Sure, you could spend your life filling out paperwork, but there are more important things to do.
When it comes to taxes, this really is the crux of the matter for me. They can have my money, but here they want my time to do their work. Unfortunately, I doubt I can make an election issue out of this, so the rules are likely to be here for awhile. Fine, now I need an accountant, and you know what? I'm going to use him to drown the IRS in their own papers, in triplicate. As a matter of fact, maybe reporting things I'm not required to could make it more interesting. Spam them with unecessary information, while maintaining the pressure on them to proccess everything faster and faster. This might fix the problen a lot quicker than simply ignoring it and letting them think we need more rules. Another possibly is that that he's just using that as an excuse not to pay. He claims it's only $100. Maybe an "independant" audit is needed to verify his claim:-)
Look, my entire point behind this tirade of mine is that this kind of thinking is what gives us Enron, Halliburton, Spiro Agnew, and Watergate and it grows into all out war. I am merely trying to say that it starts here, with one little snowflake and grows into a deadly avalanche. I believe I have history on my side.
So I guess the established definition of words is irrelevant. Next time I'll quote the much more authoritative Dr. Seuss.
Oh, what say you, that's not fraudulent?
I DID?? Where? How DO you come up with such nonsense? I love how you, and he (I don't really think it is, and neither do you, because volume does matter...) attempt to put your thoughts and little theories into my head. Yes, advertising IS fraud, and just because it's an accepted business practice and that most people make their buying decisions based on it doesn't make any less so. I don't encourage that type of fraud either, in fact I will disparage it as much as any other. Big fraudsters and little fraudsters think alike. They both say that a little deception or theft is ok, believing that their standard should be the world standard, and anything above what they commit personally should be severly punished. It is perfectly feasable to advertise information about a product without making fraudulent claims like, "best", "brightest", etc. Unless they can prove that they are. If I didn't believe in free speech, I would have it outlawed. But I do believe in free speech, so knock yourselves out. It is also perfectly feasable to compensate for changes in the tax rules without playing stupid little games, by adjusting what you charge for your product or labor. So no, there is no inconsistancy with treating both instances the same.
Look, I'm not going to get in your way. Do what you want. But don't complain about things like political or corporate fraud when the only difference is the scale. The thoughts behind it and motivations are identical. It seems to revolve around the misapplication of "zero-sum" that is used to justify this behavior.
I'll check with my tax guy to see if I'm required to do so. That's what I pay him for:-) But since I don't have to pay a personal income tax here, I doubt that I do. If I deposit in the company bank account, you can bet I would. They count every single penny there. Talk about your paper trail...
No problem, I quit driving years ago. Your analogy is irrelevant. I'm not discussing breaking the law. The fraudulent behavior being displayed and defended have nothing to do with the law. It's the mindset. These people who say a little skimming is ok are at the very root of the problem. These are the watergate "plumbers" we'll be reading about in the papers. These are the examples they set for their kids and everybody else. But, since you brought up, I wouldn't mind seeing much heavier fines for tailgating and gliding through stop signs. And remember, Speed Kills:-Q~
Well, let's just say that if you're one of those dead people it hardly makes any difference now, does it? And you're still committing fraud, if what you say is true about your winnings. You're following the footsteps of Charles Keating and Ken Lay. I'm sure they started out cheating "just a little" also. You suffer the same disease. Do you do the same to a disagreeable customer, or employer? Do you pad the bill or your time sheet "just a little"? Don't bother to anwser that. I have no way of knowing if you're telling the truth or not. Your "moral relativism" doesn't apply here, and if it does have a place in this world, you're giving it a bad name and not helping its cause. Your whole demeanor in this matter would indicate to me that you are not a trustworthy person to do business with, but in today's business climate I'm sure you will be very successful. You seem to fit right in. Hey, everybody else is doing it, so what's the problem, right? *sigh*
That's not what I'm talking about. My point is that I'll declare what's required. I won't try to hide anything. He thinks he's getting away with something, and that it's ok because it's "just a little". So you're kind of off base here. And my second cousin-twice removed, who works at the DMV in Kansas City and has a neighbor whose mother-in-law works in the Pentagon says I'm NOT stupid!
...I don't really think it is, and neither do you, because volume does matter...
