author: toypup

subject: Re: Eating idiosyncrasy

text:
"Holly Sox" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bs4tpc$2avo$[email]...
and
never
meal

Okay, I had this problem as a child.  My mom forced me to eat my meat.  I'd
go into the bathroom to spit it in the toilet.  Of course, she figured it
out and made me swallow it.  Well, I had to swallow it whole, not a good
thing.  Why?  My back teeth were crooked  and I couldn't chew up the meat
for the life of me.  I eventually compensated by chewing like a cow, which
my mom also didn't like and tried to correct.  Mind you, I didn't realize
the problem until I got braces in fifth grade and all of a sudden found out
how much easier it was to chew with straight teeth.  Maybe you could get
that checked out.  They may not be aligned properly.  Even if they came in
straight, they could have moved.  That's what happened to me.


author: Holly Sox

subject: Re: Eating idiosyncrasy

text:
Thank you all for your answers.  It is easier for me to just let him alone
and figure, he will eat or not, and will not starve to death. My husband has
a harder time with this.

I just wanted to know we weren't alone.

Holly


author: Beth Kevles

subject: Re: Eating idiosyncrasy

text:
Hi -

If your child won't eat food that needs chewing, go see and dentist
before doing anything else.  He may have a cavity, or teeth that have
grown in wrong, or something like that.  (The throwing up probably comes
of not chewing the food enough for it to go down.)

A second thing is to discuss it with your ped.  He may have a sensory
integration disorder which makes chewy foods seem truly nasty to him.
Or he may have a gastrointestinal problem which is either new, or that
he's only now big enough for it to become an issue.

Finally, consider cutting his chewy food VERY tiny.  Will he eat hot
dogs?  Baked fish sticks (which are much softer than most fresh fish)?
Cheese?  What's his limit?

My 6-year old won't eat almost any red meat, chicken or fish because he
finds it difficult to chew.  But he will eat hot dogs, fish sticks and
chicken nuggets, because they're processed enough to make chewing
easier.

Good luck,
--Beth Kevles
  [email]
  http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
  Disclaimer:  Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
  advice.  Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE:  No email is read at my MIT address.  Use the AOL one if you would
like me to reply.


author: randee

subject: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
A few days ago I had occasion to ride the IC Electric (now part of the
new Metra commuter umbrella) for the first time in several years (from
Calumet to South Park).  The passenger newsletter available on the cars
had a map showing a proposed service to Crete, apparently passing
through South Holland.  The newsletter gave no details, is this proposed
service to be on the the C&EI route?  The C&EI used to go into Dearborn
station along with the Wabash, C&WI, and Santa Fe, but it appears from
the map they might be intending to use LaSalle St. station, anybody
know?  And how serious a proposal is this, do they really have money and
a schedule for it?


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
IIRC money has already been allocated for a serious study of the Crete
CEI project.  But it is fraught with all kinds of problems.  First, at
least one more bypass track of UP's Yard Center must be built.
Currently, Amtrak trains from Indy use  the CEI route north from
Thornton.  UP makes them travel at ridiculously low speeds thru the
yard.  UP does not want Amtrak on this route and can be expected to
oppose adding more passenger trains.

Second, I don't recall seeing a connector track in the southwest
quadrant at Oakdale, so if I'm right, one would have to be built.
There's room for it, but it would be expensive.  It also makes the
route somewhat circuitous since trains from the south must veer west at
slow speed for more than a half mile and then access the Rock main to
head northeast.

Third, unless a flyover is built (VERY expensive) the trains would have
to pass thru one of the world's busiest junctions at Dolton.  Over 120
trains a day pass thru it.

Bill Gustason


author: Steve Kraus

subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
It's seriously on their grand fantasy wish list.  I think the EJ&E "Star"
line has higher priority and maybe some extensions of existing services
might come first too.  Yes, it would be on the UP (ex-C&EI).  I don't know
if UP is aboard on this.  I don't know about the exact connections and
trackage links but can't you get on the ex-Rock Island somewhere around
79th St. and then just shoot up to LaSalle?

Passenger service on the EJ&E would be interesting and would help them with
their mandate to serve the entire region but in terms of bang for the buck
and the general difficulty in giving meaningful service to anything *other*
than the traditional commute to/from the central city, I wonder whether the
C&EI service wouldn't do better at getting people out of cars and into
trains.

Didn't NICTD want to have a South Shore expansion southward, like maybe on
the old Monon?


author: Adam H. Kerman

subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
At 5:13pm -0600, 06/19/05, [email] wrote:

South Park?

Yes.

Yes, but they don't intend to put the CWI back to do it, and they won't
get onto the Rock where the two routes cross at 79th Street. Instead,
they've proposed a slow transition between CWI and Rock via the ex Rock
South Chicago branch (90th Street alignment), turning onto it at Oakdale.

They want the STAR Line, but they dropped the portion of the route that
served the south suburbs, which created quite a ruckus, which led to the
faregates being pulled from the IC and the purchase of washroom-equipped
cars, and a less-than-eager inclusion of the Crete service. Meanwhile,
Jesse Jr. put the Crete and U-Park to Peotone International into the same
line item in the highway bill, which probably means he intends to make
Crete a lower priority than the airport route. Meanwhile, Metra sort of
wants to spend the money on the IC extension, because they want to replace
Richton Park Yard and U-Park Yard with a larger yard, which has to be on
the east side of the IC freight mains for reasons I don't understand.
Peotone is east of the IC, too. This'll get Metra a grade separated route
to the proposed yard location.

Why do they need the yard? 'Cuz they cannot service the washrooms (in the
fleet they haven't yet bought) at Richton Park.

It's nuts.


subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
According to my relative in the area, that service appears to have a lot
of local support, but the large C&EI yards in South Holland is a problem
in they want to route around it?!?


subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
At 2:50pm -0600, 06/20/05, [email] wrote:

Single main around the east side of Yard Center; should probably be two
mains.


subject: Re: Crete vs. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern

text:
At 11:37pm -0300, 07/08/05, Clark Morris <[email]> wrote:

Except that it doesn't, not without extensive development of feeder bus
service on the "work" end of the trip, which Metra has no interest in.
Unless you believe that suburbanites will own a second car that they will
park at the train station closest to the office to complet the journey.

The "J" misses Elgin and doesn't go through downtown Aurora. It's near
Route 59, if you wish to consult a map of Chicago. When Metra lopped off
the south suburban portion of the "J", they ended it on the far north side
of Joliet, about a mile west of Stateville, a famous Illinois prison.

It's too late to influence the development of the Route 59 corridor as
it's been developed.

I think Crete was more of an independent town. Yes, some south suburbs do
send more workers to Indiana than the reverse, but those are to the north.


subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
What do they need to service the restrooms?  A honeywagon truck that can
move alongside the cars to empty the holding tanks?


subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
At 4:23am -0000, 06/23/05, Steve Kraus <[email]> wrote:

Not if the yard wasn't designed to drive such a truck between tracks.


subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
At 10:01am -0700, 06/23/05, [email] wrote:

UP would have to be "bribed" with the promise of sufficient infrastructure
built at taxpayer's expense, such as additional mains, probably as far
south as Thornton. Don't think they are needed all the way to Crete.
Metra's attitude, of course, is that we'll just embargo all movement of
freight trains. UP isn't really the bad guy.

To be fair, UP probably makes CSX creep through Yard Center at the same
ridiculously low speed as they do Amtrak.

Hasn't been one in many years. Yes, it would have to be put back.

Yup. I think Metra's suggested route is their not-so-subtle hint that they
hate this project and want to contribute to the suggestion that it cannot
be done, or it's not worth doing. Metra rejected a connection at 79th out
of hand; plenty of room for one.

Thornton probably needs a flyover, too.

In my silly opinion, a way should be found to grade separate a few of the
freight routes at Dolton, not just build a passenger route through Dolton
on a flyover. Yeah, that would make it even more expensive, but there'd be
some real benefit. Dolton is one of those places that makes you shake your
head and wonder why it wasn't grade separated 100 years ago. Any bypass
around Yard Center should be built in such a way that CSX would benefit
from it too. Amtrak would benefit from any passenger improvements made to
this corridor by default.


subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
At 2:46am -0000, 06/24/05, Steve Kraus <[email]> wrote:

The "J" is a priority for Metra.


subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
Any idea why? Seems like the Crete route would attract people who would
normally take I-94 into the Loop.  The EJ&E route  would seem to only
attract people going to ORD, can't imagine I would use such a service
even if I still lived in the Chicago area.


subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

57th St.  Some of the older station names seem to not be used much any
more.  I think I heard Woodlawn simply called 63rd St., although I do
recall that the trainman announced the next station after 57th would be
'53rd St/Hyde Park'.  It appears from the current timetable I obtained
that the Douglas, Oakland, Madison Park, Oakwood, and Brookdale stops
(31st, 35th, 51st, 67th, 69th) are no longer extant.  I think  it might
have been you that pointed out a while back that these inner Metra stops
have been essentially replaced by CTA service.

For that matter the CTA seems to have trouble remembering names also -
'Blue Line' instead of 'Congress/Douglas', I mean, really now.......

<<snip interesting info>>

East side????  Why not simply put the Water St. Yard back, that was an
excellent location for a yard (and yard watching).

Thanks for the update.


subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
Any reason why Metra secretly hates this project enough to go out of their
way to make it more unfeasible than it really need be?  Or is it just their
usual west/northwest/north bias?


author: Clark Morris

subject: Crete vs. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern was Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:58:51 -0600, randee <[email]> wrote:

My guess would be that the EJE route is an attempt to tap the suburb
to suburb market and possibly help the development of the Elgin,
Aurora, and Joliet areas.  Also Crete might be more Indiana oriented.


author: BobT

subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:45:39 -0600, randee <[email]> wrote:

I've been riding the IC since '48, and don't recall 57th ever having
been announced as "South Park."  Since the downgrading of 59th, I
wonder if they still announce that as 59th/University of Chicago.  I
get off at 57th, so don't normally get to hear it any more.

During the same time period, 51st has continued (except during the
recent reconstruction) to be served as 51st-53rd, with entrances/exits
at both ends.  This was normally called as 51st 53rd Hyde Park, but I
don't recall whether the new (automated) announcements do it that way
or not.

