MEANINGS

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Ironic that someone who couldn't even accurately define the word "house" believes he has won anything in a war of definitions.

Accurately define !!! Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaooooooooo !
It was a simple EXAMPLE you doofus .
By the way . A definition , can be as simple or complex as is WANTED , depending on what the author of a definition
wants to convey or have the word or term encompass in its meaning !!
There are common definitions , scientific defintions , and legal defintions .
Each can be as simple or general , or detailed and specific as may be needed or wanted or required
to ascertain what may "fit" or "not fit" the meaning desired .
I could say a "car" is defined as anything with 4 wheels . That's as "accurate" as I WANT it to be , for whatever reason or purpose that I intend the word to mean for a particular circumstance or subject .
Stick that in your "pipe" and smoke it . And I don't mean the common definition of "pipe" !!!!!!!!!
Are you all in 6th grade still ????????

[AndyK]

What are you trying to prove? You already admitted that 'includes' EXPANDS the general definition.

Do you have any clue WHY that language was added to the tax code?

It was done to resolve the issue that some politicians claimed they were not involved in a 'trade or business' thereby exempting them from paying taxes. Congress disagreed with their position and added the language.

What are you trying to prove, other than that you can spew words?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

What are you trying to prove, other than that you can spew words?

It could be that he's trying to prove that he picked the wrong week to give up sniffing glue.

[NYGman]

I have it on good authority, that the word Idiot includes Frank. That means there are no other idiots but Frank, or do we all understand it to mean that Frank is included in the definition of Idiot that we all know, and this does not preclude others being an idiot too.

He who hangs his hat on the dictionary, as their legal authority is an earsgang.

[The Observer]

Oh , the "experts" may see it or not . But it's in their best interest to "not see it" !
They make Millions of dollars by "keeping" their "clientele" . You think they want to ruin their business & source of income ??
You do know that even tax "experts" say the Tax code is a big "word salad" .

And now Frank has opted for the "massive conspiracy" theory that every single CPA, tax attorney, criminal defense attorney, and others are all in on the "fix" to keep the "masses" in the dark. At this point, it is clear Frank is head first into the kool-ade vat.

[NYGman]

And now Frank has opted for the "massive conspiracy" theory that every single CPA, tax attorney, criminal defense attorney, and others are all in on the "fix" to keep the "masses" in the dark.

I guess your just miffed you didn't get your payment. My keep the masses in the dark payment comes quite regularly.

[Burnaby49]

Bastards cut me off as soon as I retired.

[wserra]

Ix-nay on the ibes-bray.

[eric]

He who hangs his hat on the dictionary, as their legal authority is an earsgang.

Thankyou. The only useful part of this whole thread has been learning a new word. As such you are now eligible for a gratis membership in the Society to Preserve the Subjunctive Tense in the English Language. (conditions may apply).

[LaVidaRoja]

Having never truly understood the subjunctive tense in English (had to learn it in Spanish, but never understood it) I thank you

[FRANKENSTEIN]

I have it on good authority, that the word Idiot includes Frank. That means there are no other idiots but Frank, or do we all understand it to mean that Frank is included in the definition of Idiot that we all know, and this does not preclude others being an idiot too.

He who hangs his hat on the dictionary, as their legal authority is an earsgang.

Oh , the "experts" may see it or not . But it's in their best interest to "not see it" !
They make Millions of dollars by "keeping" their "clientele" . You think they want to ruin their business & source of income ??
You do know that even tax "experts" say the Tax code is a big "word salad" .

And now Frank has opted for the "massive conspiracy" theory that every single CPA, tax attorney, criminal defense attorney, and others are all in on the "fix" to keep the "masses" in the dark. At this point, it is clear Frank is head first into the kool-ade vat.

No . Actually I think the majority of all those so-called "experts" are just gulping the kool-ade they've been used to drinking . Probably just like you .

[FRANKENSTEIN]

I have it on good authority, that the word Idiot includes Frank. That means there are no other idiots but Frank, or do we all understand it to mean that Frank is included in the definition of Idiot that we all know, and this does not preclude others being an idiot too.

He who hangs his hat on the dictionary, as their legal authority is an earsgang.

Do you guys have any functioning brain cells ???
Your comment PROVES you are an idiot .
First off , you're just making a statement about a person named "Frank" , that you think "fits" the Definition of "idiot" .
IF Frank fits the definition of "idiot" , your statement is factual . And it DOESN'T mean there are no other idiots .
Now , here's your Homework assignment >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Using the DEFINITION of "idiot" , include the phrase "a person named Frank" into that DEFINITION of "idiot" .
NOW who's an "idiot" by THAT DEFINITION ???????
Only idiots that are also "a person named Frank" !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love it when you quatlosers make IDIOTS of yourselves ..
HAHAhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaoooooooooooo !!

[JamesVincent]

Are you all in 6th grade still ????????

Actually, no. I was a general contractor who remodeled houses for a living, among other things. You picked a really poor subject to use as an example. A house is a structure, that's the end of the definition. There is nothing else to add to the definition. A house will still be a house without a bathroom, I grew up in a house without one. It doesn't need bedrooms. It doesn't need a kitchen. It could have absolutely no rooms, or even interior walls of any type, and still be a house. All the word encompasses is the structure, everything else inside adds nothing and have their own definitions. I'm sure it has been explained to you that you don't get to change a definition to suit your purposes but it seems that's the only argument you have.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

What are you trying to prove? You already admitted that 'includes' EXPANDS the general definition.

