John on "Trolls"

[Disilloosianed]

John made the following post on LH, defining "Trolls." Ah, the irony:

Author Topic
John J. Bulten


Topic reopened from archive 06/03/07 by John J. Bulten as a reminder to current and new members.

On 04/18/06 John J Bulten posted (as amended):

The "Trolls" thread is for identification of and guidance relating to trolls as defined below. If you were referred here with a comment of the form "DBE: See 'Trolls'" it means the poster has concluded you meet the definition of troll and does not think your comments need further response than this thread provides.

Locked or Banned Trolls, with their Apparent <Quatloos IDs> and Frivolous or Contrary Claims:
Brian Rookard <(same)> (anti-TP, "You cannot exclude the ordinary meaning" of "employee")
Cat <Demosthenes> (tax informer, "I don't think the law had anything to do with those refunds")
Dazed and Confused <none> (banned by Pete)
DBE <LPC> ("tax attorney", "Present me with a succinct summary, I'll explain why [CtC]'s wrong")
FederalBanditos2 <none> ("Remember your considered government chattle (a 'US citizen')")
hippy <none> (anti-CtC, argues Title 5 changes meaning of Title 26)
jdg <jg> ("For income tax purposes, there is no cost of one's own labor")
jdg2 <jg> (same)
Parcival <?> (IRS IP, "tax evasion", "smoke & mirrors", "legal impossibility", "lied on returns", "claimed wages")

Avowed Trolls:
Dr. Caligari <(same)> (regular Quatloos poster)
JoeD_from_QL <Joe Dirt?> (last post 10/2/06, "accountant", "Your 'guru' is on his way ... into the tank")
jkeeb <(same)> (IRS IP, "Accretion to wealth is income")
skeptic62 <iplawyer> (last post 5/16/06, "DBE - You are right of course")

Suspected Trolls:
incometaxfreenut (longest post on record)
Legist ("'income' ... unambiguously include the pay one receives for work")
nontaxpayer ("The fallicy that 'wages' are 'income' is just that - a fallicy")

*Spammers:
*Cialis Online
*Nebraska
*Viagra Online

A troll (also called disruptor) is someone on a forum who both disagrees with the forum baseline and argues frivolously. Here the forum baseline is the book CtC (see homepage), and since frivolous argument is a hot topic I'll define it carefully. Frivolous argument means one of the following:

1) An argument in favor of a position on an established frivolous list such as:
- http://losthorizons.com/tax/Misunderstandings/map.htm
- http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm
- http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
- http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/frivolou ... 4-2005.pdf
- http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s17.html#d0e169484
- http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-06-31.pdf
- http://www.irs.gov/irb/2006-01_IRB/ar07.html#d0e7786
- http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-06-18.pdf
(Note that occasionally although a listed position is frivolous, the argument used to prove it may be incomplete. Listing the above does not endorse everything stated therein, only the frivolousness of the main positions cited.)

2) An argument based on a formal or informal logical fallacy. Formal logical fallacies are well-defined, such as arguing that if all IRS agents are criminals, all criminals must be IRS agents. Informal fallacies include but are not limited to:
- Naked assertion (bias or prejudice, presuming facts not in evidence)
- Wilful ignorance (ignoring facts in evidence)
- Special pleading (dismissing inconvenient facts in evidence)
- Illogical extrapolation (overemphasizing scant facts in evidence)
- Argument from silence (conclusion as if missing data is probative)
- Exhaustive knowledge (conclusion as if all data is known)
- Shifting burden of proof (demanding exhaustive proof against a view)
- Proof of a negative (exhaustive knowledge something is never true)
- Sweeping generalization (knowledge something is exhaustively true)
- Begging the question (arguing in circles)
- Poisoning the well (injecting prejudice while pretending fairness)
- False dilemma (seeing two options only)
- Excluded middle (form of false dilemma, seeing black and white only)
- Fallacy of the beard (seeing gray only)
- Misdirection (pretending a nonresponse is a response)
- Changing the subject (distractive response to a different question)
- Ad hominem (irrelevant, distractive attack upon the opponent)
- Appeal to authority (irrelevant presumption an authority is correct)
- Appeal to belief (irrelevant presumption belief is correct if free)
- Straw man (mischaracterizing the opponent)
- Projection (claiming your own fallacy is the opponent's)
- Elephant hurling (smothering with collated, irrelevant arguments)
- Equivocation (wilfully ambiguous use of words)
- Abuse of terms of art (wilfully ambiguous use of terms)
- Abuse of rhetoric (appeal to overrepetition or flowery language)
- Mistrust (rejecting authority, not merely questioning authority)
- Accusations (blaming authority, not merely petitioning for redress)
- Misleading (actually deceiving or lying)
- Other fallacies listed in established sources