Sorry to hear tht 63rd is no longer called as 63rd/Woodlawn.  Not many
trains stop there these days--relatively few during rush shcedules,
and it's a flag during non-rush schedules.


subject: Re: Chicago commuter service to Crete?

text:
BobT wrote:

I think my first ride on the IC as a child was during the war, probably
around '44 or '45.  I remember a conversation my father had with an
elderly conductor back around '50 or so on the very topic of the station
and name changes.  At one time time 51st/53rd and 55/56/57 were
apparently separate stops.  Perhaps more like 50th, 53rd, 56th.
59th/Univ Chicago was the old Washington Park stop, obviously well
before my day, but a spur ran trains to the race track.  I do recall my
grandfather talking about those trains.

It may have just been that particular trainman, only our southbound
train in the afternoon stopped there so I only have one sample.  I
recall being told back when I was a youngster that many of the stations
were combined and the names changed when they raised the tracks and put
in the electrification.  Heh, I remember learning the station names off
an old timetable my father had that was WWI vintage.


author: Donald Burr

subject: FOR SALE: Various books

text:
FOR SALE:

Various books

I have the following books for sale.  All have been read
before, but are in good condition.

COMPUTER/PROGRAMMING-RELATED BOOKS:

UNIX Books -- $10 each
	Several are available.  Great for learning the UNIX operating
	system, and are also great for reference materials.
The Internet Complete Reference -- $10
	By Harley Hahn.  IMHO, the best Internet book in existence.
	Covers everything -- mail, news, Gopher, etc.
The Internet White Pages: 1993 Edition -- $10
	A phone book for the Internet!  Lists email addresses for lots of
	people.  Nice to have around.
C books -- $10 each
	Several are available.  Great for learning the C programming language.
Ada books -- $10 each
	Several are available, including the U.S. Government's Reference
	Manual.
Fortran 77 -- $5
Pascal Plus Data Structures -- $5

NON-COMPUTER-RELATED BOOKS:

Star Trek Memories -- $10
	William Shatner tells about life during the heyday of the Original
	Series.  Hardback, in "like new" condition.
Bad Love -- $10
	By Jonathan Kellerman.  Hardback, in "like new" condition.

If you are interested, please respond by email to this message, or call
Don at (805) 564-1871.

Other email addresses:
Internet          [email]
America Online    CapnPicard


author: Marifasus lupinus

subject: A few formatting questions -- opinions, anyone?

text:
Howdy,

Note:  I suspect this will not be the last time I solicit opinions on
formatting.  Here are a few that have occurred to me lately.

BTW, I'm aware that relatively minor points like these are not crucial
to a script's success -- that the more substantive stuff (like, oh,
story and character) is much more what we need to worry about.  I'm
interested nonetheless.

- Using FADE IN: at the start of the script.  I've read in a few places
that this has become less standard -- and maybe even is not-so-correct
now in some readerss eyes?

- Parentheticals.  Do you capitalize them?  E.g., (beat) or (Beat)?

- Ellipses.  I really hate putting a space between each of the three
periods, i.e., ". . ."  rather than "...", but I've read in several
places that the former is correct.  Whattya think?

Thanks!

    -marlup


author: Gene Harris

subject: Re: A few formatting questions -- opinions, anyone?

text:
Marifasus lupinus wrote:

I suspect it doesn't matter one whit.

Uncapitalized is more common, I think.  I have the auto-capitalization
option turned on when I use Movie Magic Screenwriter, and it doesn't
capitalize parentheticals -- for whatever that's worth.

I do ... rather than . . . -- but, again, I don't think it matters one
whit.

All three of your questions are about really, really minor points of
formatting.  I don't think you'll lose or gain any points from readers
whichever choices you make.  My opinion.

Gene


author: smack

text:
In article <d366lf$8ms$[email]>,
 "Marifasus lupinus" <[email]> wrote:

I actually used to always put spaces in between each period, UNTIL I
started writing screenplays.  With dialogue having such constrained
margins, putting spaces between each period will inevitably lead to a
few moments when the ellipsis will run from the end of one line to the
beginning of the next, which is extremely unattractive.  I use "..."
with one space after, but none before the ellipsis.


author: Steven J. Weller

text:
Marifasus lupinus wrote:
crucial
places
not-so-correct

FADE IN: is traditional; I've not heard that it's incorrect but no
one's likely to ding you if you leave it off.

One-word parentheticals, most especially the reviled "beat" (or "BEAT")
are generally to be avoided.  Wrylies tend not to be in all caps, and
if it's enough text to make a complete sentence, punctuate it properly.

Never did the ". . ." thing, myself - I always leave the spaces out.  I
do, however, leave a space AFTER the ellipses, or before it if it's the
intro to a separate thought.

No one seems to mind, particualrly.


author: Lotus

text:
Analysis: A global picture of death, damage and destruction
Atlas produced by the United Nations demonstrates how mankind is changing the
world and driving thousands of species to extinction
02 August 2002
Internal links

Leading article: Dying planet

http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=320615

Land

Scientists estimate that over the past 150 years humans have altered nearly
47 per cent of the Earth's land surface. The World Atlas of Biodiversity,
published by the United Nations yesterday, suggests that the complex but
delicate interaction between terrestrial plants and animals will be threatened
on almost three quarters of the total land surface within the next 30 years.

The terrestrial environment extends over little more than one quarter of the
Earth's surface, or nearly 150 million square kilometres (58 million square
miles). It is the most accessible to humans and has therefore suffered the
most in terms of environmental degradation and loss of species.

Dry land is characterised by its extensive collection of complex plants
harbouring a rich and diverse array of animals. Forests and woodlands are the
natural cover for much of the world's land. Photosynthesis ï¿½ the process used
by plants to convert sunlight into chemical energy ï¿½ is most intense in
tropical forests, which are among the richest places in the world in terms of
biodiversity.

The Atlas says that half of the area of forest that had developed since the
last ice age has since been cleared or degraded by man. The decline is
especially prevalent today in the tropical rainforests of South-East Asia, the
Congo and parts of the Amazon. About 22 per cent of these areas are used for
farming, towns and other kinds of human development. By 2032, scientists
estimate this exploitation may more than double to 48 per cent of the total
land area that they now cover.

Areas of the land that are not covered by trees ï¿½ such as shrubland, deserts
and tundra ï¿½ tend to be poorer in terms of biodiversity, with the exception of
Mediterranean-type shrub, which can be among the richest places on Earth for
plants and animals. Humans have degraded many of the natural shrubland regions
by burning and overgrazing, activities that have also led to the loss of
valuable plant species.

The extinction of land plants is contributing to the loss of important genes
for crops as well as new sources of medicines and pharmaceutical products. The
Atlas suggests that we are losing one important new drug every two years
because of the extinction of plants and animals and yet less than 1 per cent
of the world's estimated 250,000 tropical plants has been screened for
potential pharmaceuticals.

Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme,
said this loss of new sources of drugs could be arrested if local people were
encouraged to take part in their preservation. "We must address the issue of
genetic resource sharing by giving developing countries, where the majority of
biodiversity remains, an economic incentive to protect wildlife by paying them
properly for the plants and animals whose genes get used in new drugs or
crops," Mr Toepfer said.

Oceans

Human activities, directly or indirectly, are now the primary cause of changes
to the makeup of the animals and plants in the oceans.

About one third of the human population lives within the coastal zone ï¿½ within
60km (37.3 miles) of the sea ï¿½ and this proportion is forecast to rise this
century. "Pressures exerted by the human population on the marine biosphere
are substantial and increasing," the Atlas says.

In many ways the Earth is a water world, with oceans covering 71 per cent of
the surface. Furthermore, the average depth of the oceans is about four times
the average elevation of the land, making it even bigger in terms of total
volume.

Despite its size, however, the marine environment produces about the same
amount of organic matter as the land because photosynthesis ï¿½ the process on
which all life ultimately depends for energy ï¿½ is limited to the upper layers
of the ocean.

Some parts of the oceans are highly productive whereas others are virtually
barren. The diversity of marine species is not as great as the diversity of
terrestrial species, perhaps because the marine environment is more uniform
and continuous.

The seas are the richest source of wild protein in the human diet. It comes in
the form of fish, molluscs (eg mussels) and crustaceans (eg shrimps), but over
the past decade this supply has begun to dwindle. Over the past 50 years the
world catch has grown fivefold but since the 1990s it has declined
substantially despite increased efforts to find fresh stocks of fish. More
than half of the world's main fisheries are suffering from overfishing.

The Atlas identifies 18 marine "hotspots" in the world that are rich in
endemic species. Many of these are coral reefs ï¿½ often described as the
tropical rainforests of the sea ï¿½ which harbour some of the most diverse
wildlife communities on Earth.

Although marine algae, microscopic plants, provide most of the energy needed
to support life in the sea, other plants also play a role. Among the most
important of these are the seagrasses. As with the coral reefs, some of the
most important seagrass beds are being lost. Since the 1930s, seagrass beds
along the Atlantic coasts of America and Europe have been lost to a marine
slime mould possibly linked with toxic pollution and trawling.

In addition to fish, the oceans also support other important groups of
animals, such as sea mammals and sea birds, which have all suffered through
hunting and modern fishing methods.

Lakes and rivers

Inland waters constitute a tiny fraction of the Earth's total surface area yet
they are vital for human settlements and have consequently borne the brunt of
the worst excesses of man's activity, often by becoming a dumping ground for
human waste. Only 2.5 per cent of the world's water is freshwater and a large
proportion of this, some 69 per cent, is locked up in the form of ice and
permanent snow. Much of the rest is in subterranean aquifers, which means that
only 0.3 per cent of the world's freshwater resides in lakes and rivers.

While the amount of available freshwater is limited, demands on it continue to
grow as the human population expands. Agriculture consumes about 70 per cent
of all water drawn from the world's lakes, rivers and aquifers, but much of
this soaks away or evaporates before it reaches the intended crop.

Freshwater, and the lakes and rivers that provide it, being a vital resource
for human survival, come under conflicting demands with increasingly adverse
consequences for their biodiversity, according to the World Atlas on
Biodiversity. "There are indications that, overall, a higher proportion of
inland water species are in decline than marine or terrestrial forms," it
says.

Animals are particularly diverse in inland waters. Freshwater fish, for
instance, are more diverse than their marine cousins, probably because of the
isolated nature of rivers and lakes. Scientists estimate there is one fish
species for every 15 cubic kilometres of freshwater compared with one fish
species for every 100,000 cubic kilometres of seawater.

About 40 per cent of known fish species occur in freshwater, with about 10,000
species confined solely to lakes and rivers. Inland waters support a large
number of wildlife species, wading birds, freshwater reptiles and mammals,
despite accounting for such a small proportion of the Earth's surface area.