You got me wrong, pal. I don't play that game.(Homey don't do that). Killing ten people is as bad as killing a million. Stealing one dollar is the same as stealing a thousand. I don't fudge the books with "cost-benefit" and "relevance" to reporting financials. I declare my income. I pay the percentage they demand. And do it again next year. I have no need to play the percentages of getting caught commiting fraud. If I think it's unfair, I'll say it to their face. I'll adjust my hourly rates accordingly. I might refuse to declare anything, but I will not defraud. It's just not worth it. There is no such thing as cheating "just a little". You either are, or you aren't. Your credibility account is in the red, sir
Now, I don't claim my online poker winnings...If you're dumb enough to win that kind of money and think you're getting away with not paying taxes, then you deserve what you get.
Yeah, baby! Right on! Hey, buddy. The amount don't matta. Just like Christmas, it's the thought that counts. Cheating is cheating. Fascinating bit of "logic" you got there. I have a teeny, tiny problem with people who think that a "little" cheating is ok, and that anybody who cheats more than they do is a filthy crook.
That's exactly the info I was looking for. Short and concise, and should be all the proof anybody needs. It leaves no room for arguement. Thanks. So much for my silly theory:-Q~
The real reason I bring it up is because I feel the real damage we are doing in the ocean. I believe the plant life(somebody mentioned blue-green algae specifically in another post a long time ago. Don't really know if it's true) in the ocean is the real filtration system that converts the gas coming out from the interior into breathable air. This is why I ask about planetary emissions, and if the numbers include what comes up from the ocean floor through smokers, eruptions, methane ice sheets, just plain seepage, etc. Because if we wreck the filter, it won't matter if we shut down all petroleum, gas, coal right now. The raw, stinky gas from the core will do us in quite nicely. Well, that's my pet theory, anyway.
You know, one of the things that makes it nicer to ask a computer a question, it just spits out the answer, nothing more. You get my drift? However, I don't know how to exactly word the question to get the answer I'm looking for. So I thought I would try a human, to see if he/she could either show me how to ask the question, or simply provide the link. I'm not doubting anything. My question has nothing to do with global warming. I guess that would make it offtopic. I'm simply looking for two sets of numbers, not a lecture. I can get that from my mother. Thank you for the links. And I hope you find a decent chiropractor for your back:-Q~
That brings up a point I'm certainly interested in. Just how many tons of CO2 and methane and other greenhouse gases ARE coming from the planet's core (ok mantle)? I bet a lot more is coming out of the ocean than that from land based sources, simply because of the surface area. Is it being measured? How does it compare to man made sources?
To the people with the power on display here, the terms "British" and "Russian", you name it, don't exist. They don't see it that way. They have a target, location, and a date and time and that's the only thing that matters. They are not distracted by such ubsurdities as "sovereignty" and "identity". And we shouldn't be either when going after them. Bah, What am I talking about? The CIA and other allied intelligence agencies already operate that way. As a matter of fact, isn't this a case of the pot calling...? You know...like are there no British agents operating outside their borders in a clandestine manner? Taking part in "targeted" assasinations?
I understand. The thing is that they do transmit, and there's plenty of wiring in the seat, armrest, etc. Conceivably, the iPod can inject noise into the wiring, spread throughout the aircraft, and hit something vital. Personally I don't care for personal electrical devices on airliners. The shielding is inadequate for my tastes, especially as the aircraft ages, and some of that shielding and insulation gets destroyed during maintenance. If these toys are so vital to the passengers, then they can pay to have them certified by the FAA not to interfere with aircraft equipment. Otherwise turn them off, and check them in with your baggage. If they get so bored, give them enough alcohol to put them to sleep, and a couple of aspirins after they land.
Slashdot Mirror
Cheers: to the internet for revolutionizing TV
Jeers: to the advertising industry for "devolutionizing" the internet.
Sure, you could spend your life filling out paperwork, but there are more important things to do.
