John on "Trolls"

[webhick]

Geez....did I miss the day the guns were handed out?

I don't know. Where you in work Febrant 30th? The memo clearly said that they would be handed out that day. Unless of course, your office is still working on the Gregorian calendar. In which case, there will be a hefty penalty (No more free donuts on Tuesdays!) as you should have switched to the Illuminati Calendar two years ago.

Everyone knows that Governments are legally required to run on our calendar (since we control everything). Oh, and don't forget to pay homage to the great god Cumin next Wednesday.

[Imalawman]

Geez....did I miss the day the guns were handed out?

I don't know. Where you in work Febrant 30th? The memo clearly said that they would be handed out that day. Unless of course, your office is still working on the Gregorian calendar. In which case, there will be a hefty penalty (No more free donuts on Tuesdays!) as you should have switched to the Illuminati Calendar two years ago.

Everyone knows that Governments are legally required to run on our calendar (since we control everything). Oh, and don't forget to pay homage to the great god Cumin next Wednesday.

That was a fun day indeed. Things got a little out of hand at the after hours party. Webhick showed up with an execution warrant on a tax lien and we just went crazy seizing property until 4am. I couldn't even look at an execution warrant for a good year without getting a little sick to my stomach after that night.

[I must be unclear today, I'm a little foggy after the weekend long winefest I was at. I know JG8 isn't a TP, the TP quoted him first and I left his quote in there, some nut wrote the "all-knowing part". Jg8 is also a poster on here (or so John B. alleges)]

[jg]

I do not now have any recollection for approving any posting of personal details and deny ever having recollected any recollection of approving any admission of any personal details on the internet - at least none of my own personal details, that is.

I have no personal notes or records to help my recollection on this matter. The only honest answer is to state that, try as I might, I cannot recall anything whatsoever about whether I approved posting of personal details in advance or whether I approved posting of personal details. My answer therefore and the simple truth is, `I don't remember -- period'.

Anyway, who would create a user name 'jg' or a user name containing 'jg' to post on a forum ?
That is simply inconceivable!

[webhick]

Its doubtful that John realizes than an occupation is not necessarily a personal detail. I say "necessarily", because if someone admits to being the president of a specific country - it's pretty easy to figure out who they are.

[webhick]

jg8 has now been added to the "Avowed Trolls" list on that Troll thread John keeps modifying over at LH.

*jg8 <jg> ("enough is enough"/"utilizing CtC" "self centered world of ... one's own desire")

[John J. Bulten]

Someone asked how CtC could be "correct" if Hendrickson (and others) have lost their refund suits, and the IRS can get back the refunds whenever it wants .... So just *questioning* CtC is now considered "trolling" in LaHa-land.

Not questioning CtC, but assuming the IRS can get back the refunds whenever it wants, and assuming CtC loses in court every time ("So how can CtC be 'correct' if it loses in court every time?"). To which the response was not censoring, but warning. You and jdg are the only two I've ever censored. Moderator actions can be appealed to phendrickson at losthorizons, but he doesn't email you back when it's "cert denied".

We have an open forum, where free speech can be abused. Such abuse can lead to misunderstanding of the law. We have a duty not to permit misunderstandings to gain currency in the forum, because we have been accused of being an "abusive tax shelter" three times (and Pete won all three, IIRC). I'm wide open for general suggestions about how moderators of open fora should deal with the general threat of their statements being damagingly misrepresented.

Webhick, you confused "personal detail" with "personally identifiable information".

[webhick]

Webhick, you confused "personal detail" with "personally identifiable information".

Fair enough. But I don't consider one's occupation to be a personal detail.

[Famspear]

Uh-oh. Mr. Bulten, you said:

-----"We have an open forum, where free speech can be abused. Such abuse can lead to misunderstanding of the law."

Give me a break. I'm afraid I'm going to have to invoke the "aw come on now" rule again, Mr. Bulten. If you're censoring people at losthorizons because you're concerned about something posted there leading to "misunderstanding of the law," you should instead be pushing to have the entire losthorizons web site shut down permanently. -- Famspear

[webhick]

I like how John justifies rampant censorship. Dude, you're manipulating the content of a forum to only allow the sheep to see ONE side of the argument. ONE interpretation. If Pete is really so confident in his system, he would let people see both sides and decide for themselves. Instead, you're allowing them to make an argument like "if Pete was wrong, there would be people on this forum disagreeing with CtC".

But, like I said, it's Pete's forum, his rules. Let him do what he wants. No one but the LHers have to agree with it. And if everyone there agrees to live in their little glass bubble, it's their problem.

