“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” -James Madison
Mid-Edition Update for January 25, 2015
Featured In This Update: Fallacies, Falsehoods and Evasions *** *** *** *** *** A "Pragmatic" Perspective On The Tax And The Rule Of Law *** Illuminating Anniversaries For This Week *** *** ...and much, much more!
Hot Topics In The News:
The Fourteenth Edition of CtC is Now Available! And Hey! Don't miss the great stuff in the main page of this edition!
"The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are TYRANTS. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves….." -James Madison
Fallacies, Falsehoods and Evasions LAST WEEK I POSTED AN ARTICLE DISCUSSING 'THE CONSPIRACY THAT IS'-- the sporadic, disorganized but coincidentally-complementary web of corrupt practices deployed by disparate unscrupulous state actors attempting to preserve a convenient but unauthorized status quo in the face of Americans who have learned the liberating, state-restraining truth about the income tax. This week I want to drill down on a few of the common fallacies and falsehoods that make regular appearances in these efforts. For the most part, each incident of agency and judicial bad behavior is independent of all others. Nonetheless, because the core issues involved in any tax-related contest brought by, or involving, an educated litigant are always essentially the same, there are a handful of legal and logical fallacies and falsehoods resorted-to by pretty much all corrupt government lawyers and judges. These same fallacies and falsehoods are also used by defenders of the status quo among the sycophantic intellectual class, as well. I'm going to review and debunk a few of these fallacies and falsehoods here. It is my hope that everyone will study the process by which this is done so as to be able to apply the same methods in other situations at need, and also in order to cement the understanding that court rulings relying on these fallacies and falsehoods don't actually provide any authority for the propositions on behalf of which they are deployed, and that these fallacies, falsehoods and evasions WOULD NEVER BE DEPLOYED IF THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS AND THE CO-CONSPIRATOR COURTS COULD ACTUALLY DEFEND THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THEIR USE. That is, the use of fallacies, falsehoods and evasions is itself proof-positive that the conclusions on behalf of which they are deployed are wrong-- and not only simply wrong, but deliberately wrong. Nobody subjects himself to the scorn and shame attendant upon the use of this sort of nonsense other than for the deliberate purpose of evasion. The other side of that coin, of course, is that the conclusions against which the fallacies and falsehoods are deployed are correct. At a minimum, those conclusions attacked only with fallacies, falsehoods and evasions stand undisputed. So, let's start with one of the most ridiculous and easily-debunked, but very common fallacies: "Includes" and "including" in a definition mean "also includes" and "also including". One of the easiest ways to demonstrate the fallacious character of this false assertion is by showing a typical occasion in which this fallacy is invoked. Here is one from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in the unpublished case of Sytsma v. Comm'r., #All-269 (Minn. 2011). A Minnesota district court had summarily dismissed appellant John Sytsma's suit to compel Minnesota's Department of Revenue to issue a claimed refund, and in order to affirm the dismissal, the appellate court has to deal with Sytsma's perfectly correct (and case-dispositive)observation that what qualify as "wages" to be reported and accounted for as such on a Minnesota tax return are only those paid to workers within the limited-scope subclass exemplified by the enumerated list in the relevant "employee" definition. The court first tries to confuse the issue:
290.92 subd. 3 does indeed say that, but its doing so is irrelevant to the issue the court is pretending to address. Subd. 3 has nothing to do with the definition of "wages" involved here. Here are the relevant portions of 290.92, in their entirety: 290.92 TAX WITHHELD AT SOURCE UPON WAGES; OTHER PAYMENTS. Subdivision 1.Definitions. (1) Wages. For purposes of this section, the term "wages" means the same as that term is defined in section 3401(a) and (f) of the Internal Revenue Code. ... (3) Employee. For purposes of this section the term "employee" means any resident individual performing services for an employer, either within or without, or both within and without the state of Minnesota, and every nonresident individual performing services within the state of Minnesota, the performance of which services constitute, establish, and determine the relationship between the parties as that of employer and employee. As used in the preceding sentence, the term "employee" includes an officer of a corporation, and an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. As specified in subd. 1, what qualifies as "wages" for purposes of Minnesota's tax structure is NOT controlled by the "employee" definition in subd. 3, as the appellate court tries to suggest in its Sytsma ruling. Rather, what qualifies as the "wages" relevant to the Sytsma case is controlled by the definition in 26 USC 3401(a) and (f), as subd. 1 plainly and unequivocally declares. The "wage" definitions at 26 USC 3401(a) and (f), which Minnesota explicitly adopts, are in turn controlled by the definition of "employee" at 26 USC 3401(c), not the one at 290.92 subd. 3. And that 26 USC 3401(c) definition contains none of the language excerpted by the court from 290.92 subd. 3: 26 USC 3401 (a) Wages For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer,... (f) Tips For purposes of subsection (a), the term “wages” includes