Freshwater, which links the land with the sea, typifies the complex
interactions that characterise the study of biodiversity. Affecting the land
can have an impact on lakes and rivers, which in turn can change the oceans.

Mark Collins, the director of the United Nations Environment Programme World
Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, emphasised at yesterday's launch
of the Atlas that life on Earth cannot be considered in isolation. He cited
the case of land degradation on the slopes of Mount Kenya, which is not just
affecting the species on the mountain. People downstream from the river formed
by Mount Kenya now have to contend with flash floods and droughts caused by a
sporadic flow of water resulting from deforestation.

"Biodiversity is not just about species. It's about how they interact with one
another," Dr Collins said. "The conservation of the resources of the natural
world is not a luxury any more but essential to the quality of human life."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=320634


author: country preacher

subject: Re: Analysis: A global picture of death, damage and destruction

text:
"Lotus" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
the
snippppp

Don't I remember hearing something about "survival of the fittest"?? May be
that 'man' is just the fittest!!!


subject: Re: Analysis: A picture of freak, eco-idiot and a malcontent

text:
Erskine wrote:

Another one with hands firmly clamped over his ears, screaming
"I can't hear you! I can't hear you! I can't hear you!.."
Not addressing these CRITICALLY URGENT issues is NOT going to
make them go away.  This is about REAL LIFE, Erskine, not
something abstract happening in cyber-space that you can just
log off to and carry on as normal.  This will affect us all
unless we wake up and make some changes pretty damn quick.


text:
country preacher wrote:

You must still be too shortsighted to see that man will not,
CAN NOT, survive on a dying planet.  How will you breathe
without trees?  How will you survive without clean water?
How will you grow crops on infertile soil?

2Only after the last tree has been cut down;
 Only after the last fish has been caught;
 Only after the last river has been poisoned;
 Only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten."
    ~~ Cree Indian Prophecy
http://amenalynn.homestead.com/GreenPage.html

Fittest at what?  Laying waste?


author: voltar-the friendly toad

text:
Lotus <[email]> wrote in message

And let those changes start with getting all of you envirofruits onto
and island by yourselves so you cornhole each other (a talent that
comes naturally for your ilk) and dream about being Boy Scout troop
leaders.

The second change should be you idiots shutting up and logging off the
public library pc (or university account) and driving away in your VW
while listening to NPR and having wet dreams about Dan Rather, Tom
Brokaw, Peter Jennings, etc.


author: Erskine

text:
NO I'M JUST ANOTHER NORMAL PERSON TIRED OF HEARING ENVIRO-FREAKS TRYING TO
CONVINCE EVERYONE THE SKY IS FALLING.  YOU ARE A FREAK AND THERE IS NOTHING
WRONG WITH THE EARTH.

bye-bye

"Lotus" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


subject: Re: Analysis: A picture of 'normal' slumbering wilfully ignorant fools.

text:
Erskine,  The article forwarded was based on research published by
the United Nations.  The U.N is a flagship of 'normality', they
are certainly not 'enviro-freaks'.

BTW Tell those flooded out in Europe at present that the sky didn't fall.
Scientific opinion that flooding is linked to global warming, which is
linked to man's activities?  Affirmative.  - 'Euro News' last night.
The European Union are 'enviro-freaks'?  I don't think so neither.

Erskine wrote:


subject:
Asian Smog Cloud Threatens Millions, Says U.N.  (those freaks,
 eco-idiots and a malcontents!)

text:
Asian Smog Cloud Threatens Millions, Says U.N.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020812/sc_nm/environment_asia_cloud_dc_3

Mon Aug 12, 2002
By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON (Reuters) - A two-mile-thick cloud of pollution shrouding
southern Asia is threatening the lives of millions of people in
the region and could have an impact much further afield, according
to a U.N.-sponsored study.

It said the cloud, a toxic cocktail of ash, acids, aerosols and
other particles, was damaging agriculture and changing rainfall
patterns across the region which stretches from Afghanistan to Sri
Lanka.

The lives of millions of people were at risk from drought and
flooding as rainfall patterns were radically altered, with dire
implications for economic growth and health.

"We have an early warning. We have clear information and we
already have some impact. But we need much, much more
information," U.N Environment Program chief Klaus Toepfer told a
news conference.

"There are also global implications not least because a pollution
parcel like this, which stretches three km high, can travel half
way round the globe in a week."

Toepfer said the cloud was the result of forest fires, the burning
of agricultural wastes, dramatic increases in the burning of
fossil fuels in vehicles, industries and power stations and
emissions from millions of inefficient cookers.

He said the U.N.'s preliminary report into what it dubbed the
"Asian Brown Cloud" was a timely reminder to the upcoming Earth
Summit in Johannesburg that action, not words, was vital to the
future of the planet.

"The huge pollution problem emerging in Asia encapsulates the
threats and challenges that the summit needs to urgently address,"
he said.

"We have the initial findings and the technological and financial
resources available. Let's now develop the science and find the
political and moral will to achieve this for the sake of Asia, for
the sake of the world," he added.

RESPIRATORY DISEASE RISK

Professor Victor Ramanathan, one of the more than 200 scientists
involved in the study, said the cloud was cutting the amount of
solar energy hitting the earth's surface beneath it by up to 15
percent.

"We had expected a drop in sunlight hitting the earth and sea, but
not one of this magnitude," he said.

At the same time the cloud's heat-absorbing properties were
warming the lower atmosphere considerably, and the combination was
altering the winter monsoon, leading to a sharp reduction in
rainfall over parts of north-western Asia and a corresponding rise
in rainfall over the eastern coast of Asia.

The report calculated that the cloud -- 80 percent of which was
man-made -- could cut rainfall over northwest Pakistan,
Afghanistan, western China and western central Asia by up to 40
percent.

Apart from drastically altering rainfall patterns, the cloud was
also making the rain acid, damaging crops and trees, and
threatening hundreds of thousands of people with respiratory
disease.

Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen -- one of the first scientists to
identify the causes of the hole in the ozone layer and also
involved in the U.N. report -- said up to two million people in
India alone were dying each year from atmospheric pollution.

"If present trends as they are continue, then we have a very
serious problem," he said.

The report called for special monitoring stations to be set up
watch the behavior of the cloud and its impact on people and the
environment.

"The concern is that the regional and global impacts of the haze
are set to intensify over the next 30 years as the population of
the Asian region rises to an estimated five billion people," the
report said.

A spokeswoman for environmental group Friends of the Earth said
urgent action was needed.

"Actions must include phasing out fossil fuels and replacing them
with clean, green, renewable energy and tough laws to protect the
world's forests," she said.


text:
"Lotus" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You are so lost in this world.  The UN is anything but a flagship of
normality.  They are staffed with and  have political ties to all sorts of
wacko enviro-freak groups. The UN contantly targets the US due to the fact
that it's the greatest and most wealthy country in the world.
Wow you are a wacko too!  It amazes me you can actually state that those
floods have something to do with global warming. There is no global warming
due to human activity.  Climates have always fluctuated due to things we
don't control.  You really need to read more science and less propaganda.
Also take off those damn earth shoes and bathe...

TO
NOTHING


subject: Re: Analysis: global whining

text:
read this  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54676,00.html
"


subject: Re: Asian Smog Cloud Threatens Millions, Says U.N.  (those freaks,  eco-idiots and a malcontents!)

text:
I bet you one dollar for each life they are claiming will be lost that NO
ONE will die from this cloud.

"Lotus" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020812/sc_nm/environment
_asia_cloud_dc_3


subject: Re: Analysis: global survival

text:
Erskine wrote:

"The mainstream media often calls the efforts of those who oppose
the threats of seemingly endless consumerism and industrial expansion
as "radical" and extremist." They attempt to portray those who want
to stop some defenseless animal from being killed or who want to end
the destruction of the Earth's forests and oceans as weak minded,
ignorant obstructionists who are anti-technology. This rhetoric only
serves to cloud and confuse the issues, making it appear to those who
are against such destruction that they are in the minority and, in
these days and times, even unpatriotic.

"Call me weak and ignorant if you must, but to my way of thinking,
the systematic destruction of the Earth's oceans, forests, and
atmosphere, the killing of animals to obtain furs for the rich, the
attempts to sneak genetically engineered foods into the marketplace
without labels identifying them, the claims that it is OK to douse
our food supply with billions of tons of deadly pesticides, and the
sanctioning of the deaths of children who starve in the midst of
vast abundance because profit for few is the top priority are the
radical and extreme behaviors...."
http://ens-news.com/ens/aug2002/2002-08-16g.asp


subject: Re: Analysis: global survival

text:
You seemed to covered everthing there. You did leave out reparations
though... Anything else you want to whine about?

"Lotus" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You are radical and extreme.  I want to live in the twenty first century;
why don't you?

 They attempt to portray those who want

Okay, you are very weak and suprisingly ignorant.

At some point you should have thought "Gee, am I ranting?"

Radical and extreme behavior is believing that just because someone is
profitable you somehow have the right (or at least the desire) to
redistribute their wealth.

You are a freak.


subject: Re: Analysis: global survival

text:
Erskine wrote:

Thanks for proving the point.

I do.  But the way it's going, many of us won't.

Nope.  You are.

I did not write this and the author does not rant, ever.  You do.

Hmm.. just because many more are suffering so terribly.  Silly me.

What planet are you on?


author: jitney

subject: Cheap or free building material

text:
There is a continous and growing trend in the U.S. to replace the old
plywood garage doors with a metal rollaway type. As part of the
installation, contractors will haul away the old wooden plywood door.
I have gone to these people and been given as many as i could haul
away(their alternative was to have them landfilled at their expense).
I then used a bunch to build a fence around my property, a car
shelter, and a tool shed. I painted them with recycled paint,
cost=near zero except for brackets, nails, and screws. I hope that
this can help you too.-Jitney


author: Mahasamatman

subject: Re: Cheap or free building material

text:
Hmm, strange.  Most of the ones being replaced that I've seen are in poor
shape and not really suitable for reuse, mainly due to rot.  Many are made
from MDF, not plywood; and MDF is one of the least reusable materials since
it loses its dimensional stability so quickly when it gets wet.  From either
material, because of the sectional construction you would end up with 9 foot
by 2 foot panels, which is not exactly the most usable shape.