[LPC]

Someone asked how CtC could be "correct" if Hendrickson (and others) have lost their refund suits, and the IRS can get back the refunds whenever it wants .... So just *questioning* CtC is now considered "trolling" in LaHa-land.

Not questioning CtC,

Sorry, but *YOU* wrote that "overtly frivolous statements in opposition to CtC" may be deleted without notice.

As shown below, what you call "overtly frivolous" is what I call "factual," so anything in opposition to CtC can be (and has been) censored.

but assuming the IRS can get back the refunds whenever it wants, and assuming CtC loses in court every time ("So how can CtC be 'correct' if it loses in court every time?").

And both assertions are at least arguably, if not demonstrably, correct.

To which the response was not censoring, but warning.

It's not "warning" it's bullying.

We have an open forum, where free speech can be abused.

Such as by exposing the ugly truths that you don't want others to see.

Such abuse can lead to misunderstanding of the law.

PH's entire book is a "misunderstanding of the law."

People post incredible nonsense on LH every day and you do nothing about it, probably because you yourself don't realize what nonsense it is.

We have a duty not to permit misunderstandings to gain currency in the forum, because we have been accused of being an "abusive tax shelter" three times

That's pure BS. If you were really concerned about that, then you should *encourage* people to state opposing points of view, and not bully them into conforming to your whacko legal theories.

(and Pete won all three, IIRC).

As has been pointed out before, it is more than likely that PH "won" nothing except a criminal investigation into his activities.

I'm wide open for general suggestions about how moderators of open fora should deal with the general threat of their statements being damagingly misrepresented.

You should be more worried about your statements being accurately represented.

[wserra]

We have a duty not to permit misunderstandings

Well, of course you do. I'm sure you have a similar duty to prevent confusion and misapprehension.

Now, that poster who points out that the merits of Hendrickson's position have never won in any court - why that could lead to misunderstanding. And the poster who points out that all of those, including Hendrickson himself, who litigate over the refunds they received either gave up or lost - why, that could lead to confusion. And the posters who point out that the entire concept is just dumb, because it stands the ordinary meanings of words on their heads - well, misapprehension, right?

Why, it looks as though there may be something else a moderator at LH has a duty to prevent.

Truth.

I'm wide open for general suggestions about how moderators of open fora should deal with the general threat of their statements being damagingly misrepresented.

How about letting people post what they want, trusting that Section 230 of the CDA means what it says - that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"?

Nah. It violates CtC to believe that a statute means what it says. Consider me "warned".

[Cpt Banjo]

We have an open forum, where free speech can be abused. Such abuse can lead to misunderstanding of the law. We have a duty not to permit misunderstandings to gain currency in the forum, because we have been accused of being an "abusive tax shelter" three times (and Pete won all three, IIRC).

Maybe Bulten needs to read his own website, which makes it quite clear that idiotic misunderstandings of the law are not only tolerated but (if one were to actually read the postings that continue to espouse such nonsense) even welcome:

The insistence of some in clinging to pet "theories" about Social Security numbers, citizenship or residency, OMB numbers, and innumerable other distractions from the truth-- especially in light of the complete absence of evidence of the veracity of these "theories" (and much evidence to the contrary), the complete disagreement of the law with such "theories", and the endlessly demonstrated, seamless, comprehensive and exclusive accuracy of what is taught on this site, and in CtC-- is astonishing, to say the least. Nonetheless, these expressions are tolerated, so far.

[wserra]

The estimable John J. Bulten on the meaning of "free exchange of ideas" at LH:

The purpose of this forum is free exchange of ideas and spirited dialog. Adamant opponents are wonderful if you can agree on how to discuss your disagreement. But terrorism masquerading as free exchange of ideas,

"Terrorism", no less. Whatever happened to preventing "misunderstandings"? Practicing verbal "escallatio" here, aren't we?

such as we've seen so often (whether it's outright spam, or just continuous bald repetition of a non-CtC position),

Ohh. Terroristic spam. What is it, IED commercials? I mean, we delete spam too, but nobody pretends that it's "terrorism".

And "repetition". Man, that is bad. Clearly on a par with blowing up buildings.

I thought the HS drones practiced hyperbole.

is actually counter to the freedom of others.

You had to destroy the village in order to save it. Right, John?

Effective approaches for maintaining a balance for everyone's freedom are an excellent topic of discussion, especially among libertarians

Unless, of course, they're repetitious.

[Disilloosianed]

Imalawman wrote:

we just went crazy seizing property until 4am

Darn it! You all never invite me to the good stuff.