3) Profanity, racial, ethnic, religious or cultural slurs, and disagreeable (that is, sustained, vicious or irrational) ranting or flaming; or a demeanor of a harangue or disquisition; or outright deliberate attempts to mislead or misinform.

Avowed trolls are those who (one thinks) clearly desire to argue frivolously and oppose CtC. Suspected trolls are those who (one thinks) have done so but where (one thinks) it is ambiguous whether they meant to or not; often these run along the lines of "Love this forum except that PH really needs to make this one change". The difference is just like the difference between a 3176 and a 3175.

Please note that CtC promotes tax honesty, the position that although the Internal Revenue Code may be legal and binding, it is immoral. Trolls come in two different stripes: tax protestor, anti-authoritarian types who find the Code illegal, and tax leech, attorneys, accountants and agents who find it fattening.

CtC has faced an unprecedented troll attack since the beginning of 04/06. I recommend that everyone adopt the following strategy for dealing with trolls. DO NOT waste too much time arguing over a frivolous position, logical fallacy, or objectionable behavior. Rather, use a standard one-line response of the form "DBE: See 'Trolls' under" (and append the briefest description of the frivolity, fallacy, or flame). Similarly when alleged trolls deny being what you have judged them to be.

The objective is as follows. Veterans will not waste time rehashing established arguments. Newcomers will quickly learn the trick and be able to discern CtC supporters from misleading witnesses. The trolls themselves will be dissuaded because no one wants to pick their fights.

If, of course, a troll appears to have an honest question or opinion (open to debate rather than closed to debate), a response to the nonfrivolous portion is proper. In this context I want to clear the names of babar and BiggDooger, whom I had formerly suspected of trollery, but who have comported themselves quite acquittingly. Also, juju was added to the suspected list a year ago, and LogicTax was formally warned by Pete directly, but they have survived all cutbacks and have continued to promote and display teachability, so I have not included them in this list as of 06/03/07.

This approach resembles that of the IRS in handling "frivolous" filings but is different in many ways: first, the determination is informal and done individually; the alleged troll retains every right to be heard and have others agree or disagree in the determination; and the remaining forum members are presumed and required to exercise wisdom in determination to prevent abuse of troll identification. Most trolls do not want to acquit themselves by abandoning illogic and lies, as the troll comments below demonstrate. Those who seek the truth are free to continue to do so, but I have yet to hear someone espouse both "I pursue truth" and "truth is, Americans accrue taxes just by working".

As of 06/06/06, we are adopting a ruling by Pete (admin) on a split decision among moderators. _RL and John J. Bulten favored banning unannounced, significant deletion, while PatFerguson and SanDiegoScott advocated the practice. Pete's 05/29 ruling by email was, "You misunderstood me, perhaps. Delete away, if you are convinced beyond a doubt that the target is a deliberate troublemaker." That is, announcement of significant deletion is left to moderator discretion.

Since I will have less time for long posting now that the tax deadline has passed and other activity will quiet down, I hope these ideas will keep trolls "controlled".

[Demosthenes]

Sorry John, I'm not Cat and have never posted on Lost Horizons.