But, whatever works for you.  What part of the country are you in, anyway?


author: Will Schnabel

subject: Re: Cheap or free building material

text:
Mahasamatman wrote:

I think he is probably referring to 1-piece plywood garage doors, rather than
the sectional type.  Two-car garage doors are commonly 16' x  7'....quite
usable for fences, sheds, etc.

One-piece doors are not too common in snow areas, I'd imagine...

    Will


subject: Re: Cheap or free building material

text: "Mahasamatman" <[email]> wrote in message news:<QvDW9.1248$[email]>...


author: bud hufstetler

subject: Re: Cheap or free building material

text:
Will Schnabel [email] wrote:
They used to be real common and easy to find here in AZ and CA. You could find
lots of good ones for free with nice plywood, usually framed with 2X2's or
2X3's. Unfortunately, they are now selling them to people who ship them south
of the border where they build houses out of them.

Bud


subject: police and medicals requested

text:
hi,
i am march 136 non modl applicant from india. yesterday i received
request for police and medicals. they have given 45 days for sending
documents. do everyone get this time frame . medical has to be send by
doctor directly address stamped on medical forms is of ASPC is it
correct. but they havent
mentioned any address for pcc can anybody tell where to send.
cheers
jimmy


author: reks

subject: Re: police and medicals requested

text:
Congrats, at last some news for region 2 applicants..

March, when???

regards,
Reka


author: rnrj

subject: Re: police and medicals requested

text:
where can i see the countries in all regions?

singapore is in which region? is it in fast processing region?


author: GoldTrader

subject: Charlie D

text:
Charlie D. : The Story of the Legendary Bond Trader by William D.
Falloon (Author)

Can you hold and add to a winning position? February 16, 2003

The meat is in Charlie D's lecture, a little foreplay before, nothing
later on. The rest of the book looks like it is written for the Sports
Illustrated book of the month club.

"The principles of trading are the same if you're trading 10,20,50 or
100 contracts at a time, or if you're simply trading one. But it takes
less time to make more money when you're a larger trader."

When Charlie figured out trading calendar spreads was the most
consistent way to make money he mastered the concept and started
trading 50-lots at a time instead of always living in fear of losing
money trading 1-lots.

He took little blips out (of the market) with enormous size.

Everybody's trading price relationships, you have to have a position
on to earn a living. The bigger the position the less time it takes
and the more you earn. Always challenge yourself to do it bigger and
better and with more size.

"The longer time you serve ... with a position on, the more you know
about yourself and the more you know about trading."

"One of the most important things you learn with positions on is how
to get out of a trade. You have to take losses today so that you can
come back tomorrow."

"The time you know you've become a good trader is that first day you
were able to win by holding and adding to a winning position."

-ooO-(GoldTrader)-Ooo-


subject: Re: AuctionPC warning- anyone to buy from them is a fool

text:
Dave;
 If I was wrong in accusing you of being an AuctionPC employee then I
apologize.It's just that your tone/comments were simmilar to others I
have read praising the deals of AuctionPC and only admitting to minor
problems(which were later traced by others as AuctionPC employees) where
the rest told of nothing but rip-offs,switched products,products never
recieved,etc,etc,etc.....I got this info from searching Dejanews (both
old and new database) for various keywords and yes now that I think
about it I should have searched beforehand and never dealt with this
company in the first place-live and learn.As for the phones-it's not the
fact that they are busy that bothers me-it's there attitude.The first
time I called and was put on hold for 5 minutes and disconnected I
called right back.A different person answered and I told them I was on
hold for 5 minutes and was discunnected and they said "oh-uhhuh-please
hold" weithout asking me what I was calling about and a few minutes
later-click followed by a dial tone again.Coincidence.....I don't think
so. I have dealt with a number of online auctions
(Onsale,GSCI,Zauction,etc) and never ran into this kind of thing before
(yes-I have read about the gouging for shipping and it's true-but I just
take shipping into account when bidding).
 As for contacting the NYC BBB about them-if memory serves they are in
New Jersey aren't they (I just tried to contact there web site to check
but it's down (hmmmm...)) so I would think the NJ BBB would be the one
to check.In any case I am going to be sending a registered letter (with
return reciept) to them and if i don't get a response in 30 days my
credit card co will start a charge back (the return reciept is what they
need for proof of contact).Again if i was wrong about you being an
AuctionPC employee/stockholder I apologize,it's just so rare to find an
even somewhat satisfied customer of this place it just sounded fishy
from past experience.

                                     Henry

Fingerlakes Dave wrote:


author: Anonymous

subject: Adam admits the 16th did nothing.

text:
agent86 wrote in message <[email]>...
Very good, Adam.
Admissions
1) 16th did nothing, rendered nothing, gave no new power, and is a benign
Amendment? ( Would you like to explain why the govt. still uses it in
published literature and why it hasn't been removed from the books, Adam?)
Or are you going to claim it "just simplified" the tax?
2) The statement "Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax" found in govt.
literature is misleading at best, fraudulent at worst.
3) The statement: The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that
Congress never intended to permit the entire ''burden of the tax to be borne
by professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' after real estate and
personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635 http://www.findlaw.com
is true.
4) Senator Roth is a liar! (see previous posting)
(Language too harsh. Wouldn't go as far to call the fine Senator a liar?
Maybe mistaken? Why not? You've been calling the fine patriotic citizens of
this country 'liars' when they correct your mistakes.)
5) That income tax is, in fact, an 'indirect excise tax'.
6) That income tax is not a 'directï¿½ tax in any sense of the word.
7) To read the act according to its letter would render it unconstitutional
or glaringly unequal, or palpably unjust, a reasonable ground would exist
for construing it according to its spirit rather than its letter, is a true
statement.
8) The word ï¿½incomeï¿½ is not the word ï¿½wageï¿½.
9) The word ï¿½incomeï¿½ is not the word ï¿½salariesï¿½.

Itï¿½s in discovery, interrogatories, and admissions you expose the US
attorney for what he really is, a thief!!

Ground rule:
1. The taxpayer is entitle to the rigor of the law.
2. There is no latitude in a taxing statute; you must adhere to the VERY
WORDS.
3. Congress has set forth PRECISE requirementsï¿½ When the govt. seeks to
enforce laws; it must follow the steps which CONGRESS has specified. (NOT
Court interpretations)
4. Men must turn square corners when they deal with the govt.

BULL!!  They are most definitely NOT. Terminology in statutes is the LETTER
OF THE LAW.  You know damn well, that men must turn square corners with the
LETTER OF THE LAW and that the taxpayer is entitled to the rigor of the law.
There is no latitude in a taxing statute, you must adhere to the VERY WORDS.
What part of ï¿½LETTER OF THE LAWï¿½ do you not understand?  Is it the word
ï¿½letterï¿½?

FACT:
1)  From ---A Copious and Critical Latin-English Lexicon founded on the
Larger Latin-English lexicon of Dr. William Fruend, with additions and
corrections from the Lexicons of Gesner, Facciolati, Scheller, Georges, etc.
By E.A. Andrews, LL.D. 1860 persona: ï¿½ ï¿½. [Acc. to Gabius Bassus in Gell. 5,
7, from per-sono, to sound through, with the quantity of the second syllable
altered] I.- A mask , esp. that used by players, which covered the whole
head, and was varied according to the different characters to be
represented:
2)  Black's 6th adds - This doctrine decrees that where law expressly
describes particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable
inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be
omitted or excluded.
3)  To include one is to exclude the alternate. Include is not a
conjunction. It is a misleading word because it misleads you into thinking
something is included when in fact it is not. We have been badly trained in
our upbringing by the use of this word which has been used as a conjunction
when it is not one. Include excludes everything else. The universe is
excluded by that which is included. So what we need to do is when we see the
word include in law, we need to understand it to mean "means" or "means
this". Include only applies to that which specifically follows the word
include. So when reading laws, codes, regulations, the Constitution, etc.
the word include is to be understood to mean "means".
4)  The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person
or thing a quality which is not natural to it, and consequently establishes,
a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to
reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but
which the law prescribes or authorizes. It differs from presumption because
it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption
supplies the proof of something true.
5)  The law abounds in fictions. That an estate is in abeyance; the doctrine
of remitter, by which a party who has been diseased of his freehold and
afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good title;
that one thing done today, is considered as done at a preceding time by the
doctrine of relation; that because one thing is proved, another shall be
presumed to be true, which is the case in all presumptions; that the heir,
executor, and administrator stand by representation in the place of the
deceased are all fictions of law.
6)  Not one single IRC statute identifies "wages" or "salaries" as ï¿½incomeï¿½.
7)  Compensation for service is not wages or salaries.
8)  Had Congress intended to tax wages and/or salaries they would HAVE SAID
SO in the LETTER OF THE LAW.
9)  What is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded. To
include one is to exclude the alternate. Include is not a conjunction.

Section 61. Gross income defined

    (a) General definition
      Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
    all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited
    to) the following items:
        (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
      fringe benefits, and similar items;
        (2) Gross income derived from business;
        (3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
        (4) Interest;
        (5) Rents;
        (6) Royalties;
        (7) Dividends;
        (8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
        (9) Annuities;
        (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
        (11) Pensions;
        (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
        (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
        (14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
        (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

1)  Of the fifteen items listed above I see none that define, in the LETTER
OF THE LAW, wages or salaries as income or even gross income.
2)  Adam, your theory is incompatible with the Constitution.  If Congress
had/has the authority to tax wages / salaries they wouldï¿½ve stated so here
in 26 USC 61.  Letï¿½s make this point clear, ï¿½compensation for servicesï¿½ are
received by corporations in their privilege of doing business however, the
ï¿½incomeï¿½ is NOT COMPENSATION for services but the [gain] [FROM] compensation
for services.
3)  The [GAIN] is income / profit which can only mean one thing.  Corporate
Profit!  Not wages received as compensation for services as your
dissertation decrees.
4)  The Title to Subtitle C is ï¿½Income taxesï¿½ collected at source.  Not wage
tax, or salaries tax but taxes collected at source.  THE LETTER OF THE LAW,
what is the source to that income tax?  Obviously, wages and salaries are
the source to which [income / gain / corporate profit] is derived and thus
taxed.
5)  IT IS NOT WAGES / SALARIES THAT ARE TAXED, but rather INCOME ----
FROM ---- wages / salaries and as such the theory dictated by you, Adam,
compensation for services is ï¿½wageï¿½ and thus becomes taxable income is a
blatant lie perpetrated and perpetuated by court decisions.
6)  Only through some court decision does one walk away with the ASSUMPTION
of ï¿½compensation for servicesï¿½ equals ï¿½incomeï¿½ which creates the illusion by
which most Americans file their returns.
7)   Most tax attorneys, CPAs, IRS agents, and Senators believe as you do,
Adam, but as demonstrated most havenï¿½t a clue to what their saying.  They,
like you, have been gypped by a corrupt Federal Mafia.
8)   Common sense and logic, Adam, can contend and agree that neither the
government nor I can define a word using the same word in its definition.
Therefor gross income is income is and means NOTHING.
9)   CONGRESS DOES NOT POSSESS THE AUTHORITY TO DEFINE ANY WORD.  The IRC
contains statutes passed BY CONGRESS, with authority grossly restricted by
the Constitution, and therefor, 26 USC 61 DEFINES NOTHING!!!!  Congress CAN
NOT define the word ï¿½incomeï¿½ so they make an ATTEMPT by citing, "Gross
income means income."  (I know, Adam, youï¿½re still having a problem with
{judicial power contra-distinguished form law is non existent} so think of
it this way,
Article 1 Legislative Power, Article 2 Executive Power, and Article 3
Judicial Power.  Judicial Power (Article 3) is reserved for definition ONLY
while Legislative power (Article 1) is reserved for, obviously, legislating
law.  Nothing more!
10 ) What is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded. To
include one is to exclude the alternate. Include is not a conjunction.

