Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
RyanMcC

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by RyanMcC »

The Observer wrote:Wait a minute...are you telling us that Demo is <shudder> an illegal grammar protestor?!!
Cool, mabye she'll write another [alleged] book. :mrgreen:
Neckbone
Quatloosian Dead Rock Star Archivist
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 2:43 am

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Neckbone »

Y'all forgot a couple:

Bowlegs, Oklahoma. Just a hop, skip and yodle north of Vamoosa.

Versailes, Indiana - pronounced: VerSALES
Russiaville, Indiana - pronounced: ROOshavill
Peru, Indiana - pronounced: PEEroo

Back to the point of the thread, didn't Cardozo write an opinion about the validity of taxing income earned from the exercise of fundamental or natural rights? If so, how does PH explain that one away?

Sorry, I don't remember the name of the case. I'm rather rusty at the Quatloos game.

Neckbone
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
Posts: 5773
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Demosthenes »

grixit wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:I've always learned that using the generic plural form of "they" to get around the gender awkward choice of he/she was bad grammar.
Many of us were, but only because we had ignorant teachers. That rule is not part of the english language, it's something someone made up and tried to foist on us.

Why would you need a rule that says individual people should be referred to using singular pronouns but more than one person should be referred to using a plural pronoun? It's pretty obvious, and is a consistent concept in the five languages I've learned so far.

I'm a language snob; I readily admit it. But I listen to my step daughter's language skills, and it damn near kills me every time I hear, "Her and me are going to a party." She is 24, has finished her bachelor's degree in English, is working on a teaching master's, and will be teaching high school English in the next year. Lord help us all.
Demo.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7624
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by wserra »

RyanMcC wrote:PENNSYLVANIA
Blue Ball
Intercourse
And they are only a few miles apart. Really.

God knows why they don't do the obvious.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Dr. Caligari »

PENNSYLVANIA
Blue Ball
Intercourse
Both figured in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966) (along with Middlesex, New Jersey).
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
Nikki

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Nikki »

One could also travel from Newark, NJ, to Newark, DE -- remembering to pronounce the Delaware variant as New Ark (As in the big ship built by Noah).

Then, there's always the trip from Brooklyn, NY, to Brooklyn (pr. brooklawn), NJ.

Finally, on either of these trips, you can make a side excursion to Bala Cynwyd, PA, which no one knows how to pronounce properly.
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Quixote »

I'm a language snob; I readily admit it.
I used to be. Now I tend to object to bad grammar only when it causes confusion, either for the reader or the writer. Or when the use of bad grammar indicates a defect in the speaker's/writer's thought processes. Are the people who say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less" paying attention to anything they say? And when was the last time anyone used the phrase "politically correct" to mean politically correct?
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Ned Netterville

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Ned Netterville »

Demo wrote,
I used to work as a tour guide at Hearst Castle
Did you get to ride Rosebud?
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by grixit »

Demosthenes wrote:
grixit wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:I've always learned that using the generic plural form of "they" to get around the gender awkward choice of he/she was bad grammar.
Many of us were, but only because we had ignorant teachers. That rule is not part of the english language, it's something someone made up and tried to foist on us.

Why would you need a rule that says individual people should be referred to using singular pronouns but more than one person should be referred to using a plural pronoun? It's pretty obvious, and is a consistent concept in the five languages I've learned so far.
Nothing wrong with that. But since "they" is a pronoun that can be used either way, it is the appropriate one to use when you don't know the sex of the person you are referring to.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by LPC »

I normally make great allowances for thread drift, but all of your chatter has confused Ducky (or scared "them" away).
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Nikki

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Nikki »

Okay, Mr. Whiner-Schminer:

This is the last on-topic post before the stream-of-consciousness posts diverted the thread to Cairo (KAYRO) IL:
Famspear wrote:Ducky wrote:
Had it been constitutional to levy a duty on the salary or payment to everyone residing in the United States this would have been explicitly stated that way
Well, if you're saying that in order for it to be constitutional to levy a duty on the salary or payment of everyone, etc., the statute itself would have to have explicitly state it "that way" (either in the constitution or in the statute itself), that would be completely incorrect from a legal standpoint.

Perhaps you meant to say: "Had it been LEGAL UNDER THE STATUTE IN QUESTION to levy a duty on the salary or payment to everyone residing in the United States this would have been explicitly stated that way."

That would be statutory argument, not a constitutional argument. However, even if that's what you meant, that would be incorrect, too. There is no legal requirement that statutes be worded that way.

This reminds me of the pseudo-legal argument -- I think it may have been by Irwin Schiff, whose history is summarized here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff

and who can be contacted here:

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderSe ... &x=26&y=18

--that because section 22 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code (defining gross income) included words like "salary" or "wages" and because its replacement -- section 61 of the 1954 Code -- dropped those terms and instead used the phrase "compensation for personal services", it was somehow the intent of Congress in 1954 to not tax "salaries" and "wages" under section 61. That argument has as much validity as the argument Ducky is presenting (which I guess is Peter Hendrickson's argument, not Ducky's). It's another impotent tax protester argument: that stuff has to be worded just the way they want it to be worded.