[Imalawman]

Sorry John, I'm not Cat and have never posted on Lost Horizons.

Geez, you've said that like 15 times already. You'd think they'd get their conspiracies straight.

I love the part about "showing teachability". If that was our standard, John B would definately not be on quatloos. Maybe its not a problem since the shelf life of a TP on quatloos is about 3 pages into a thread. (usually too much logic to handle)

[Disilloosianed]

I sort of like the internal debate over whether they should ban those they deem "trolls" entirely or just ignore them. Way to show openness to new ideas, LH!

[Joey Smith]

I've noticed that people at LostHeads are labeled as "trolls" and banned when:

1) They say that CtC did not work for them and they got their wages garnished, etc.

2) They ask questions about why Pete keeps the big number up when more than half of it has already gone back to the IRS by way of settlements, interest and fines.

3) They ask questions about Pete's mail bombing incident.

In other words, they become "trolls" when the cold hard facts might raise questions for other posters. Just like any other nutso cult of born losers, the CtCers don't want to hear anything even remotely negative of their position. Just stick their head in the sand and continue to believe, believe, believe.

[webhick]

Well, they're allowed to have their rules - it's their forum. But, it certainly is interesting to see how they silence the opposition.

[Whipples]

They've opened up registration again at the Lostwhorizons forums! Obviously they have decided to open their minds to new view points and ideas.

[The Observer]

I love how they have deemed argument lists, like LPC's, to be frivolous and in the same breath ignore the inconvenient truth that LPC's arguments are based on the law and how the courts have ruled on the law.

I am still waiting to see if LH bans the courts as being "trollish."

[Quixote]

They've opened up registration again at the Lostwhorizons forums! Obviously they have decided to open their minds to new view points and ideas.

[Quixote]

I love how they have deemed argument lists, like LPC's, to be frivolous and in the same breath ignore the inconvenient truth that LPC's arguments are based on the law and how the courts have ruled on the law.

I am still waiting to see if LH bans the courts as being "trollish."

PH's list of TP nonsense that competes with his TP nonsense is one of the argument lists. So I think they're referring to the arguments that Dan dissects, not his arguments or those of the courts, as frivolous.

Posting court opinions is definitely trollish on LH.

[LPC]

PH's list of TP nonsense that competes with his TP nonsense is one of the argument lists. So I think they're referring to the arguments that Dan dissects, not his arguments or those of the courts, as frivolous.

But doesn't my TPFAQ refute CtC/LH nonsense?

Is this one of those situations in which Hendrickson, Bulten, LH, et al., show that they are superior to all of those idiot "tax protester arguments" by claiming that they are not "tax protesters." And when you ask how their argument differs from the thousands of similar arguments that have been shot down by the courts, it turns out to be a matter of punctuation or something?

[Brian Rookard]

... it turns out to be a matter of punctuation or something?

Usually emanating from use of the colon.

[webhick]

PH's list of TP nonsense that competes with his TP nonsense is one of the argument lists. So I think they're referring to the arguments that Dan dissects, not his arguments or those of the courts, as frivolous.

But doesn't my TPFAQ refute CtC/LH nonsense?

Is this one of those situations in which Hendrickson, Bulten, LH, et al., show that they are superior to all of those idiot "tax protester arguments" by claiming that they are not "tax protesters." And when you ask how their argument differs from the thousands of similar arguments that have been shot down by the courts, it turns out to be a matter of punctuation or something?

I get the impression that the CtCers think that the FAQ doesn't address them.

[LPC]

PH's list of TP nonsense that competes with his TP nonsense is one of the argument lists. So I think they're referring to the arguments that Dan dissects, not his arguments or those of the courts, as frivolous.

But doesn't my TPFAQ refute CtC/LH nonsense?

Is this one of those situations in which Hendrickson, Bulten, LH, et al., show that they are superior to all of those idiot "tax protester arguments" by claiming that they are not "tax protesters." And when you ask how their argument differs from the thousands of similar arguments that have been shot down by the courts, it turns out to be a matter of punctuation or something?