Admissions:
A)  Income taxes must be assessed
B)  Income tax is based on self assessment
C)  Congress doesnï¿½t have the authority to define ï¿½incomeï¿½.
D)  The IRC can not define the word ï¿½incomeï¿½
E)  "Liability for income tax" doesnï¿½t appear in the IRC (as stated by Sen.
Ensign, Sen. Burton, and Judge Walker)

We come to a few conclusions:

1)  Congress is intentionally vague, can only be vague, with Section 61 and
the term ï¿½gross income is incomeï¿½ and as such the deception starts here.
2)  Knowing an imposition does not create a statutory liability, itï¿½s clear
to see why Congress uses such vague language in Sections 61.
3)  26 USC 6151 as the quote ï¿½liabilityï¿½ statute can only be as
intentionally vague as Congress had the authority to define income in  26
USC 61.  In other words, Congress had no more authority to define income in
26 USC 61 than they had to create a liability for income tax in 26 USC 6151.
4)  Realizing the conclusions of 1 - 3 one more conclusion is made.  Chapter
75 of Title 26 has no more force and effect of ï¿½income taxï¿½ laws than it
carries weight over the ï¿½Internetï¿½ laws.  (This fact is NOW being proven in
court rooms across America daily.  WE ARE WINNING!!!  The authority is
always under the ASSUMPTION 26 USC 6151 makes one liable and under that
assumption itï¿½s easily proven, AUTHORITY IS NON EXISTENT.

AFTER easily establishing wages / salaries are not income / corporate profit
we can move to your next point of demagoguery, Adam.

No, it doesnï¿½t, Adam. >>>4) CFR 1.6151 is not a legislative regulation
ï¿½ >So? agent86 wrote in message
Until itï¿½s legislative regulation it requires nothing! (see my post The Big
Lie 26 USC 6151.)

1) When the IRS assesses a tax is it still called ï¿½self assessmentï¿½ or is it
ï¿½determined assessmentï¿½?  Canï¿½t be both.  Think for a second, Adam, self
assessment means just that.  If the IRS has the authority to assess the tax,
as you so state above, then please cite the authority for doing so.
2)  When the IRS assesses the tax [liability] for you, Adam, submit it to be
recorded with the Secretary pursuant to 26 USC 6203, who pays that tax NOT
determined by the taxpayer as 26 USC 6201 requires.    In other word, Adam,
26 USC 6201(2) requires the assessment to be determined by the taxpayer when
not a stamp tax, while 26 USC 6203 requires the assessment (determined by
the taxpayer) to be recorded with the Secretary.
2(a) Question - Who pays the tax when a self assessment is ï¿½determined by
the IRSï¿½?
2(b) Question - Is a ï¿½self assessedï¿½ 1040 truly ï¿½self assessedï¿½ if the IRS
prepared it for me, as you claim they can do, and submit it to be recorded
with the Secretary WITHOUT my signature?

No it doesnï¿½t, Adam.  See above!
Look up the word ï¿½assumeï¿½ and get back to us, Adam.

26 USC 6331 applies to income tax

In order to create an "any tax" there must first be a legislative
requirement.  What part of ï¿½legislative requirementï¿½ donï¿½t you understand,
Adam?  The minute you present a legislative requirement you have presented a
repugnance to the Bill of Rights in that, there can not be a ï¿½liabilityï¿½ /
demand.

Really?  Shall we take a look at your doctorate in motion?
Section 7608. Authority of internal revenue enforcement officers
(b)  Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than subtitle E
(1) Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division ï¿½ï¿½

What part of ï¿½criminal investigatorï¿½ donï¿½t you understand, Adam?  A pedantic
rule: READ EVERYTHING you cite.  If a citizen doesnï¿½t pay his tax he becomes
a ï¿½criminalï¿½?  Wouldnï¿½t my Bill of Rights apply before or at civil
requirement to avoid being a criminal without rights?  All tax debt to
government automatically set one up for seizure by ï¿½criminal agentsï¿½.

THIS IS FACT.  The IRS agent seizing property for back debt is NOT a
ï¿½criminal investigatorï¿½ of the ï¿½Intelligence Divisionï¿½.  THEY ARE ALWAYS
ï¿½revenue clerksï¿½.  You canï¿½t even call them agents.  They have NO power
whatsoever.  NONE.  Adam, your cite of 7608(b)(2)(c) is under the heading
"ANY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR".

Adam, if your going to cite codes in these NGs, I demand you cite the
correct statutes.   Most readers donï¿½t understand as much as you, so when
youï¿½re in error the reader doesnï¿½t know it until I get a chance to correct
you.  Please cite the correct codes.    (Thanks in advance)

I stand corrected but not lying.  What was it, something about income tax is
civil law and your criminal rights donï¿½t apply to income tax?  Please
explain.

Wouldnï¿½t the government love for me to believe that.  The burden is not on
me.  The government must first prove to me it has the authority to go beyond
the imposition Congress was restricted too in creating that law.  Prima
facie evidence of procedural / interpretive laws that are voluntary without
enforcement until you can prove otherwise!

Nice try, Adam.  Your cite is AFTER "when we ask (the American Citizen)
you"ï¿½..   What part of we "ask you" do you not understand?

ADAM, oh silly little Adam, when will you learn?  The govt. ALREADY knows
what it can / canï¿½t do.  It doesnï¿½t need to tell itself what it can or canï¿½t
do, Adam.  It needs to tell ME what its limits are.  The government knows I
may not be aware of what it can do so it tells me what it can / canï¿½t do in
that PAN located on page 57 of [my] 1040 instructions.  Keep trying to
convince the reader the PAN doesnï¿½t apply to him and see how far it gets you
in the ï¿½real worldï¿½.
What part of "ï¿½.ask youï¿½."- (American citizen), "ï¿½.first tell youï¿½." -
(American citizen), "ï¿½also tell youï¿½" - (American citizen), "ï¿½if you doï¿½." -
(American citizen), "ï¿½.you mustï¿½." - (American citizen), "ï¿½.ask you soï¿½" -
(American citizen), are you having a problem with, Adam?

Think for a second, Adam.
1. You would have the readers believe itï¿½s, what, [provisions] of the code
that set up a ï¿½liabilityï¿½?  Get smart, Maxwell!  The government has taught
you to overlook the simple fact, one must first be found ï¿½liableï¿½ in order
to create the requirement for filing.  You taking us to [provisions] of the
code prior to determining liability.  CANT DO THAT!
2. 26 USC 1 is not mention in the PAN
3. The minimum income requirements?  Whatï¿½s income?
4. You omitted 26 USC 61 prior to going to Section 1.
5. 6001 & 6011 both state one is required to file ONLY when liable.
6. Give me the code that states liable for income tax PRIOR TO FILING.
(Look at the dictionary - ï¿½shall payï¿½) on a required return does not
suffice.  I need the requirement to create the "required return" found
preceding your ï¿½shall payï¿½ in 6151.

To allow such an excuse is despicable, reflects a subjugated mentality and a
disregard for the piety of the Constitution.  By excusing the government and
allowance of legislative requirement to exist in ï¿½citations in an
inconsistent mannerï¿½ is a lie.  The government uses you, Adam Forest aka
agent86 of 805 9th St. Davis, Ca. 95616, phone number 530-756-8589 or in New
York at 315-443-5053 posting from Maxwell Univ. in Syracuse - email address,
[email],  to continue that mendacity.

Have you heard the ï¿½Emperor wears no clothesï¿½?

I resent the fact that Congress has placed upon the American citizen the
burden and duties of what an attorney should be hired to do.  Most, such as
Dan Evans, are absolutely incompetent!  Thereï¿½s no such thing as competent
council in American but we have 75 percent of the worlds attorney employed
here. Why? Because incompetence abounds!.   One of the only few who actually
confronts the injustices committed by the judiciary in their practice of
making ï¿½requirementï¿½ from vaguely written law is Larry Becraft  out of
Alabama.

-----=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
 Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers!  ==-----


author: Dan Evans

subject: Re: Adam admits the 16th did nothing.

text:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:07:39 -0700, Anonymous
<[email]> wrote:

That's not what he said, moron.

**Dan Evans  (I am not your lawyer.)


subject: Re: Adam admits the 16th did nothing.

text:
Dan Evans wrote in message <[email]>...

I KNOW WHAT HE SAID, DANNY!   I'm seeking an admission, nothing more.   No
one needs to read your playground antics.  Grow up, Danny!

Why can't you just admit the law is where legislative requirements are found
and not some court case?  Too dificult for even your lunacy to aspire too,
Dan?