tips received by an employee in the course of his employment. (c) Employee For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation. "Wages" for Minnesota are what are defined above in 26 USC 3401(a) and (f), which are remuneration and tips received by "employees" as defined above in 26 USC 3401(c), not "employees" as defined in M.S. 290.92 subd. 3. The court is playing a shell game, directing the mark's eyes at an irrelevancy in hopes that the real heart of the matter will be overlooked. In so doing, the court concedes Sytsma's argument on this point, and effectively acknowledges that Sytsma has prevailed in his suit on the merits, however much it may be reluctant to admit the fact honestly and forthrightly. But let's continue with this section of the ruling in order to address the "also includes" fallacy deployed by the court as another element of its overall dodge. We find it in the next declaration by the court:
Remember now, the court is still discussing the irrelevant 290.92 subd. 3, still pretending it controls the "wages" definition because it figures if that line is swallowed, what it says here will set the hook. Though at this point we're just considering this for entertainment purposes, since the subd. 1 specs make subd. 3 moot, let me ask you: is it logical that the language that the court omitted from its subd. 3 excerpt-- "As used in the preceding sentence, the term "employee" includes an officer of a corporation, and an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing."-- is 1. a mere "reference", and 2. provided in order to "expand the definition to specifically include those political and public employees"? This proposition, mind, is that the portion of subd. 3 which the court DID quote must be incomplete, even though it "defines "employee" as "any resident individual performing services for an employer, either within or without, or both within and without the state of Minnesota..." If this is a definition of "employee", does it need to be "expanded"? Indeed, CAN it be expanded? This quoted language says ANY. IF this quoted portion of subd. 3 is "the definition" in regard to which the portion omitted by the court is merely a relevant reference, is it logical or fallacious to suggest that the omitted portion "expands" the quoted portion? The proposition is that under Minnesota's statutory definition, "employee" means "any employee" (which is to say, ALL (resident) employees), and ALSO includes (resident) officers of corporations, officers, employees, or elected officials of the United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing performing services for an employer which constitute, establish, and determine the relationship between the parties as that of employer and employee. That is, this proposition is that under Minnesota's definition, "employee" means ALL employees PLUS OTHER EMPLOYEES. Methinks we have stepped into the realm of the supernatural... Or, this proposition is a fallacy, and the enumerated list in the omitted portion of 290.92 subd. 3 gives the meaning to the term "employee" appearing in the otherwise all-inclusive-appearing sentence which precedes it, just as it says it does ("As used in the preceding sentence,...). Taken in this non-self-contradictory way, subd. 3 is seen to define "employee" for purposes of the section as "any officer of a corporation, officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing who resides in Minnesota or, though non-resident, performs his services in Minnesota." Wait a minute! Now we ARE matching the 26 USC 3401(c) definition of "employee" relevant to the "wages" definition specified in 290.92 subd. 1, just with Minnesota-relevance attached. How about that! Okay, sorry about the snark. But really, this "also includes" fallacy is SO ridiculous. If a definition really says or means "all" (or "any", or is just deemed to have the common meaning of a word like 'employee', which is inherently all-inclusive of any and all employees), it cannot be supplemented. On the other hand, if a definition CAN be "supplemented" (or "expanded"), then it DOES NOT mean "all" or "any" (or have the common definition of the word) in the first place, and anything not enumerated in the "supplement" or "expansion" cannot be presumed to be included, just as those which ARE enumerated are not presumed to be included. Putting that latter point another way, if federal employees have to be listed in order to be found within the meaning of the term, then so do Sears employees, and by the same token so do any and all other employees. Such a definition is actually not being "expanded" by such an enumeration-- it is being ESTABLISHED by the enumeration (and just exactly as all the courts that have actually addressed this issue, rather than dodging it like the Sytsma court, have plainly said.) In short, "also includes" (or "expands", as in this version) IS AXIOMATICALLY FALLACIOUS. I'LL BE CONTINUING IN FUTURE NEWSLETTER POSTS with examples and analyses of other commonly-deployed fallacies, falsehoods and evasions. In the meantime, and always, keep very much in mind that the best way to stop the bad behavior on behalf of which these fallacies are deployed is to subject them and their purveyors to scorn and ridicule at every opportunity. Rulings like that of the Sytsma court should be a laughingstock, and both denounced and disdained. Those responsible should be the objects of scorn and derision, and whenever the opportunity arises in a legal contest or in a debate the fallacies and falsehoods and evasions in this ruling (and others similarly polluted with mendacity) should be revealed as such both pre-emptively when possible and in response to their citation by an adversary (here are some tips for doing so). Laughter and exposure are powerful weapons. Use them. Care to post a comment on this article?
