Such excitement over a simple question. Do you find a lot of intended meaning
and purpose in my question?
I must be very naughty. I bet if I did this constantly, I'd make people angry.
Especially, if a group of idiots always picked up and ran with the intention
of the loaded question.. This time, of course, my loaded question struck a
nerve.
I know it is the duty of all UCD cheerleaders to protect the cover-up of the
Precious. As the Precious sinks deeper into the slime, I can really feel the
desperation and anxiety. I feel for all of you.
I don't have time for a proper literary criticism of your posts this morning.
But I would like to come back and draw together your posts about the words,
prisoner and hearsay. Now, we have the latest cheerleader confusion over a made
up, then refuted, legal requirement for a non-profit organization to conduct
itself honorably.
You cheerleaders are probably correct, the Precious probably has no legal
requirement to be honest or conduct itself honorably. Since I'm not a
cheerleader, I'm not so excited or impressed with your refutation of nonsense.
Long live the Precious,
Your Buddy, the freedom fighter
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 10:55 PM
Subject: Common knowledge, was: [UC] IRS Treatment of third-party information
I love how you complain about other poster's discourse, then use the same
tactics you decry. First, you were victimized by ad hominem attacks but have
no reluctance to use them on others. Today, you fuss about straw men and then
adopt the method yourself.
What Al said: "1) As a tax-exempt organization, the organization's
policies and modus operandi are legally and morally a matter of public record
and public concern."
What I said: "Can you share the citation to the law that makes non profit
policies and MO's matters of public record?"
Al then provided the citation of law. Thanks Al. I'll try to look it
up later.
What you said: "I thought it was common knowledge that non-profit
organizations have to have written by laws with a written purpose filed with
the IRS in order to be recognized and approved." Followed by the lay person's
gem: "Why on earth would you be asking for this requirement if you are a
lawyer?"
What you told us earlier today: " A straw man argument is an informal
fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a
straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is
easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man
argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in
persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the
opponent's actual argument has not been refuted." Earlier, you also suggested
that no one had claimed UCD had done anything illegal.
The fallacy? Misrepresenting my question as a suggestion that I didn't
know what law requires non-profits to file bylaws with the IRS, or perhaps that
I was insinuating that "the current UCD cover up was the legal issue". (which,
BTW, I don't know if your common knowledge is correct). My actual question:
what law requires that the policies and MO's of a non profit be a matter of
public record?
Most interestingly, it sure sounds like you are criticizing me for asking
a simple question to determine the bases for Al's assertion. Here we all
thought you were fighting for freedom, democracy and public debate. Are you
hoping to silence me? Is free speech just for you? What kind of buddy are you?
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: [UC] IRS Treatment of third-party information relating to
tax-exempt organizations
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: [UC] IRS Treatment of third-party information relating to
tax-exempt organizations
Al,
Can you share the citation to the law that makes non profit policies
and MO's matters of public record? Thanks,
Paul
I'm confused by your question. I thought it was common knowledge that
non-profit organizations have to have written by laws with a written purpose
filed with the IRS in order to be recognized and approved.
Why on earth would you be asking for this requirement if you are a lawyer?
You could probably get this on an information sheet about the process for
starting a non-profit.
Someone might get confused about the legal issues here. You don't think
that Al or anyone suggested that the current UCD cover-up was the legal issue?
Are you really more interested in debating the word, policy, than getting your
requested citation? I remember, you like to debate usage and semantics to
attempt to confuse someone's point.
I just read one of Cassidy's posts and now he seems confused too. Don't
worry, I tried to help him understand that your question was nothing to get
excited about.
Your buddy,
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 7:46 pm
Subject: [UC] IRS Treatment of third-party information relating to
tax-exempt organizations
UCD continues to be less than forthcoming about the "internal
investigation" of its violation of the laws under which it operates as a
tax-exempt organization. Namely through the use of its resources on behalf of a
political candidate in the recent mayoral primary.
Those of us who question the NID proposal by UCD, which includes UCD's
management of what amounts to a QUANGO in the event it does happen to be
formed, have been holding back on filing complaints with the IRS questioning
UCD's tax-exempt status.
While UCD supporters keep saying this is a private matter internal to the
organization, they are forgetting two key issues:
1) As a tax-exempt organization, the organization's policies and modus
operandi are legally and morally a matter of public record and public concern.
2) As the organization that proposes to impose a real estate surtax on some
(it'll most likely be all if the bill is to have any hope of not only passing
but surviving a chanllenge under the uniform taxation clause of the State
Constitution and under the principle of "rational nexus" as detailed in the
state legislation enabling NIDS), UCD's chains of responsibiliy and
accountability are very much a public concern (i.e., making Fenton a scapegoat
and letting Lewis and the Board of Directors off scot-free ain't gonna cut it).
In preparation for what might happen if UCD continues to stonewall, those
interested in filing complaints or joining in a group complaint might want to
read
"IRS Treatment of third-party information relating to tax-exempt
organizations" -- Click here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/fs-02-10.pdf
Al Krigman
Left of Ivan Grozny
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See what's free at AOL.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.7/829 - Release Date: 6/2/2007
5:26 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.7/829 - Release Date: 6/2/2007 5:26
PM