Admissions.  YES OR NO.  No comments are necessary just a simple yes or no
to the agreement or non agreement of an Admission.  God, Dan, you do know
why Admissions are used?
Admit or Deny the following:
1) 16th did nothing, rendered nothing, gave no new power, and is a benign
Amendment? ( Would you like to explain why the govt. still uses it in
published literature and why it hasn't been removed from the books, Adam?)
Or are you going to claim it "just simplified" the tax?
2) The statement "Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax" found in govt.
literature is misleading at best, fraudulent at worst.
3) The statement: The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that
Congress never intended to permit the entire ''burden of the tax to be borne
by professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' after real estate and
personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635 http://www.findlaw.com
is true.
4) Senator Roth is a liar! (see previous posting)
(Language too harsh. Wouldn't go as far to call the fine Senator a liar?
Maybe mistaken? Why not? You've been calling the fine patriotic citizens of
this country 'liars' when they correct your mistakes.)
5) That income tax is, in fact, an 'indirect excise tax'.
6) That income tax is not a 'directï¿½ tax in any sense of the word.
7) To read the act according to its letter would render it unconstitutional
or glaringly unequal, or palpably unjust, a reasonable ground would exist
for construing it according to its spirit rather than its letter, is a true
statement.
8) The word ï¿½incomeï¿½ is not the word ï¿½wageï¿½.
9) The word ï¿½incomeï¿½ is not the word ï¿½salariesï¿½.

Itï¿½s in discovery, interrogatories, and admissions you expose the US
attorney for what he really is, a thief!!

Ground rule:
1. The taxpayer is entitle to the rigor of the law.
2. There is no latitude in a taxing statute; you must adhere to the VERY
WORDS.
3. Congress has set forth PRECISE requirementsï¿½ When the govt. seeks to
enforce laws; it must follow the steps which CONGRESS has specified. (NOT
Court interpretations)
4. Men must turn square corners when they deal with the govt.

BULL!!  They are most definitely NOT. Terminology in statutes is the LETTER
OF THE LAW.  You know damn well, that men must turn square corners with the
LETTER OF THE LAW and that the taxpayer is entitled to the rigor of the law.
There is no latitude in a taxing statute, you must adhere to the VERY WORDS.
What part of ï¿½LETTER OF THE LAWï¿½ do you not understand?  Is it the word
ï¿½letterï¿½?

FACT:
1)  From ---A Copious and Critical Latin-English Lexicon founded on the
Larger Latin-English lexicon of Dr. William Fruend, with additions and
corrections from the Lexicons of Gesner, Facciolati, Scheller, Georges, etc.
By E.A. Andrews, LL.D. 1860 persona: ï¿½ ï¿½. [Acc. to Gabius Bassus in Gell. 5,
7, from per-sono, to sound through, with the quantity of the second syllable
altered] I.- A mask , esp. that used by players, which covered the whole
head, and was varied according to the different characters to be
represented:
2)  Black's 6th adds - This doctrine decrees that where law expressly
describes particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable
inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be
omitted or excluded.
3)  To include one is to exclude the alternate. Include is not a
conjunction. It is a misleading word because it misleads you into thinking
something is included when in fact it is not. We have been badly trained in
our upbringing by the use of this word which has been used as a conjunction
when it is not one. Include excludes everything else. The universe is
excluded by that which is included. So what we need to do is when we see the
word include in law, we need to understand it to mean "means" or "means
this". Include only applies to that which specifically follows the word
include. So when reading laws, codes, regulations, the Constitution, etc.
the word include is to be understood to mean "means".
4)  The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person
or thing a quality which is not natural to it, and consequently establishes,
a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to
reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but
which the law prescribes or authorizes. It differs from presumption because
it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption
supplies the proof of something true.
5)  The law abounds in fictions. That an estate is in abeyance; the doctrine
of remitter, by which a party who has been diseased of his freehold and
afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good title;
that one thing done today, is considered as done at a preceding time by the
doctrine of relation; that because one thing is proved, another shall be
presumed to be true, which is the case in all presumptions; that the heir,
executor, and administrator stand by representation in the place of the
deceased are all fictions of law.
6)  Not one single IRC statute identifies "wages" or "salaries" as ï¿½incomeï¿½.
7)  Compensation for service is not wages or salaries.
8)  Had Congress intended to tax wages and/or salaries they would HAVE SAID
SO in the LETTER OF THE LAW.
9)  What is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded. To
include one is to exclude the alternate. Include is not a conjunction.

Section 61. Gross income defined

    (a) General definition
      Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means
    all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited
    to) the following items:
        (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions,
      fringe benefits, and similar items;
        (2) Gross income derived from business;
        (3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
        (4) Interest;
        (5) Rents;
        (6) Royalties;
        (7) Dividends;
        (8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
        (9) Annuities;
        (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
        (11) Pensions;
        (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
        (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
        (14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
        (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

1)  Of the fifteen items listed above I see none that define, in the LETTER
OF THE LAW, wages or salaries as income or even gross income.
2)  Adam, your theory is incompatible with the Constitution.  If Congress
had/has the authority to tax wages / salaries they wouldï¿½ve stated so here
in 26 USC 61.  Letï¿½s make this point clear, ï¿½compensation for servicesï¿½ are
received by corporations in their privilege of doing business however, the
ï¿½incomeï¿½ is NOT COMPENSATION for services but the [gain] [FROM] compensation
for services.
3)  The [GAIN] is income / profit which can only mean one thing.  Corporate
Profit!  Not wages received as compensation for services as your
dissertation decrees.
4)  The Title to Subtitle C is ï¿½Income taxesï¿½ collected at source.  Not wage
tax, or salaries tax but taxes collected at source.  THE LETTER OF THE LAW,
what is the source to that income tax?  Obviously, wages and salaries are
the source to which [income / gain / corporate profit] is derived and thus
taxed.
5)  IT IS NOT WAGES / SALARIES THAT ARE TAXED, but rather INCOME ----
FROM ---- wages / salaries and as such the theory dictated by you, Adam,
compensation for services is ï¿½wageï¿½ and thus becomes taxable income is a
blatant lie perpetrated and perpetuated by court decisions.
6)  Only through some court decision does one walk away with the ASSUMPTION
of ï¿½compensation for servicesï¿½ equals ï¿½incomeï¿½ which creates the illusion by
which most Americans file their returns.
7)   Most tax attorneys, CPAs, IRS agents, and Senators believe as you do,
Adam, but as demonstrated most havenï¿½t a clue to what their saying.  They,
like you, have been gypped by a corrupt Federal Mafia.
8)   Common sense and logic, Adam, can contend and agree that neither the
government nor I can define a word using the same word in its definition.
Therefor gross income is income is and means NOTHING.
9)   CONGRESS DOES NOT POSSESS THE AUTHORITY TO DEFINE ANY WORD.  The IRC
contains statutes passed BY CONGRESS, with authority grossly restricted by
the Constitution, and therefor, 26 USC 61 DEFINES NOTHING!!!!  Congress CAN
NOT define the word ï¿½incomeï¿½ so they make an ATTEMPT by citing, "Gross
income means income."  (I know, Adam, youï¿½re still having a problem with
{judicial power contra-distinguished form law is non existent} so think of
it this way,
Article 1 Legislative Power, Article 2 Executive Power, and Article 3
Judicial Power.  Judicial Power (Article 3) is reserved for definition ONLY
while Legislative power (Article 1) is reserved for, obviously, legislating
law.  Nothing more!
10 ) What is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded. To
include one is to exclude the alternate. Include is not a conjunction.

Admissions:
A)  Income taxes must be assessed
B)  Income tax is based on self assessment
C)  Congress doesnï¿½t have the authority to define ï¿½incomeï¿½.
D)  The IRC can not define the word ï¿½incomeï¿½
E)  "Liability for income tax" doesnï¿½t appear in the IRC (as stated by Sen.
Ensign, Sen. Burton, and Judge Walker)

We come to a few conclusions:

1)  Congress is intentionally vague, can only be vague, with Section 61 and
the term ï¿½gross income is incomeï¿½ and as such the deception starts here.
2)  Knowing an imposition does not create a statutory liability, itï¿½s clear
to see why Congress uses such vague language in Sections 61.
3)  26 USC 6151 as the quote ï¿½liabilityï¿½ statute can only be as
intentionally vague as Congress had the authority to define income in  26
USC 61.  In other words, Congress had no more authority to define income in
26 USC 61 than they had to create a liability for income tax in 26 USC 6151.
4)  Realizing the conclusions of 1 - 3 one more conclusion is made.  Chapter
75 of Title 26 has no more force and effect of ï¿½income taxï¿½ laws than it
carries weight over the ï¿½Internetï¿½ laws.  (This fact is NOW being proven in
court rooms across America daily.  WE ARE WINNING!!!  The authority is
always under the ASSUMPTION 26 USC 6151 makes one liable and under that
assumption itï¿½s easily proven, AUTHORITY IS NON EXISTENT.

AFTER easily establishing wages / salaries are not income / corporate profit
we can move to your next point of demagoguery, Adam.

No, it doesnï¿½t, Adam. >>>4) CFR 1.6151 is not a legislative regulation
ï¿½ >So? agent86 wrote in message
Until itï¿½s legislative regulation it requires nothing! (see my post The Big
Lie 26 USC 6151.)

1) When the IRS assesses a tax is it still called ï¿½self assessmentï¿½ or is it
ï¿½determined assessmentï¿½?  Canï¿½t be both.  Think for a second, Adam, self
assessment means just that.  If the IRS has the authority to assess the tax,
as you so state above, then please cite the authority for doing so.
2)  When the IRS assesses the tax [liability] for you, Adam, submit it to be
recorded with the Secretary pursuant to 26 USC 6203, who pays that tax NOT
determined by the taxpayer as 26 USC 6201 requires.    In other word, Adam,
26 USC 6201(2) requires the assessment to be determined by the taxpayer when
not a stamp tax, while 26 USC 6203 requires the assessment (determined by
the taxpayer) to be recorded with the Secretary.
2(a) Question - Who pays the tax when a self assessment is ï¿½determined by
the IRSï¿½?
2(b) Question - Is a ï¿½self assessedï¿½ 1040 truly ï¿½self assessedï¿½ if the IRS
prepared it for me, as you claim they can do, and submit it to be recorded
with the Secretary WITHOUT my signature?

No it doesnï¿½t, Adam.  See above!
Look up the word ï¿½assumeï¿½ and get back to us, Adam.

26 USC 6331 applies to income tax

In order to create an "any tax" there must first be a legislative
requirement.  What part of ï¿½legislative requirementï¿½ donï¿½t you understand,
Adam?  The minute you present a legislative requirement you have presented a
repugnance to the Bill of Rights in that, there can not be a ï¿½liabilityï¿½ /
demand.

