Harvester wrote:Famspear wrote:No, our role here is to expose scams.
I call BS on that. While some genuine scams are exposed here (I applaud that), the government scams are vigorously defended here at Quatloos. I find that particularly revealing.
Joey, I see plenty of attorneys who support Pete:
Mark C. Phillips, JD
Jerry Arnowitz, JD
William Butler, JD
Michael Carver, JD
John O'Neil Green, JD
Eric Smithers, JD
Nancy "Ana" Garner, JD
And if you want to talk websites beyond losthorizons.com that know our tax code is misapplied, I can go there too.
I call BS on that. That's no kind of an answer. You found seven people with law degrees who support Hendrickson? Do you have any idea how many people with law degrees who know he's full of baloney?
You can find other tax protester web sites? Wow, how impressive! And the authors of those web sites "know" that our tax code is "misapplied"? Baloney.
Earlier, Harvester wrote:
No it's not baloney. It's true, I lawfully pay no income tax, I'm not evading.
Prove it. Oh, I'm sorry, I realize that asking you to try to prove what you write is too much for you to handle.
It hinges on the true nature of 'income' under the Revenue Acts, of which I have precious little. And furthermore Famspire, you once again illustrate to us all, you not whereof you speak. You act like an expert on Hendrickson and his theories, yet have never read his book.
Still repeating that nonsense? OK, here we go again: The fact that you think I am "acting like an expert" on Hendrickson and his theories lends credence to the idea that you consciously or subconsciously fear that I am right. After all, I've never claimed to be an expert on Hendrickson or anything else here -- and you're the one who is using the term "expert" to describe me. What that tells me is that you are impressed with the way the Quatloos regulars have rebutted your nonsense, and that you are frustrated because you know of no way to counter what we say.
And once again, the fact that you are referencing Hendrickson in this way illustrates that
you take Hendrickson himself as your authority. For one or more specious reasons, you refuse to accept the court rulings against Hendrickson, and you insist that you believe Hendrickson is correct and the courts are wrong.
You seem to think "baloney" "I say so" bluster & repetition will convince us all. While an abuser may get somewhere with those tactics, they don't work in an internet forum.
No, I don't "seem to think" that saying "baloney" will convince anyone, and you yourself don't really believe that I think that. You are just engaging in more useless rhetoric.
As far as repetition is concerned, as long as you continue to repeat your unproven platitudes and nonsense, I and others here feel free to repeat my rebuttals of your nonsense. This repetition serves the purpose of this forum -- to expose scammers like you.
Now, about your use of the term "bluster." You used the term as a noun. The word "bluster" as a noun means "loudly boastful or threatening speech." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 122 (G. & C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976). No, I have not "boasted" about anything, and I have not threatened you. And despite your implication to the contrary, I am not an "abuser." That is just more empty rhetoric from you. Unlike you, I am not the one breaking the law, nor am I claiming -- as my authority for legal or accounting matters -- someone like Peter Hendrickson whose legal and accounting credential consists of experience in video arcade management and apartment complex maintenance, and whose "theories" about a legal and accounting topic, the income tax law, have been ruled -- in federal court -- to be frivolous and fraudulent. Yes, Harvester, your rhetoric is empty.
I know these facts stick in your craw like a piece of wood, but the truth stands on its own, it doesn't hide from the light. You're either holding back the truth, or, you have much to learn yet.
No, I'm not holding back anything. I back up what I write. By contrast, you do not.
No, the things you write are not "facts," and the only things that "stick in anyone's craw" are the things that we Quatloos regulars use to rebut your rhetoric. You're the one whose craw is infected. Since you refuse to try to back up what you write, it is understandable that you feel frustrated. It is also obvious that you are projecting your feelings of frustration onto other people.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet