judge Roy Bean]

That is truly sad:

That someone can spend his life on a career as a scammer, snake oil salesman, and tax defier YET be so bad at it as to not warrant a reference on Wiki.

Just think of it -- he failed at being a failure

My experience with most of these kinds of people is that they aren't full-time or career "professional" pundits or even viable pseudo-authorities who have a real following they can make a living from.

Very few of them are the arch-villains they dream of being or envision themselves to be. They are either employed or barely employed. None of them are independently wealthy although they are diligently trying to get there.

I've only encountered a handful you might consider charismatic or even influential (and two that were actually dangerous) which explains how the Borks of the world remain little more than self-promoting purveyors of web site URLs that might somehow lead to selling something to the gullible.

Back in the day (I can say I was there) they were extremely localized unless or until someone put up the money to have their screed put into book form. Then came the phenomenon of cassette tapes.

For the Borks, Van Pelts, Hendricksons, etc., of the world, today's Internet site visit is yesterday's handbill stuck under the windshield wiper or handed out in malls.

YouTube has become the vast ocean of gibberish that will condemn our planet to isolation (or destruction) if there really are extraterrestrial beings out there.

Because ignorance is so ingrained among their target market, every whacko web site post that gets a curious visitor to search for their particular brand of lunacy is yet one more tiny victory for ignorance.

[grixit]

And, as i said before, he can post his stuff in full, on his own resource site. Except, i checked and both wackypedia.com and wackopedia.com are taken. So it'll have to be something else, at least until the Frikintardistan (.frik) registry comes on line.

[notorial dissent]

That was Bork's problem. His motivation was that he was trying to "soapbox" what he earnestly believes to be The Truth As He Knows It To Be, ....because of his impure motivation and his delusional mindset, Bork could never make a cogent, coherent presentation.

Don't hold back Famspear let us know what you really think here. LOL....

Actually, shouldn't that be "the revealed truth according to Bork" ???? His attitude has always been more of the "how dare you question the revealed word that I have given you" above and beyond anything else. He definitely doesn't cope well with any kind of criticism that I have seen.

By the way, I definitely agree with your last statement, I have yet to find anything Lenny has put forth that even comes close to coherent, let along cogent. Every time I try and read some of his dribblings, I can hear the brains cells crying out in anguish.

I don't think he realized when he exposed his brain fart for viewing over at wiki that it would get so soundly and thoroughly gone over and rejected, I just don't think his ego ever let it enter his mind that way.