:-)
When it comes to taxes, this really is the crux of the matter for me. They can have my money, but here they want my time to do their work. Unfortunately, I doubt I can make an election issue out of this, so the rules are likely to be here for awhile. Fine, now I need an accountant, and you know what? I'm going to use him to drown the IRS in their own papers, in triplicate. As a matter of fact, maybe reporting things I'm not required to could make it more interesting. Spam them with unecessary information, while maintaining the pressure on them to proccess everything faster and faster. This might fix the problen a lot quicker than simply ignoring it and letting them think we need more rules. Another possibly is that that he's just using that as an excuse not to pay. He claims it's only $100. Maybe an "independant" audit is needed to verify his claim
Look, my entire point behind this tirade of mine is that this kind of thinking is what gives us Enron, Halliburton, Spiro Agnew, and Watergate and it grows into all out war. I am merely trying to say that it starts here, with one little snowflake and grows into a deadly avalanche. I believe I have history on my side.
Lol! Quoting a dictionary.
So I guess the established definition of words is irrelevant. Next time I'll quote the much more authoritative Dr. Seuss.
Oh, what say you, that's not fraudulent?
I DID?? Where? How DO you come up with such nonsense? I love how you, and he (I don't really think it is, and neither do you, because volume does matter...) attempt to put your thoughts and little theories into my head. Yes, advertising IS fraud, and just because it's an accepted business practice and that most people make their buying decisions based on it doesn't make any less so. I don't encourage that type of fraud either, in fact I will disparage it as much as any other. Big fraudsters and little fraudsters think alike. They both say that a little deception or theft is ok, believing that their standard should be the world standard, and anything above what they commit personally should be severly punished. It is perfectly feasable to advertise information about a product without making fraudulent claims like, "best", "brightest", etc. Unless they can prove that they are. If I didn't believe in free speech, I would have it outlawed. But I do believe in free speech, so knock yourselves out. It is also perfectly feasable to compensate for changes in the tax rules without playing stupid little games, by adjusting what you charge for your product or labor. So no, there is no inconsistancy with treating both instances the same.
Look, I'm not going to get in your way. Do what you want. But don't complain about things like political or corporate fraud when the only difference is the scale. The thoughts behind it and motivations are identical. It seems to revolve around the misapplication of "zero-sum" that is used to justify this behavior.
They don't think there would be a minor complication with getting rid of the mold afterwards?
Just break it.
There is no fraud without law to define it as so. emphasis mine
Hmmm...I'm afraid I'll have to disagree...
X gets the square!
Is that as bad as killing them?
?? Well, if they die as a result...
I'll check with my tax guy to see if I'm required to do so. That's what I pay him for :-) But since I don't have to pay a personal income tax here, I doubt that I do. If I deposit in the company bank account, you can bet I would. They count every single penny there. Talk about your paper trail...
Whatever, I have more than enough leftover. What's your point?
No problem, I quit driving years ago. Your analogy is irrelevant. I'm not discussing breaking the law. The fraudulent behavior being displayed and defended have nothing to do with the law. It's the mindset. These people who say a little skimming is ok are at the very root of the problem. These are the watergate "plumbers" we'll be reading about in the papers. These are the examples they set for their kids and everybody else. But, since you brought up, I wouldn't mind seeing much heavier fines for tailgating and gliding through stop signs. And remember, Speed Kills :-Q~
Well, let's just say that if you're one of those dead people it hardly makes any difference now, does it? And you're still committing fraud, if what you say is true about your winnings. You're following the footsteps of Charles Keating and Ken Lay. I'm sure they started out cheating "just a little" also. You suffer the same disease. Do you do the same to a disagreeable customer, or employer? Do you pad the bill or your time sheet "just a little"? Don't bother to anwser that. I have no way of knowing if you're telling the truth or not. Your "moral relativism" doesn't apply here, and if it does have a place in this world, you're giving it a bad name and not helping its cause. Your whole demeanor in this matter would indicate to me that you are not a trustworthy person to do business with, but in today's business climate I'm sure you will be very successful. You seem to fit right in. Hey, everybody else is doing it, so what's the problem, right? *sigh*
That's not what I'm talking about. My point is that I'll declare what's required. I won't try to hide anything. He thinks he's getting away with something, and that it's ok because it's "just a little". So you're kind of off base here. And my second cousin-twice removed, who works at the DMV in Kansas City and has a neighbor whose mother-in-law works in the Pentagon says I'm NOT stupid!
...I don't really think it is, and neither do you, because volume does matter...