Really?  Shall we take a look at your doctorate in motion?
Section 7608. Authority of internal revenue enforcement officers
(b)  Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than subtitle E
(1) Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division ï¿½ï¿½

What part of ï¿½criminal investigatorï¿½ donï¿½t you understand, Adam?  A pedantic
rule: READ EVERYTHING you cite.  If a citizen doesnï¿½t pay his tax he becomes
a ï¿½criminalï¿½?  Wouldnï¿½t my Bill of Rights apply before or at civil
requirement to avoid being a criminal without rights?  All tax debt to
government automatically set one up for seizure by ï¿½criminal agentsï¿½.

THIS IS FACT.  The IRS agent seizing property for back debt is NOT a
ï¿½criminal investigatorï¿½ of the ï¿½Intelligence Divisionï¿½.  THEY ARE ALWAYS
ï¿½revenue clerksï¿½.  You canï¿½t even call them agents.  They have NO power
whatsoever.  NONE.  Adam, your cite of 7608(b)(2)(c) is under the heading
"ANY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR".

Adam, if your going to cite codes in these NGs, I demand you cite the
correct statutes.   Most readers donï¿½t understand as much as you, so when
youï¿½re in error the reader doesnï¿½t know it until I get a chance to correct
you.  Please cite the correct codes.    (Thanks in advance)

I stand corrected but not lying.  What was it, something about income tax is
civil law and your criminal rights donï¿½t apply to income tax?  Please
explain.

Wouldnï¿½t the government love for me to believe that.  The burden is not on
me.  The government must first prove to me it has the authority to go beyond
the imposition Congress was restricted too in creating that law.  Prima
facie evidence of procedural / interpretive laws that are voluntary without
enforcement until you can prove otherwise!

Nice try, Adam.  Your cite is AFTER "when we ask (the American Citizen)
you"ï¿½..   What part of we "ask you" do you not understand?

ADAM, oh silly little Adam, when will you learn?  The govt. ALREADY knows
what it can / canï¿½t do.  It doesnï¿½t need to tell itself what it can or canï¿½t
do, Adam.  It needs to tell ME what its limits are.  The government knows I
may not be aware of what it can do so it tells me what it can / canï¿½t do in
that PAN located on page 57 of [my] 1040 instructions.  Keep trying to
convince the reader the PAN doesnï¿½t apply to him and see how far it gets you
in the ï¿½real worldï¿½.
What part of "ï¿½.ask youï¿½."- (American citizen), "ï¿½.first tell youï¿½." -
(American citizen), "ï¿½also tell youï¿½" - (American citizen), "ï¿½if you doï¿½." -
(American citizen), "ï¿½.you mustï¿½." - (American citizen), "ï¿½.ask you soï¿½" -
(American citizen), are you having a problem with, Adam?

Think for a second, Adam.
1. You would have the readers believe itï¿½s, what, [provisions] of the code
that set up a ï¿½liabilityï¿½?  Get smart, Maxwell!  The government has taught
you to overlook the simple fact, one must first be found ï¿½liableï¿½ in order
to create the requirement for filing.  You taking us to [provisions] of the
code prior to determining liability.  CANT DO THAT!
2. 26 USC 1 is not mention in the PAN
3. The minimum income requirements?  Whatï¿½s income?
4. You omitted 26 USC 61 prior to going to Section 1.
5. 6001 & 6011 both state one is required to file ONLY when liable.
6. Give me the code that states liable for income tax PRIOR TO FILING.
(Look at the dictionary - ï¿½shall payï¿½) on a required return does not
suffice.  I need the requirement to create the "required return" found
preceding your ï¿½shall payï¿½ in 6151.

To allow such an excuse is despicable, reflects a subjugated mentality and a
disregard for the piety of the Constitution.  By excusing the government and
allowance of legislative requirement to exist in ï¿½citations in an
inconsistent mannerï¿½ is a lie.  The government uses you, Adam Forest aka
agent86 of 805 9th St. Davis, Ca. 95616, phone number 530-756-8589 or in New
York at 315-443-5053 posting from Maxwell Univ. in Syracuse - email address,
[email],  to continue that mendacity.

Have you heard the ï¿½Emperor wears no clothesï¿½?

I resent the fact that Congress has placed upon the American citizen the
burden and duties of what an attorney should be hired to do.  Most, such as
Dan Evans, are absolutely incompetent!  Thereï¿½s no such thing as competent
council in American but we have 75 percent of the worlds attorney employed
here. Why? Because incompetence abounds!.   One of the only few who actually
confronts the injustices committed by the judiciary in their practice of
making ï¿½requirementï¿½ from vaguely written law is Larry Becraft  out of
Alabama.

-----=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
 Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers!  ==-----


subject: Re: Adam admits the 16th did nothing.

text:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 16:38:17 -0700, Anonymous
<[email]> wrote:

You are the one who resorts to playground antics, Kenny.

no, no, yes, no.

That's pretty tough to answer with just a "yes" or a "no", Kenny.

No.

Yes, that's what Pollock said, Kenny.  Now, why can't you comprehend
the words.  If the Court had voided only the part related to income
taxes on property, the remaining income taxes imposed on "professions,
trades, employments, or vocations" would have remained and the Court
recognized that it was not the intent of Congress to impose an income
tax only on those things, EVEN THOUGH it was Constitutional.  So they
voided the whole statute.

Yep.  He obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.  That is, if
you have quoted him correctly, which probably is debatable.

After the 16th amendment, it doesn't matter whether the income taxes
imposed would have been considered direct or indirect before the
amendment was passed.  Before the amendment was passed, some income
taxes were considered to be indirect, some direct.

See previous answer.

The actual quote, in a little more context is:

"For this and other obvious reasons we are little aided by a
discussion of theoretical distinctions between capital and income.
Such refinements can hardly be deemed to have entered into the
legislative purpose. Of course, if it were demonstrable that to read
the act according to its letter would render it unconstitutional, or
glaringly unequal, or palpably unjust, a reasonable ground would exist
for construing it according to its spirit rather than its letter. But
in our opinion the act is not fairly open to this criticism."
STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v. HOWBERT, 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

And they are talking about the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, not about
income taxes.  And BTW, the "For this" refers to:

"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was
not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law.
This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of
1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid
because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the
Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not
an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a
corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the
income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by
the act itself. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 , 55 L. ed. 389,
31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 1312; McCoach v. Minehill & S.
H. R. Co. 228 U.S. 295 , 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; United
States v. Whitridge ( decided at this term, 231 U.S. 144 , 58 L. ed.
--, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24. "

That's true, Kenny.  But a wage is income.  Just like the word "color"
is not the word "blue".

That's true, Kenny.  But a salary is income.  Just like the word
"color" is not the word "blue".

<snip>
<snip>

Yep, 26 USC 61 does.

Yep it is.

They did.
]

That's right, it's a transitive verb.  And in Title 26, it is
specifically defined.

"(c) Includes and including
The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when used in a definition
contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things
otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. "

Which is exactly opposite of what you say.

Wrong.

They did.

Nope, wrong again.

Glad that Dr. Forest wrote such an accurate dissertation.  Maybe I'll
have to read it sometime.

The source of my salary is my employer.  How about you?

Wages and salary are income, Kenny.

No, Kenny, most people can comprehend English.

Yeah, it's a real shame that you're the only one in some 88 years to
understand, isn't it, Kenny.

"gross income" is two words, Kenny.  It's a TYPE of income.  And if
you read Black's Dictionary, they define numerous kinds of income.

For the purposes of a law, they sure can.  They  could say, "For the
purpose of this section, the word "men" means both men and women."

<snip>

See above

Yep, either self assessed, or the IRS will do it for you.

Unless you don't self assess, then the IRS will do it for you.

Yep they do.

Since it was written by Congress, yep it can.

The words "liability for income tax" may not appear in Title 26, but
the words "shall pay" do.

You got a mouse in your pocket?

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

That's four for four wrong, Kenny.

You haven't established squat, Kenny.

26 USC 6151 is not a regulation, Kenny.  It's the law.

IIRC it's Chapter 63.

No it doesn't.

The IRS doesn't do a "self-assessment", Kenny.

The IRS doesn't do a "self-assessment, Kenny.

When did I use the word "assume", Kenny?  Chapter 75 applies to income
taxes.  As it says:

"Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any
tax imposed by this title..."

Still having trouble with the words "any" and "this title", Kenny?

Wrong.

Not my doctorate.

Yep.

No, by criminal investigators.

Prove it, Kenny.  The people who physically come and take your
property aren't "revenue clerks".

I do.

Cite?

Wrong.

Er, Kenny, who do you think the "we" in "when we ask" refers to?

That's what the law requires them to do, Kenny.  Is that so hard to
understand?  The law requires the Government to tell people certain
things.  The PAN imposes nothing on people.

What part of "we" do you have a problem with, Kenny?

26 USC 1 sets the minimum income requirements, Kenny.

It doesn't have to.  It doesn't ask for information.

See 26 USC 61.

No, I didn't.

And 6012 doesn't say a thing about "liability.

26 USC 6012.

And you are an idiot, Kenny.

And he loses every time unless he convinces a jury that his client is
stupid.


subject: Re: Adam admits the 16th did nothing.

text:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 16:38:17 -0700, Anonymous
<[email]> wrote:

Then why are you lying about it?

**Dan Evans  (I am not your lawyer.)


author: Will Woods

subject: Are components of a copyrighted item also subject to copyright?

text:
The recent news about legal action against song swappers in Europe has
got me thinking. As I understand it (but I may be wrong :) they are to
be sued for breach of copyright because they have been distributing
copyrighted material. If I was to  break down a song (for example)
into components that could not individually be used to identify the
original song, and then I only distributed one of these components
(while my friends distributed the others), would I be in breach of
copyright? In the extreme case, would 5 million people each
distributing two numbers (value and location of sample in a song)
still be in breach of copyright?? The decomposition need not be in the
time domain (where the original song might still be recognisable) -
for instance a spectral transform could be used, and each component
could be just a few frequency bands, or their associated phases.

I ask because the people doing the downloading do not appear to be the
ones being sued....

Will


author: Horrigan

subject: Re: Are components of a copyrighted item also subject to copyright?

text:
One flaw I see in your plan is that you are in fact distributing ALL the
components.  You are distributing one component directly to end users, and you
are sending the other components to friends who will in turn distribute them to
the end users.  But in essence you are distributing the the latter group of
components: not directly distributing them, but still distributing them.

And there's the obvious flaw that at some point the end user will have to ask
someone for the key to the copyrighted material and then he or she will have to
subsequently all put the pieces together to generate the material.  If the end
user snitches on you, you're busted, or at least someone involved with your
scheme will be busted :-)

It's an ingenious plan, in any case.  It will make it harder for the copyright
police to find your material, at any rate.