|
What Makes YOU A Warrior For The Truth? We each have our reasons, and our story. It's time, and it's needed, for you to share yours with the world. Everyone's failure to step up and fulfill this simple request is really getting to me, now... "The day we see truth and do not speak is the day we begin to die." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
What does it for you?
Is it simply because no moral and upstanding person has any choice when it comes to telling the truth over his or her signature, whether on tax forms or anywhere else?
Is it recognition of the critical importance of the rule of law, and the knowledge that if everybody leaves its caretaking to someone else, it will soon be lost to us completely?
Is it the money?
Maybe it's just simple respect for your own rights as a human being, who is not and cannot be not involuntarily subordinated to others?
Maybe it's just simple respect for your general civic responsibility to be the grown-up and enforce frugality and restraint on a big, powerful creature of our own devising which otherwise is like a badly-raised teenage boy given whiskey and car keys and let loose on the road to wreak havoc?
Or is it, perhaps, a more acute anxiety that if our bonfire of a state isn't damped, and quickly, it'll soon burn down the house around us all?
What IS it that firms up your jaw and stiffens your resolve?
It's time to take off the bushel and share your light!
I would like you to think about what it is that motivates you for a few moments (or all day, if you like), and then send me your thoughts. I want to put YOUR reasons to work inspiring folks who don't yet understand what this is all about.
In this day and age, the most effective way for you to share your thinking for the benefit of others is to video-record yourself talking about how you feel, and explaining what inspires and motivates YOU.
All you need is a webcam or cell-phone equipped with a camera. If you don't have, or know how to use, one of these, have a friend help.
If needed, write a little script for yourself. Better, though, to just speak extemporaneously, after spending a little time sorting out your thoughts and getting down into your heart. Perhaps make it a video of someone in your family, or a close friend, interviewing you.
Keep yourself to no more than 2 or 3 minutes, and keep in mind that the purpose is not to educate, but to INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and ENERGIZE. Your video will be one of many to be shared.
You needn't feel any obligation to be profound, and you shouldn't try to explain anything about the law, other than to say that you have read it and you know it's on your side. You just need to be sincere, and uplifting. Your object is to make your audience want to have what you have, and to be where you are in your heart.
Keep in mind that you're speaking to an audience that doesn't yet know ANYTHING about the subject, and whose first reaction is, "This must be illegal; this must be dangerous; this is too good to be true." You want to pull that audience right past such things, and straight to a focus on truth, morality, and our American heritage of liberty and the rule of law.
Remember: INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE, ENERGIZE.
Speak about rights. Speak about morality, and the obligation of a grown-up and responsible person to speak the truth and to enforce the Constitution. Speak about everyone's duty to give to God what is God's, always, and to Caesar only what is really Caesar's. Speak of your obligation to respect yourself, and to look out for the current and future well-being of your children and your fellow citizens.
If you have had victories, describe them. Better still, show them, if possible.
Be clear about just what you accomplished: EVERYTHING back-- Social Security, Medicare and all; a "notice of deficiency" closing notice; an on-paper agreement or acknowledgment that your earnings weren't subject to the tax and everything withheld or paid-in was an "overpayment"; a transcript showing all $0s; or whatever happened.
When you speak of state victories, name the state. If you had to overcome balkiness from a tax agency before winning any victory, describe that, too!
Remember, your purpose is to INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and ENERGIZE.
If you're dealing with ongoing balkiness, describe that, too, if you wish-- but be sure to explain why you're not discouraged, and why you are not standing down, not slinking back into the barn, and not choosing to endorse the lies.
Mention what you do for a living, whether you're a doctor, homemaker, lawyer, trucker, IT guy or gal, or a retiree or student. Help people understand that the company of grown-up activist Americans they are being invited to join cuts across all demographics and all interests-- with the common denominator being respect for the law and love of the principles on which this great country was founded.
