User talk:Peter Reilly

Tax protesters and the way they think

Dear Peter Reilly: Thanks for your comments. In this particular case, I'll post this comment on both my talk page and your talk page. If I post on your talk page, you receive a little message on your screen, basically a link that takes you to the message on your talk page. Also, if you sign all your messages on talk pages with four little "tildes" the program inserts your Wikipedia signature, time and date.

To respond to your comments about tax protesters, yes, it's interesting that a few of the tax protesters have read some of the actual statutes and cases.

I see that you’re a CPA. I am also a CPA, and an attorney. I’ve studied court decisions involving tax protesters for years. Many protesters seem to share certain characteristics. The vast majority appear to be not formally trained in taxation or law or accounting generally. The more they try to get into taxation and develop their own methods of "interpretation," the farther from reality they seem to get -- for at least two reasons, in my opinion: first, they aren't familiar with the intricacies of law and accounting (or with the fact that it takes years of intense training to develop sufficient knowledge), and they substitute their own rag-tag "reasoning" methods – apparently picked up from simply reading the tax protester literature. Second, tax protesters as a group almost by definition have a strong psychological antipathy toward -- really a hatred of -- the tax system, which I argue greatly impairs their ability to perform analysis. Many protesters nevertheless try to explain away their inability to win as a gigantic "conspiracy" by evil legislators, prosecutors, law professors, judges, lawyers, accountants, etc., etc. Some are even delusional to the point they believe that some fellow tax protester, somewhere, is actually successful with a crazy theory. Self-delusion is almost a sine qua non for tax protesters. A detailed psychological analysis of tax protesters as a group is beyond the scope of this comment. However, it is this inability to use -- indeed, an unfamiliarity with – legal and accounting concepts that is a hallmark of the vast majority of tax protesters I have studied. Many are educated people -- they're just in over their heads in fields in which they lack skills.

Another problem for tax protesters in my opinion is that many are intellectually lazy. They don’t bother to actually check things outside the tax protester web sites. I'm talking about, for example, phantom "quotes" from statutes and court decisions -- quotes that aren't really there. Many tax protesters have not studied the actual statutes, regs, case law, etc. Even here in the pages of Wikipedia, you can find things like, for example, a tax protester saying that the "Internal Revenue Service" is not mentioned anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code, when as you know the Internal Revenue Code is actually riddled with specific references to the "Internal Revenue Service,” as are many non-tax Federal statutes. You would think a person would at least bother to actually check something like that before making a ridiculous statement. What many of these people may not realize is that their web sites are full of false materials. And the people who create the false materials, phony quotes, etc., either don’t realize or don’t care that the falsehoods are easy to expose. There are lots of experts who have studied the actual legal materials, and experts recognize it quickly if somebody sticks in a phony quote from a famous case. Further, in the age of the internet, even non-experts have the ability to find some of these materials and expose the phonies.

But what about accurate quotes? You mentioned the accurate quotes that are “wildly out of context.” Yep, in my opinion that’s a result (in part) of the intellectual laziness and the lack of legal and accounting skills. What these people apparently don’t realize is that law (not just tax law, but law generally) is so much more technical than they realize – they cannot develop legal reasoning ability merely by reading one actual case, or ten cases, or even a hundred actual statutes or cases. My sense is that the tax protesters, virtually without exception, have no idea what they’re getting into – for the simple reason that they don’t have the mental tools (unrelated to the subject of taxation itself) needed to analyze the materials. Much of what tax protesters do is something like reading magazine articles on brain surgery and then thinking you can understand brain surgery better than people who have been formally trained for years as physicians and have actually performed brain surgery. It is literally on that level.

For an example of some of this, see the heading “Sources for an alternate viewpoint” at Talk:Income_tax/Removed_text. The material you see there was copied and pasted by a tax protester a while back from some tax protest web site somewhere. Over the past few months I have been gradually inserting my own commentaries, exposing the materials. As you can see, many of the exposed materials include the kinds of accurate quotes you were talking about – quotes that are taken totally out of context without any awareness of the rules of legal analysis. Yours, Famspear 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Roni Lynn Deutch

Hey, it's me again. Wow it's been a while since I've been here! Your input could be valuable regarding the article Roni Lynn Deutch at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roni_Lynn_Deutch

(if you're interested).

My personal view is that the article is pretty much an advertisement, even if the article wasn't put there by Ms. Deutch herself -- but you may have a different perspective. Yours, Famspear 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

James Batchelder

I did? Where? Thursday, 2006-11-02 T 22:35 UTC

Re: USCT

No problem. The anonymous user's edit summaries charging insensitivity were a little uncivil, I think, and made-up names are definitely not the way to go. Glad I could help. jwillbur 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Robert Martin

Thanks for that. I have added him to the disambiguation page. The whole disambiguation process is described here, if you are interested. jwillbur 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't your recognize me?

Pete,

Thanks for the note on my talk page. It's great to hear from you. You don't need to introduce yourself to me, though. I certainly remember you (and assume you remember me).

Let me know what you think of the changes I made to Donny's entry, and feel free to correct anything I got wrong.

Ellen Spertus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Espertus (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

More on Donny

I did struggle with how to phrase his boy scout experience. If you think I was too discreet, feel free to change it.

I'll get to ACLU v. Reno (and other stuff). I'm working my way forward chronologically.

Espertus (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Abby Kelley

My pleasure Peter Rielly. It took me long while to get bold enough to try. Any of these very old images seem to be OK under U.S. copyright law. I am just learning how to deal with the image upload copyrights issues. I wish there were broader categories for flickr since a lot of good pictures are out there. Go to wikimedia commons to learn more. Ksherin (User talk:Ksherin} 18:33 26 December 2008 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Xavier High School (New York City) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Looks like we were both trying to revert vandalism on the same article! Uncle Dick (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)