I get the impression that the CtCers think that the FAQ doesn't address them.

Well, yeah, that's my point. But *why* doesn't it address them?

The dialog on LH went something like this:

Me: Section 3401(c) does not exclude anyone from the definition of "employer" and the definition of "employer" in section 3401(c) is irrelevant to whether you have gross income within the meaning of section 61.

Someone else: That has nothing to do with Ctc.

Me: Well, then tell me what CtC says.

Someone else: Read the book.

Bulten: DBE is trolling and is banned.

[webhick]

Well, yeah, that's my point. But *why* doesn't it address them?

The dialog on LH went something like this:

Me: Section 3401(c) does not exclude anyone from the definition of "employer" and the definition of "employer" in section 3401(c) is irrelevant to whether you have gross income within the meaning of section 61.

Someone else: That has nothing to do with Ctc.

Me: Well, then tell me what CtC says.

Someone else: Read the book.

Bulten: DBE is trolling and is banned.

Why? They see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe. When you speak, they firmly plug their ears and sing at the top of their lungs until you get fed up and go away (or John silences you)

Also, Pete tells them so: http://216.190.255.189/tax/faq.htm#Frivolous And they think they're smarter for pretending to understand his bullshit, so they blindly follow his lead while they wear a cloak of smug superiority and hope that no one notices that they don't have a clue what road they're travelling. But you already knew that.

They've also expanded the definition of troll to the point where anyone but a diehard supporter is going to get banned. They're cutting their own throats.

I found it funny that John may have engaged here in some of the "suspected troll" behavior he lists on that board ("Love this forum except that PH really needs to make this one change"). Anyone remember Dan's FAQ Improveable? in which he said:

I do this because while I can fully affirm the frivolous nature of each of the IRS's enumerated positions, there are at least two cases in which I believe Dan has represented the law inaccurately, and I would like to refer others to his FAQ as a sound compilation of frivolous positions as well, which I could do if the occasional questionables were better worded.

Sounded a lot like, "like your FAQ, except you really need to make these two changes", right? Then he launched into a spiel where he adds a few words to the definition of state (which didn't make it clearer for me, only more wordy), changes some capitalization, adds some stuff, and expands more (again, not clearer, more wordy).

[Quixote]

Me: Well, then tell me what CtC says.

Someone else: Read the book.

That won't help. I dipped into CtC again yesterday trying to find out what argument PH makes in support of his belief that his compensation for services is not income. I have yet to find one.

[Joe Blow]

They've opened up registration again at the Lostwhorizons forums! Obviously they have decided to open their minds to new view points and ideas.

That's because they don't have any new points of view and ideas of their own. They love reading new information, but have none of their own. Why ? Because they want it handed to them and want it for free - To heck with having a new idea of their own.

[Joey Smith]

Yet as we sit here today, no CtC'er has ever had any success against the IRS at any level, including Pete himself who has suffered loss after loss and whose indictment is undoubtedly right around the corner. Yet, the follow CtC like the blind sheeple they are . . .

[Joe Blow]

Yet as we sit here today, no CtC'er has ever had any success against the IRS at any level, including Pete himself who has suffered loss after loss and whose indictment is undoubtedly right around the corner. Yet, the follow CtC like the blind sheeple they are . . .

No success at any level?? There is success and that success is in exposing the fraud to employers and then letting IRS know you've exposed it to the employer. Many CtC'ers pretend to rebut their information returns with the employer when they have done no such thing, because they are afraid of their employer, for whatever reason. Many of the W-2's are never actually rebutted with the employer. Exposing the information to the employer is key - in my opinion.

[Joe Blow]

Getting a refund is not a success. The purpose of CtC is supposedly to first get corrected information returns from the employer, THEN, the refund. Nobody wants to do that - they want one thing and ONE THING only - THE MONEY.