John on "Trolls"

[John J. Bulten]

Lawman, "showing teachability" is a standard for retaining people, but "not showing teachability" is NOT a standard for removing them, as you presume. Hope that's not too much logic for you.

Disill, we are open to new ideas, but we are not open to abuse as described. Do you have better ideas for dealing with abuse than ignoring or banning it?

Joey, for once you make a cogent point. Now, I have never deleted or labeled or banned anyone whose posts met your criteria (CtC doesn't work, I was garnished, why the big number, or what about mail bombing). I am not the only moderator, so any of five others may have done so; but I would dissent with such actions by the brethren. However, I would label or ban abusive positions such as: CtC doesn't work because of my ridiculous, insistently spouted TP argument; or Pete is an expletive deleted for not changing the number or publicizing "losses"; or Pete's a convicted firebomber terrorist who could strike anytime. I believe I've already reminded you that you can send such concerns to phendrickson at losthorizons. Also, I think that when the DOJ backs down on enforcing 5 summonses, that is both a technical and moral victory. (If, however, the DOJ refusing to prosecute is not a victory, you have a very narrow view.)

All, the reference to Dan/LPC was specific and carefully phrased. I have just rereviewed the TOC of his most recent edit, and as far as I know, every position he states as frivolous is frivolous (though in certain cases, such as "The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax", the frivolity is in a particular interpretation which Dan states, not just in the words themselves). However, I specifically distanced myself from certain incomplete arguments, such as the two which I provided corrections for which were too subtle for Dan to grasp publicly. I did not present a motive of making anything clearer, only unambiguously legally accurate. But my affirmation was sincere: if Dan would accept changes which to him make no difference, I would promote his FAQ more widely; but he does not. I would add at this point that "A belief that the word 'includes' is restrictive" (we agree it isn't) needs a little adjustment also, and I may continue to make other observations in the future. So Dan has judicial notice.

Observer, it took me awhile to realize you actually thought that making a frivolous position list was the frivolous position, rather than the positions listed. I think I was clear enough to say "Frivolous argument means ... an argument in favor of a position on an established frivolous list", but if you like I'll change it to "frivolous position list".

Quixote, posting court opinions is not trollish unless it constitutes elephant hurling or another abuse. By the way, I plead guilty to one count of elephant hurling on this forum, when posting (much of) the statutory definitions of "wages" in a fit of pique, for which the appropriate LH penalty would be: a warning. As to the position that compensation is not necessarily income, it is not explicit in CtC (because not core), but it is implicit in Pete's observation that the equivalent concept of salaries in the 1862 Act are not necessarily income due to the text and historical application of Sections 86 and 90.

Dan, very funny summary of the conversation, perhaps you could link it? All those posts are still public in the archive. By the way, Disill declined to post the links to three warnings I gave you prior to being banned, which were part of that post. As to your point itself, it's true that 3401(d) "employer" has nothing to do with CtC. Or perhaps you mean 3401(c) "employee" (I can never tell with your spelling)? If so, the answer is that 3401(c) neither excludes nor includes beyond what is specifically stated there and in 7701(c). And the determination of 61 gross income is dependent on many relevant factors, of which 3401(c) status is an important one. So your position is once again ambiguous, and it's very hard to tell wilfulness with you because your forum has no standards of dialogue comparable to those we maintain at LH.

[jg]

And the determination of 61 gross income is dependent on many relevant factors, of which 3401(c) status is an important one.

Please do tell how (and where) it says so. What is the legal basis for this claim?

[Joey Smith]

Also, I think that when the DOJ backs down on enforcing 5 summonses, that is both a technical and moral victory.

No, it just means that the case has gone from the civil side of DOJ to the criminal side of DOJ.

[Quixote]

Quixote, posting court opinions is not trollish unless it constitutes elephant hurling or another abuse.

Nice sidestep. Any relevant court opinion will always constitute "another abuse" as that phrase is interpreted at LH, because it would inject a bit of reality into the LH fantasy land. That was, after all, the only offense of many of the banned "trolls".

[iplawyer]

JJB wrote:

So your position is once again ambiguous, and it's very hard to tell wilfulness with you because your forum has no standards of dialogue comparable to those we maintain at LH.

Now I know that you are out of your mind. The modertors here let you say anything you want and disagree with the majority of this forum's beliefs without banning you and without editing your posts. At LH - as long as a poster believes he doesn't have to pay taxes, he can say pretty much any thing he wants. If somebody politely disagree - wham - you delete or edit their post. You clearly are in need of serious help if you believe "including" means excluding everything not listed - and that LH has any standard of MEANINGFUL Dialog.

BTW - the Cristal was wonderful. My husband is taking me to dinner at Per Se when Pete loses his appeal. What I'm really waiting for is Pete's criminal conviction - that one nets me a first class trip to Tahiti. John - do you know why we can afford to do these things? We work and pay our taxes so that we don't have to be unemployed and spending 24/7 trying to figure out how to get around paying taxes. It is just amazing.

[Brian Rookard]

However, I would label or ban abusive positions such as: CtC doesn't work because of my ridiculous, insistently spouted TP argument;

In other words, you're not about the truth.

Thanks for clarifying (and confirming what we already knew).

[gottago]

The modertors here let you say anything you want and disagree with the majority of this forum's beliefs without banning you and without editing your posts.

Yep, they also stalk you in order to discover your identity and then paste totally unrelated details of your (past) personal life on here while calling you an idiot, liar, stupid and ignorant.

When I came on here about 8 months ago, numerous members of the quats accused me of being a troll. Then, one of them (Nikki, I think it was) actually wrote that I threatened jj and should be banned from here.

But, all the losers are on losthorizons...

[Nikki]

The modertors here let you say anything you want and disagree with the majority of this forum's beliefs without banning you and without editing your posts.

