http://penaltyprotester.com/

Trash Talk? I do not think so. I was merely expressing my personal opinion in regard to the statements of Gibran. He admits that he falls into the category of those between "wise" and "ignorant", by virtue of his statement regarding how he could learn from the wise, thus placing him in a position less than "wise" and perhaps above "ignorant". Therefore he is also admiting that he is incapable of 'convincing' himself.

Just an opinion... Much like that which you have expressed.

Jerry

Originally Posted by dawgwise

Well Now, I suppose one might want to take that up with Mr. Gibran wouldn’t one? Why attempt that here? Why trash him, by making assertions without talking to him first?

However if you want to argue his word with me and how another may interpret someone else’s quoted word I will provide, for you, my understanding. If you feel it necessary to correct my interpretation with evidence and proof I suppose you will however I fail to understand what that has to do with the PRA? Might you enlighten as to the relevance?

"My proof convinces the ignorant," [ this would mean that that those who don't already know (ignorant) can be shown proof that will convince them and he (his use of the word MY) can do so. In other words some people already know-it-all and cannot be convinced regardless. I can also be ignorant and can be shown proof that will convince me. I am thankful for that. ]

"and the wise man's proof convinces me." [ this means that he (his use of the word ME) is willing to listen to wise or factual reasonable rational evidence and can be convinced of same. Therefore he expresses he can be ignorant and can learn as well. ]

"But he whose reasoning falls between wisdom and ignorance," [here the pronoun “he” refers to someone other than himself, as those people, as evidence in the examination of the first sentence, that if they do not already know something, you can't tell them. They are neither ignorant nor wise. ]

"I neither can convince him, nor can he convince me." [here Gibran states that “he,” Gibran, is unable to convince those who already have their minds made up and because their minds are closed or walled in, unable to receive new data, they are equally unable to convince him as well, for they are not wise ]

If one will note, the Gibran quote seemed to fit the post by Ecclesisates wherein the poster known as Ecclesisates has already made up his or her mind though citing no factual evidence for the entire PRA issue has yet to be fully examined or heard via the entire court system. When one's mind is made up, premature, one removes onself from being either wise or ignorant and thus "unteachable."

Sorry the quote was so offensive that it compelled trash talk.

[dawgwise]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Trash Talk? I do not think so. I was merely expressing my personal opinion in regard to the statements of Gibran. He admits that he falls into the category of those between "wise" and "ignorant", by virtue of his statement regarding how he could learn from the wise, thus placing him in a position less than "wise" and perhaps above "ignorant". Therefore he is also admiting that he is incapable of 'convincing' himself.

Just an opinion... Much like that which you have expressed.

Jerry

Well..., trash talk could be the assertion that someone speaks with a "forked tongue" (liar) as you stated in your post wherein you said, "Talking about speaking with a forked tongue !!!!!"

While I appreciate your opinion, and the right thereof, I do not agree with your analysis or lack thereof.

Gibran clearly admits he has wisdom to convince the ignorant when he states, "My proof convinces the ignorant" and he clearly states he can be ignorant when he states "the wise man's proof convinces me." Those two items go hand in hand.

To be wise and ignorant means one can know the truth, through truth, and one can also know he does not know everything and therefore can be ignorant.

Ecc...states he or she knows the future before it happens therefore according to the quote, Ecc...statement (not the person) is neither wise nor ignorant for all is already known before it happens. That is the very point of the second part of Gibrans statement, for how can someone not wise enough to know he is ignorant convince anyone who is both wise and ignorant of anything?

ECC's... post wants me to believe that ECC...can tell the flavor of the wine by simply looking at the jug.

I hope the PRA topic will now continue... for the quote certainly was not the topic of my original post.

[dawgwise]

Originally Posted by Dr Zapola

Well has the PRA defence worked or not? Has it been used successfully?

YES.
The PRA seems to have helped William Wallace Lear. It may have helped Mr. Robert Lawrence. To date I have not personally read, from those that foretell the future and/or predict the PRA's doom or it's fallacy, how it did not help Mr. Lear, however many claim, contrary to what Mr. Lawrence says, that it did not help him.

Maybe those that know more than Mr. Lear and/or Mr. Lawrence will counter with a resounding NO and present their absolute positive evidence. (Beware, A footnote from a lower court is not absolute positive evidence)

1. My post does not predict the outcome of Mr. Springer's efforts.
2. I am not preaching that the PRA is a magic bullet.
3. It would seemingly be nice IF the PRA can/could help people for it is my opinion that the people do need some protection and protection is, in part, the wording of the purpose for the 1995 PRA.
4. It is also my opinion that the people could use some protection for those charged to protect the people make their living because the people are not being protected.

I now enumerate my disclaimer so as to minimize the spin and twist that is too often the M.O. upon these threads.

[Demosthenes]

The PRA seems to have helped William Wallace Lear.

How did it help Lear?

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/lear13.pdf

[dawgwise]

Well then Demos.. you are not doing your job! Might you better get after all those people who fail to update their websites? I only read what others post, I am not the expert, never claimed to be, you have and are. I said it "seems" to have helped...

[Demosthenes]

Originally Posted by dawgwise

Well then Demos.. you are not doing your job! Might you better get after all those people who fail to update their websites? I only read what others post, I am not the expert, never claimed to be, you have and are. I said it "seems" to have helped...

What's with the hostility? I asked a simple question.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Demosthenes

How did it help Lear?

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/lear13.pdf

What is that link supposed to show?

Originally Posted by dawgwise

Well then Demos.. you are not doing your job! Might you better get after all those people who fail to update their websites? I only read what others post, I am not the expert, never claimed to be, you have and are. I said it "seems" to have helped...

Gee Dawg... using a term like "seems" to have,, is almost as bad as using a phrase like "it appears". They both have the hazard of raising the hackle of those others.

Jerry.

[David Merrill]

doubled post

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Dr Zapola

Well has the PRA defence worked or not? Has it been used successfully?

The answer to that is obviously No.

There is always a possibility that the CP-515 form you are considering notifies you of the 1995 PRA. However I doubt that - it probably refers you to the 1980 PRA. That might be a difference.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p515/index.html

This Form looks like a book in itself, probably including the instructions:

It looks like the 515 Form calls for the 1042 Form which fails to refer to a specific page number however the PRA notice is in the instructions...

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1042.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1042s.pdf

Originally Posted by Page 15

You are not required to provide the information requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control number.

I may be on the wrong form so I will not spend a lot of time at this. Hopefully you get the gist. Trace the verbiage through and you will get the requirements through notice that will be viewed by a federal magistrate in any cause.

One note in favor of the PRA argument succeeding with the 1042 Form is the Instructions use the word valid instead of current; indicating the application of the 1995 PRA amendments. However the OMB# is valid so the argument would of course fail like Lindsey Springer's cause did. Notice the footnote on the bottom of Page 1.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/springer1.pdf



Regards,

David Merrill.