*****
Tim Horrigan <[email]>
*****


author: Jonathan Sachs

text:
"Will Woods" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I am answering from familiarity with American copyright law, but I suspect
that European courts would deal with the issue similarly.

A part of a copyrighted work which embodies original expression is protected
by the copyright. If you copy two samples from a copyrighted recording, you
are not liable for infringement -- but if a bunch of people each copy two
samples each and then reassemble the pieces, they have collectively copied
the entire work, and each of them is liable for infringement.

In practical terms, of course, it would be impossible to track down and
prosecute 5 million people for infringing the copyright of one song. But it
would be equally impossible to copy any significant number of songs that
way.


author: Stan Brown

text:
"Will Woods" <[email]> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated:

Regardless of how the scheme is accomplished, the purpose and effect
are to have lots of people get copyrighted material without the
permission of the copyright owner, right? That seems like a pretty
clear violation.

And if multiple people are involved, we may even be talking
conspiracy charges.


author: STJensen

subject: Re: Birthday Girl

text:
On Apr 12, 6:33ï¿½am, MC <[email]> wrote:

Happy Birthday!

Scott Jensen


author: Schlockhack

subject: Re: Birthday Girl

text:
There was restaurant Laura and I went to for Brunch with Mary once, a
French bistro.  It was the best place around here for brunch but I was
never able to go inside again, after she passed on.  It went out of
business and now a pan-asian restaurant is there ... completely
different interior.  So it's okay to go there now, Laura and had
dinner there last week.  And I kept thinking about Mary.  That was the
last time we saw her.


author: MC

subject: Re: Birthday Girl

text:
In article <io2u4t$1ip$[email]>,
 Schlockhack <[email]> wrote:

No place is the same.


author: Bruce Markowitz

subject: Re: DO NOT BUY FROM JOHN (Lawclerk@gte.net)

text:
THis may have been an interesting if only anyone could read it!

Peter Danczkay <[email]> wrote:

To Reply:
 ([email]) or:
[email]


author: Islandman

subject: Local Entrepreneurs club?

text:
I'm in my third year of a startup web/physical retail business. It's
starting to really "get there" but I often feel I'm doing it all alone.
Would like to meet with other like minded people to socialize and learn
from. I tried my local Rotary but didn't get much out of it.

Where are good venues to meet with other small business owners?

I live near Seattle but am moving near Vancouver, WA

Thanks!
-Brian


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Local Entrepreneurs club?

text:
Islandman wrote:

I feel your pain.  When I was in Gainesville, FL, there was a great
networking organization called GAIN, the Gainesville Area Innovators
Network.  I have been trying to find something similar here.  I googled
Vancouver, WA and Business network and found

www.scorevancouver.org/resources.html
and www.vancouverusa.com/

I didn't visit the sites, but the tagline sounds like GAIN was in
Florida.  It costs money to join, but was well worth it.

Good Luck,

Jason Flint, MBA


author: Waitman Gobble

subject: Re: Local Entrepreneurs club?

text:
Hello Brian,

Your local Chamber Of Commerce is normally the best resource.

However, sometimes people appear to have the misconception that they'll
show up and land a pocketful of clients, or expect that the Chamber
will send them a whole bunch of customers, or they just feel like they
aren't receiving value.

Here is a good example (that I have noticed) of how a business owner
has success with the Chamber Of Commerce: This business owner runs an
asphalt paving business. He religiously attends every Chamber meeting,
including weekly luncheons, and is always willing to lend a hand when
they need the help. I have never noticed him pushing his business on
anyone, or even scouting leads.

His payoff is that he is the first and probably only person that any
chamber member (and even city council members) thinks of when they need
some asphalt paved. When someone tells me they are thinking about
getting their lot paved, I emphatically recommend his services.

When you have 100-1000 business owners in town (depending on the size
of your Chamber) that know you personally, your name really gets around
town. The Chamber Of Commerce isn't really a hot cash cow, it is more
like karma. What you put out comes back to you indirectly. :-)

Take care

Waitman


author: Barney Byrd

subject: Form 3975

text:
Has anyone received their notification regarding Form 3975
that it's time to reup their practitioner mailing list
subscription?  Is it still too early?

Barney Byrd
[email]

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for Posting to this >>
<< newsgroup are at www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com      >>
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>


author: Bruce Davidson Cantor

subject: Re: Form 3975

text:
"Barney Byrd" <[email]> wrote:

Yesterday, we received our 2000 Publication 1045 which
includes program application and product order blanks for
tax year 2000.

Today, I went online to www.irs.gov and worked my way
through business info., tax practitioners corner, form 3975.
I was able to quickly order two copies of Package X. The
"confirmation" stated volume 1 would be available
mid-December. Volume 2 mid-January.

Hope this is interesting to someone. :)
Bruce Davidson Cantor, CPA, JD
Colorado

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for Posting to this >>
<< newsgroup are at www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com      >>
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>


subject: Re: Form 3975

text:
Barney Byrd wrote:

Barney, last year I received mine on October 5th.  This
should give you an idea when it should be in the mail.

Missy

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for Posting to this >>
<< newsgroup are at www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com      >>
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>


author: John H. Fisher

subject: Re: Form 3975

text:
"Barney Byrd" <[email]> writes:

The only notification I've received was in my Email. I can
never find the filing # and usually depend on the booklet to
retrieve it.  That's been my only holdback to submitting the
form on line.

"Jack" - John H. Fisher -  [email]
Philadelphia, Pa - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
My Newsgroups & Boards at:   http://members.aol.com/TaxService/index.html

Where Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!=:)

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for Posting to this >>
<< newsgroup are at www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com      >>
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>


author: D. Stussy

subject: Re: Form 3975

text:
Barney Byrd wrote:

At the [Las Vegas, the last edition of] The IRS Nationwide
Tax Forum for 2000, I actually made a related inquiry
(below, next paragraph).  In general discussion, it was
disclosed that the mailing of the package 1045 which
includes the form 3975 is targeted for October.  You're at
least a week early.

My question was:  If a practitioner signed up (or renewed
his list entry) last year via the IRS web site instead of
sending in a paper 3975, would he (or she) still receive a
paper package 1045 this year, an e-mail reminder, or would
it be up to the practitioner to remember to renew?  The IRS
staff at the booth did not know.

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for Posting to this >>
<< newsgroup are at www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com      >>
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>


subject: Re: Form 3975

text:
[email] (John H. Fisher) wrote:

Your filing number is on the address label of prior year
Package X:

My Newsgroups & Boards at:
http://members.aol.com/TaxService/index.html

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for Posting to this >>
<< newsgroup are at www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com      >>
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>


author: GenFinSvcs

subject: Re: Form 3975

text:
Why does this not surprise me.

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for Posting to this >>
<< newsgroup are at www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com      >>
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>


subject: Re: Form 3975 (Electronically via IRS's web site)

text:
[email] wrote:

Just to note:  I tried to renew my mailing list entry last
night, but after hitting the submit button (5 times), the
site timed out each time. Apparently, the IRS isn't ready
for this year's list yet.....

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for Posting to this >>
<< newsgroup are at www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com      >>
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>


subject: Re: Form 3975

text:
[email] writes:

Thank you!!=:)  At first, I looked at a 1998 Package, wihout
luck.  When I picked out a 1999 copy, there 'twas 'n I'm in
business without having to wait for a hard copy 3975.

"Jack" - John H. Fisher -  [email]
Philadelphia, Pa - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
My Newsgroups & Boards at:   http://members.aol.com/TaxService/index.html

Where Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!=:)

<< -------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for Posting to this >>
<< newsgroup are at www.Misc-Taxes-Moderated.com      >>
<< -------------------------------------------------- >>


subject: Wash. Post columnist--politics and the economy, auto industry

text:
Charles Krauthammer had a column in the Phila Inqr discussing
politicians and the economy.  He had this to say about the auto
industry and government:

"Even more egregious will be the directives to a nationalized Detroit.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), the noted automotive engineer,
declared last week that "a business model based on gas" is
"unacceptable." Instead, "We need a business model based on cars of
the future, and we already know what that future is: the plug-in
hybrid electric car."

The Chevy Volt, for example? It has huge remaining technological
hurdles, gets 40 miles on a charge, and will sell for about $40,000,
necessitating a $7,500 outright government subsidy. Who but the rich
and politically correct will choose that over a $12,000 gas-powered
Hyundai? The new Detroit, churning out Schumer-mobiles, will make the
steel mills of the Soviet Union look like the model of efficiency. "

For the full column please see:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20081201_The_politics_of_economics.html


author: Clark F Morris

subject: Re: Wash. Post columnist--politics and the economy, auto industry

text:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:47:46 -0800 (PST), [email] wrote:

This sort of thing is part of what caused the management decisions of
the big 3.  Congress had a role in the stupidity of the big three
although there was also plenty of stupidity caused by their own bright
ideas and world view.


author: tin cup

text:
[email] wrote:
The politicians aren't dealing with realities. They seek to use
illogical technology, for now, to gain votes from the inner city crowd
and unrealistic tree huggers. 40 miles range won't work for most
Americans. We don't live a block or a mile or two from work, the store,
or if we did, not have multiple destinations some days. Then the cost of
acquisition and a biggie: the replacement of expensive banks of batteries.
Where are they going to get subsidies for the buyers of these things:
Taxpayers and tariffs on most of us that can't avail ourselves of a
glorified golf cart with a 40 mile range.


text:
On Dec 1, 1:33 pm, tin cup <[email]> wrote:

Yes, the politicians are in a panic.

But there aren't many votes from "tree huggers" and the "inner city"
crowd.

What we saw in the last election and in popular sentiment is that many
everyday Americans desire in a change in the way things are done.
That does not mean everyone is gonna rush out and buy an electric car
or unplug their air conditioner.  But it does mean the old business
model is changing.

Sadly, one of the problems in the present recession are inflated
expectations from the boom times.  People didn't think of them as an
unusual boom, but rather as business as usual and the new baseline.
The stock market would go up 1,000 points and they'd expect ongoing
1,000 point increases forever.  They'd get a big bonus or great sales
that year and expect that every year.  They'd spend money anticipating
big wins.

The reality was clear the booms were unnatural, as booms always have
been through time.  They should've pocketed the profits and saved for
rainy day.  Now that day is here and it's stormy outside, but the roof
leaks.