Yep, they also stalk you in order to discover your identity and then paste totally unrelated details of your (past) personal life on here while calling you an idiot, liar, stupid and ignorant.

When I came on here about 8 months ago, numerous members of the quats accused me of being a troll. Then, one of them (Nikki, I think it was) actually wrote that I threatened jj Everyone's entitled to an opionion.and should be banned from here. But you weren't.

But, all the losers are on losthorizons...

You just contradicted your own conclusion.

No one has ever been banned here for being a royal pain in the neck or for disagreeing with the opinions of the moderators.

Even some of the most annoying and disruptive posters only received time-outs to cool off.

As far as I can recall, only LawyerDude, a the usual bunch of spammers, and a few people who came here just to advertise have been banned.

[Demosthenes]

The modertors here let you say anything you want and disagree with the majority of this forum's beliefs without banning you and without editing your posts.

Yep, they also stalk you in order to discover your identity and then paste totally unrelated details of your (past) personal life on here while calling you an idiot, liar, stupid and ignorant.

When I came on here about 8 months ago, numerous members of the quats accused me of being a troll. Then, one of them (Nikki, I think it was) actually wrote that I threatened jj and should be banned from here.

But, all the losers are on losthorizons...

Notice how every thread where Goodess posts has to be all about Goodess?

I don't think it was Nikki who thought you should be banned; I think it was Duke2Earl. And in case you haven't noticed, I didn't ban you.

I have no need to look up information on Mr. Bulten. He isn't a promoter so I'm not interested in shutting him down, and unlike you, Gottago, he hasn't posted suicide threats and lies on this bulletin board.

Mr. Bulten, like you, is welcome to post here, because the only people I ban are those who make violent threats (you only commented that you hoped I came to a violent end, not that you would do it...) and spammers. Lawyerdud was only banned for two weeks after making pedophile and virulently racist posts.

[webhick]

For christsakes, gottago. Stop whining. I went through a ton worse shit than you. You don't see me talking about all the time. You don't see me stalking the guy that did it. Yet, you persist in stalking Demo on this forum and rehashing the same garbage over and over again. What the hell is wrong with you?

[Joey Smith]

Yep, they also stalk you in order to discover your identity and then paste totally unrelated details of your (past) personal life on here

What? Like a poster who claims that they were pinching every penny when in fact they were taking cruises?

while calling you an idiot, liar, stupid and ignorant.

Truth has always been an absolute defense at Quatloos . . .

[Nikki]

Notice how every thread where Goodess posts has to be all about Goodess?

I don't think it was Nikki who thought you should be banned; I think it was Duke2Earl. And in case you haven't noticed, I didn't ban you.

I have no need to look up information on Mr. Bulten. He isn't a promoter so I'm not interested in shutting him down, and unlike you, Gottago, he hasn't posted suicide threats and lies on this bulletin board.

Mr. Bulten, like you, are welcome to post here, because the only people I ban are those who make violent threats (you only commented that you hoped I came to a violent end, not that you would do it...) and spammers. Lawyerdud was only banned for two weeks after making pedophile and virulently racist posts.

Agreed that he hasn't posted suicide threats.

As to the second part of the sentence, I guess you are giving him credit with actually believing all the nonsense he posts -- thereby moving them from being lies and just leaving them in the category of delusions. That's really too much credit.

[Duke2Earl]

I don't think it was Nikki who thought you should be banned; I think it was Duke2Earl. And in case you haven't noticed, I didn't ban you.

To the best of my recollection, which at my age is admittedly faulty, the only person I have advocated banning was Lawyerdude. I found his comments in support of the sexual abuse of children way beyond reprehensible. In fact, I am unable to adequately describe in a public forum exactly how despicable his statements were. But I do not remember suggesting banning anyone else.

But I do not doubt Demo, whose powers in all things I have found to be omnipotent.

[Demosthenes]

As to the second part of the sentence, I guess you are giving him credit with actually believing all the nonsense he posts -- thereby moving them from being lies and just leaving them in the category of delusions. That's really too much credit.

I think Bulten truly believes what he posts. He's posting under his own name and he's been interviewed in depth by the IRS on a telephone call, and yet he still keeps asserting the same conclusions. I think you have to be a true believer to be that self destructive.

[Imalawman]

Great pic of Pete Hendrickson. Too bad you can't add a text bubble saying, "come on drink up, you don't have any taxable income"

[gottago]

For christsakes, gottago. Stop whining. I went through a ton worse sh*t than you. You don't see me talking about all the time. You don't see me stalking the guy that did it. Yet, you persist in stalking Demo on this forum and rehashing the same garbage over and over again. What the hell is wrong with you?

The newest recruit into the fold!!! The indoctrination is complete!!! Keep those lips firmly planted!!!

You go girl!!!

[The Observer]

What the hell is wrong with you?

Maybe she was immersed in maple syrup for too long.

[webhick]

The newest recruit into the fold!!! The indoctrination is complete!!! Keep those lips firmly planted!!!

You go girl!!!

It's your behavior I've seen since I've been here that causes me to believe this.

Keep laughing and bitching and acting like a spoiled brat. You and your integrity are the only things that you hurt.

[gottago]

This from someone telling the story of going to the er with an overuse injury caused by masturbation....get with jj and maybe she will give you a spin on the vibromaster or whatever it is.

[webhick]

This from someone telling the story of going to the er with an overuse injury caused by masturbation....get with jj and maybe she will give you a spin on the vibromaster or whatever it is.

So, how do you know what the problem was? You don't. It was kidney stones, which have nothing to do with masturbating.

EDIT: And if you were smart, you would have said something like: This coming from someone who is admitted to being mentally unstable. At least it would have been true. But, no. Every comment you make has to be about your obsession with Demo.