Quatloos!

In the Maehr materials linked by "countyguard," Maehr also cites the Tennesee Supreme Court decision in Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 337 S.W.2d 453 (Tenn. 1960).

This was not a Federal tax case. No issues regarding the validity of Federal tax law were decided by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The case involved a provision of Article II, section 28 of the Tennessee state constitution. Tax protesters cite the case to give the false impression that the case applies to the U.S. Federal income tax.



All these cases cited by "countyguard" or Maehr or both were being bandied about on the internet quite a lot about twelve years ago, and were debunked back then.

Famspear wrote:You are the latest victim.

Or troll.

Damn, Famspear, you're hungry.

wserra wrote:

Famspear wrote:You are the latest victim.

Or troll.

Damn, Famspear, you're hungry.

Yeah, the big meals are few and far between these days.

Well, guess that means you won't have room for the Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow then...

Sure hope your county never has a security problem, because you probably aren't very good at guarding it.

Whether the latest clown is a troll or not, I'm convinced that Famspear has his responses neatly ordered in a TP database by case and fake quote keywords, with only minor modifications needed for each.

How else do you do 9 detailed responses in 27 minutes?

No one else would bother, which is why we all love Famspear.

. wrote:No one else would bother, which is why we all love Famspear.

That, and the Vogonesque limericks!

. wrote:Whether the latest clown is a troll or not, I'm convinced that Famspear has his responses neatly ordered in a TP database by case and fake quote keywords, with only minor modifications needed for each.

How else do you do 9 detailed responses in 27 minutes?

No one else would bother, which is why we all love Famspear.

I have often thought that perhaps Famspear is merely an AI bot that has passed the Turing test and his only mission is to generate well-crafted, logical arguments whenever his programming detects tax protester nonsense. During lulls in TP posting, he erupts with limericks as a way to keep from going into sleep-mode. Sort of the Quatloosian version of HAL.

The Observer wrote:I have often thought that perhaps Famspear is merely an AI bot that has passed the Turing test and his only mission is to generate well-crafted, logical arguments whenever his programming detects tax protester nonsense. During lulls in TP posting, he erupts with limericks as a way to keep from going into sleep-mode. Sort of the Quatloosian version of HAL.

An AI bot that erupts with limericks....

..........and eats lots of turkey, too.

I'm late to the party, but thought I would add my 2 cents. TPs often mention that the IRC does not define income, as if that were a bug in the statute. It is, in fact, a feature. Congress did not overlook defining income. The Congressional Record shows that the decision not to define income was discussed at length in 1913. Congress wanted to tax everything that could be considered to be income and was afraid that any definition might leave something out, or include something that the courts would not hold to be income, thereby invalidating the tax. The specter of Pollock haunted them. The courts were always better at such nuanced work, so Congress left it to them to define income.

. wrote:Whether the latest clown is a troll or not, I'm convinced that Famspear has his responses neatly ordered in a TP database by case and fake quote keywords, with only minor modifications needed for each.

How else do you do 9 detailed responses in 27 minutes?

No one else would bother, which is why we all love Famspear.

That was a brutal read. Poor ol' countyguard is probably in treatment for PTSD now...

Hercule Parrot wrote:

. wrote:Whether the latest clown is a troll or not, I'm convinced that Famspear has his responses neatly ordered in a TP database by case and fake quote keywords, with only minor modifications needed for each.

How else do you do 9 detailed responses in 27 minutes?

No one else would bother, which is why we all love Famspear.

That was a brutal read. Poor ol' countyguard is probably in treatment for PTSD now...

My only regret is that I couldn't think of a limerick for him.

Hercule Parrot wrote: That was a brutal read. Poor ol' countyguard is probably in treatment for PTSD now...

"countyguard" has posted exactly twice on Quatloos, the last time more than four years ago:
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=8434&start=20#p161142

At this rate, we'll see him again around 2022 some time.

Famspear wrote:

Hercule Parrot wrote:

. wrote:Whether the latest clown is a troll or not, I'm convinced that Famspear has his responses neatly ordered in a TP database by case and fake quote keywords, with only minor modifications needed for each.

How else do you do 9 detailed responses in 27 minutes?

No one else would bother, which is why we all love Famspear.

That was a brutal read. Poor ol' countyguard is probably in treatment for PTSD now...

My only regret is that I couldn't think of a limerick for him.

I think you pun-ished him enough as it was.

Dr. Caligari wrote:

Hercule Parrot wrote: That was a brutal read. Poor ol' countyguard is probably in treatment for PTSD now...

"countyguard" has posted exactly twice on Quatloos, the last time more than four years ago:
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=8434&start=20#p161142

At this rate, we'll see him again around 2022 some time.

Is he some sort of internet comet?