Do you have any clue WHY that language was added to the tax code?

It was done to resolve the issue that some politicians claimed they were not involved in a 'trade or business' thereby exempting them from paying taxes. Congress disagreed with their position and added the language.

What are you trying to prove, other than that you can spew words?

Why did the 1916 law have to specifically Exempt "politicians" then ?
Later laws didn't exempt politicians though .
Do I have any clue why that language was added ?? Yes .
They intended to Tax every "trade or business" that was performing a function of a public office .
Includes "expands" the general definition , by adding another characteristic to the Definition .
It may end up restricting / confining the general definition to a limited sub-set .
Or it may expand the general definition to a greater "group" , all depending on what the "included" phrase says .
The point is , whatever follows "includes" , when used in and as A DEFINITION , means that what follows
becomes part of the VERY DEFINITION of what the word or term is intended to Mean !
It DOESN'T mean that what follows "includes" , is THE or A complete definition all by itself .

What am I trying to prove ???
That the LAW has a stated DEFINITION of the term "trade or business" which Congress has INTENDED to tax .

In Frear v. Wilder, 25 Haw. 603, 606, it was said: "It is a cardinal rule of construction that a statute imposing taxes is to be construed strictly against the government and in favor of the taxpayers and that no person and no property is to be included within its scope unless placed there by clear language of the statute . . . `In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.'" Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151.

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Are you all in 6th grade still ????????

Actually, no. I was a general contractor who remodeled houses for a living, among other things. You picked a really poor subject to use as an example. A house is a structure, that's the end of the definition. There is nothing else to add to the definition. A house will still be a house without a bathroom, I grew up in a house without one. It doesn't need bedrooms. It doesn't need a kitchen. It could have absolutely no rooms, or even interior walls of any type, and still be a house. All the word encompasses is the structure, everything else inside adds nothing and have their own definitions. I'm sure it has been explained to you that you don't get to change a definition to suit your purposes but it seems that's the only argument you have.

Yea well I remodel houses too . You should stick to what you know .
So , YOUR Definition of a house is , " A STRUCTURE" . Wow !
So by your definition , a structure is a house .
I guess a cell phone tower is a house ! Cool man .
Have you ever remodeled a cell tower ??? I believe it's a "structure" . Which by your definition is what a house is .
I'm not "changing a definition" to suit my purposes per se . I'm using EXAMPLES of how Definitions
affect what a certain word is supposed to actually mean !
I don't think I'd want to buy a "house" from you . I might end up with a bridge . Or a "structure" .

You're right , a "house" doesn't NEED a bathroom or kitchen or bedroom , or even windows I guess .
But then again , that's YOUR definition .
People DO get to change a definition to suit their purposes , such as in Contracts , or for scientific or technical manuals .
And especially in all the various LAWS , they need to be specific as to what the Law actually pertains to and Means .
Thus the Laws have their own DEFINITIONS of certain words or terms they use .
But hey ! Thanks for using YOUR Definition of "house" that suited your purposes !
Ya'll !! Keep trying to refute my arguments ! I'm lovin it . It only reveals your low IQ's and PROVES my points !

[FRANKENSTEIN]

Delete post that is a verbatim copy of this one, complete with bad grammar.

Frankie - you've been warned before. Last time.

- WS

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The only useful part of this whole thread has been learning a new word. As such you are now eligible for a gratis membership in the Society to Preserve the Subjunctive Tense in the English Language. (conditions may apply).

I think mumpsimus is a word that should be used more. It describes Frankie perfectly

[Burnaby49]

It's not often that a non-technical word stumps me but I wasn't familiar with mumpsimus. Not that I'll retain it ten seconds after making this post. About 45 years ago (more or less) my boss at the time tested me with retromingent. I failed but it stuck.

[The Observer]

And now we get to watch Frank try to suddenly shift gears. First he had opted for the "massive conspiracy" theory to explain why it is only Frank who sees the "problem" with definitions:

Oh , the "experts" may see it or not . But it's in their best interest to "not see it" !
They make Millions of dollars by "keeping" their "clientele" . You think they want to ruin their business & source of income ??
You do know that even tax "experts" say the Tax code is a big "word salad" .

Now that he realizes that he is looking like a conspiracy nut, he tries to explain it away with the "massive delusion" theory:

No . Actually I think the majority of all those so-called "experts" are just gulping the kool-ade they've been used to drinking . Probably just like you .

But again, this is Frank contending that millions of people who have had the training, knowledge, and experience working with the tax codes that are unable to see the "meaning" that only Frank can see. So Frank keeps shifting from one foot to the other, trying to explain the impossible.

But if Frank was right about his interpretation, he could make a ton of money exposing the "problem" and getting all of us off the income tax hook. Or if he wasn't interested in getting rich, he could just go into court, present his case and win, thus providing the country with a precedential case that would free all of us from the "delusion."

But nothing like will happen, because Frank knows he is wrong.

[AndyK]

So, Frank, are you alleging that ONLY politicians are to be taxed?

It's really hard to follow what you are writing, so make a clear statement.

Either ONLY politicians are to be taxed or everyone (which encompasses politicians) is to be taxed.