You got me wrong, pal. I don't play that game.(Homey don't do that). Killing ten people is as bad as killing a million. Stealing one dollar is the same as stealing a thousand. I don't fudge the books with "cost-benefit" and "relevance" to reporting financials. I declare my income. I pay the percentage they demand. And do it again next year. I have no need to play the percentages of getting caught commiting fraud. If I think it's unfair, I'll say it to their face. I'll adjust my hourly rates accordingly. I might refuse to declare anything, but I will not defraud. It's just not worth it. There is no such thing as cheating "just a little". You either are, or you aren't. Your credibility account is in the red, sir
That's not true. Sometimes it misses, and will come back at you again and again. It's the telemarketer that won't take no for an answer.
Now, I don't claim my online poker winnings...If you're dumb enough to win that kind of money and think you're getting away with not paying taxes, then you deserve what you get.
Yeah, baby! Right on! Hey, buddy. The amount don't matta. Just like Christmas, it's the thought that counts. Cheating is cheating. Fascinating bit of "logic" you got there. I have a teeny, tiny problem with people who think that a "little" cheating is ok, and that anybody who cheats more than they do is a filthy crook.
Tax cheats are tax cheats.
You think?
start here.
:-Q~
That's exactly the info I was looking for. Short and concise, and should be all the proof anybody needs. It leaves no room for arguement. Thanks. So much for my silly theory
Any more caffeine and this is what your next interview with Dick Cheney will sound like.
The real reason I bring it up is because I feel the real damage we are doing in the ocean. I believe the plant life(somebody mentioned blue-green algae specifically in another post a long time ago. Don't really know if it's true) in the ocean is the real filtration system that converts the gas coming out from the interior into breathable air. This is why I ask about planetary emissions, and if the numbers include what comes up from the ocean floor through smokers, eruptions, methane ice sheets, just plain seepage, etc. Because if we wreck the filter, it won't matter if we shut down all petroleum, gas, coal right now. The raw, stinky gas from the core will do us in quite nicely. Well, that's my pet theory, anyway.
You know, one of the things that makes it nicer to ask a computer a question, it just spits out the answer, nothing more. You get my drift? However, I don't know how to exactly word the question to get the answer I'm looking for. So I thought I would try a human, to see if he/she could either show me how to ask the question, or simply provide the link. I'm not doubting anything. My question has nothing to do with global warming. I guess that would make it offtopic. I'm simply looking for two sets of numbers, not a lecture. I can get that from my mother. Thank you for the links. And I hope you find a decent chiropractor for your back :-Q~
That brings up a point I'm certainly interested in. Just how many tons of CO2 and methane and other greenhouse gases ARE coming from the planet's core (ok mantle)? I bet a lot more is coming out of the ocean than that from land based sources, simply because of the surface area. Is it being measured? How does it compare to man made sources?
Won't that install the WGA virus?
They can push Britain into offering an alternative of greater value.
Another Johnny English movie?
This assasination was far too elaborate...
Heh. Too Hollywood. And a B movie at that. This case must be resolved, so they can finish the script. A true snuff film.
To the people with the power on display here, the terms "British" and "Russian", you name it, don't exist. They don't see it that way. They have a target, location, and a date and time and that's the only thing that matters. They are not distracted by such ubsurdities as "sovereignty" and "identity". And we shouldn't be either when going after them. Bah, What am I talking about? The CIA and other allied intelligence agencies already operate that way. As a matter of fact, isn't this a case of the pot calling...? You know...like are there no British agents operating outside their borders in a clandestine manner? Taking part in "targeted" assasinations?
I understand. The thing is that they do transmit, and there's plenty of wiring in the seat, armrest, etc. Conceivably, the iPod can inject noise into the wiring, spread throughout the aircraft, and hit something vital. Personally I don't care for personal electrical devices on airliners. The shielding is inadequate for my tastes, especially as the aircraft ages, and some of that shielding and insulation gets destroyed during maintenance. If these toys are so vital to the passengers, then they can pay to have them certified by the FAA not to interfere with aircraft equipment. Otherwise turn them off, and check them in with your baggage. If they get so bored, give them enough alcohol to put them to sleep, and a couple of aspirins after they land.
(Score:0, Troll)
Ay! Pégame! Pégame duro mamasita pero no me dejes!