Same thing with court opinions. Again (I apologize, I noted this again just the other day), one Hendrickson supporter last year went so far as to argue, more or less, that compensation for personal services rendered by a private sector employee residing in Oklahoma was not gross income -- because there was no federal court case directly on point, involving a resident of "Oklahoma," ruling that "Oklahoma" was a "state" (thus, the employee was not a resident of the "United States," and thus not subject to the tax, so went the argument).

OK, OK, I admit the reference to Uncle Irwin was a cheap shot. I couldn't resist.
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Imalawman »

LPC wrote:I normally make great allowances for thread drift, but all of your chatter has confused Ducky (or scared "them" away).

I'll admit, I've been only drifting through lately because I'm in trial (and for the next two weeks..ugh..) but wow, that was one hell of a thread drift. I'm just sorry I missed it. :wink:

But back to the originally scheduled thread...
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
Posts: 5773
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Demosthenes »

CaptainKickback wrote:
Ned Netterville wrote:Demo wrote,
I used to work as a tour guide at Hearst Castle
Did you get to ride Rosebud?
Rosebud was the prop sled in the movie Citizen Kane, which was based on the life of William Randoplh Hearst and if it still exists is in some movie memorabilia collection or museum. It would most definitely NOT be at Hearst Castle. Old man Hearst was apoplectic when Citizen Kane came out.

My dad and I visited Hearst Castle in the early 80s and did all (4) of the tours they offered at the time. Very cool. Highly recommended.
That's when I was there. Every tour guide was allowed to write her own tour, so if you had a yound redhead who talked a lot about movie trivia, that was me.
Demo.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Gregg »

Demosthenes wrote: That's when I was there. Every tour guide was allowed to write her own tour, so if you had a yound redhead who talked a lot about movie trivia, that was me.
With or without the melon?
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Imalawman »

Seriously, this thread is doomed. We can't hold a train of thought.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Randall
Warden of the Quatloosian Sane Asylum
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: The Deep South, so deep I'm almost in Rhode Island.

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Randall »

RyanMcC wrote:MISSOURI
Peculiar
The story of how Peculiar got its name is that the founding fathers of that city had sent a few choices to the state and all were rejected. Then they wrote back to the Secretary of State asking for help as they wanted something that was kinda peculiar, hence the name.

I'll add one to the list:
Tight Wad, Missouri which is/was home of the Tight Wad National Bank.
Last edited by Randall on Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Gregg »

Imalawman wrote:Seriously, this thread is doomed. We can't hold a train of thought.
well, somehow "rational" and "Ducky" just don't seem like they go together anyway.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Mr. Mephistopheles
Faustus Quatlus
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:46 am

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Mr. Mephistopheles »

Randall wrote:
RyanMcC wrote:MISSOURI
Peculiar
The story of how Peculiar got its name is that the founding fathers of that city had sent a few choices to the state and all were rejected. Then they wrote back to the Secretary of State asking for help as they wanted something that was kinda peculiar, hence the name.

I'll add one to the list:
Tight Wad, Missouri which is/was home of the Tight Wad National Bank.
I know people who live in Peculiar, MO. It's actually a very nice town.
Mr. Mephistopheles
Faustus Quatlus
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:46 am

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Mr. Mephistopheles »

Demosthenes wrote:

Why would you need a rule that says individual people should be referred to using singular pronouns but more than one person should be referred to using a plural pronoun? It's pretty obvious, and is a consistent concept in the five languages I've learned so far.

I'm a language snob; I readily admit it. But I listen to my step daughter's language skills, and it damn near kills me every time I hear, "Her and me are going to a party." She is 24, has finished her bachelor's degree in English, is working on a teaching master's, and will be teaching high school English in the next year. Lord help us all.
Can I quote you on that? [/sarcasm] :P

My wife frequently uses "can" instead of "may". I react to it the same way my English teacher did; "I don't know, can you?" Of course, mood dictates my response. :mrgreen:

At an early point in our relationship Mrs. M. asked me to proof-read a letter. I commented that she used too many commas, which was a bad habit I have strived to correct in my own writing. She took great umbrage to the criticism and remarked that she was English honors for four years in high school. I counted to ten and countered that I have written many hundreds of pages of research documents at the post-graduate level and that there were still too damned many commas in her letter! It all worked out. She remarked that she had never dated anyone who would know the difference between a comma and a semicolon and conceded defeat. Henceforth, she has asked me to proof-read many documents. Just goes to show that even Honors English teachers don't always know their material! I make my share of grammatical errors, but what I find particularly unsettling about this is that most of the errors she makes were rules of grammar that I learned in Junior High School.
Kimokeo

Re: Rational discussion regarding CTC starring Ducky

Post by Kimokeo »

LLANFAIRPWLLGWYNGYLLGOGERYCHWYRNDROBWLLLLANTYSILIOGOGOGOCH is according to one source the longest placename in the world, with 58 letters. It is a town in North Wales meaning "St. Mary's Church in the hollow of the white hazel near to the rapid whirlpool of Llantysilio of the red cave" or "St. Mary's (Church) by the white aspen over the whirlpool, and St. Tysilio's (Church) by the red cave" in Welsh.



http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php

This is a favorite of mine. As a multilinguist, I had to give a hand to those studying english.