This is your chance to get a LOT accomplished.
We've all had frustrating occasions of trying to explain all this to a friend, neighbor, family member or co-worker, only to pile up against the wall of a mind not yet ready to listen and learn. Here is your chance to address a self-selected audience of folks who have themselves decided that it's time for them to begin paying attention, and have clicked on your testimonial for exactly that reason.
So, please make and send those videos right away! The restoration of institutional respect for individual rights and the rule of law depends on enough individuals insisting upon it. Do your part to let those starting to rub the sleep from their eyes know that there is a community already waiting for their fellowship with open arms and open hearts and shining spirits.
See how some of your fellow warriors for the truth have done their parts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead Care to post a comment on this article? |
*****
A CtC Warrior's Solution To Illegal NSA Spying
Brian Harriss had this excellent teaching and outreaching idea, and produced what was needful. Get this flyer as a printable, sharable, spreadable .pdf here, and print it, share it, spread it. |
Project Paradigm-Shift
IN ANOTHER ARTICLE ON THIS PAGE I SPOKE OF
AMERICAN HERO EDWARD SNOWDEN, who is now rightly celebrated for
his efforts at spreading an important truth. I hope YOU
are doing YOUR part at being an American Hero by
spreading
this
link far and wide! Anything
and everything must be done to get it into a state of viral
distribution across America.
I am counting on you to help make this happen by sending everyone this link.
Seriously, my friend. Even if you never do "action items",
please do this one.
You may not recognize how doing this will make any difference. I tell you, it will make ALL the difference.
This document is the anti-body to all the germs of error, disinformation and misunderstanding that allow the "ignorance tax" to persist. It needs to be given a chance to take root in as many minds as possible-- especially those NOT in the CtC community.
In many of these minds, perhaps, this truth anti-body will wither for lack of a hospitable environment. But in just as many, it will flourish and bloom, and those folks will become the patient and innovative teachers of others.
Pleas help me with this oh-so-important project.
P. S. I know a lot of folks out there have self-defeating notions planted in their minds about how clearing up confusion about the "income tax" won't matter, "'Cause they'll just pay for all the badness with inflation, man!" or whatever.
No, they won't.
If "they" could do that and survive politically, (and weren't getting a whole lot more out of the maladministration of the "income tax" than just a couple of trillion dollars a year, as well), the tax would've been dropped with a grimace and without a backward glance like the universally-hated thing that it is, at least forty years ago. This "they'll just inflate" thing could only be said by someone not old enough (or alive at all) during the 1970s when we had a test of just how Americans would tolerate real inflation...
(Not that we're going to be spared getting a good dose of inflation soon anyway, you understand, unless we very quickly shrink the state down so small that it no longer has the resources to quash the emergence of free and valid currencies. This will only happen by Americans reclaiming individual control of their resources, as is relied upon by the framers in their design for a meaningfully-Constitutionally-limited republic-- and that, of course, is what this page is all about.)
The misunderstanding of the income tax is the thoroughly cultivated thing that it is (and anyone reading through this page will come to understand just how diligent is that cultivation) BECAUSE THE MISAPPLIED TAX IS THE INDISPENSABLE LIFEBLOOD OF THE UNRESTRAINED STATE. The state knows this well.
Indeed, the reason the truth about the tax is hedged about with a more enormous army of lies (and constantly-recruited "stakeholding" defenders) than any other organ of the state is because it is so vital to Leviathan's excesses, ambitions and survival. It is the heart of the monster.
This document is the monster's bane. Your efforts to spread this shaft of illuminating, inspiring and disinfecting sunlight will do more for your future well-being and that of your children than anything else you could do.
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do." -Everett Hale (...and every other person who has ever deserved liberty...)
Care to post a comment on this article? |
from Critical Inquiries for a New American Century
Bob’s Bicycles or Getting Free Of The "Income" Tax Scheme Is As Easy As Falling Off A Bike
To get an idea of how today's "income" tax scheme works, try this little exercise:
Think of the federal government as a guy named Bob, who lives down the street from you in a town that is really big on bicycles. Bikes get used for commuting, deliveries, shopping, etc.. In fact, other than walking, bicycles are the exclusive form of transportation in your town. Your neighbor Bob has a by-the-mile bicycle-renting business-- "Bob's Bicycles". Bob's Bicycles is far and away the biggest business in town. Part of Bob’s success is because he does a lot of contract business. However, Bob doesn't just get paid by riders who have signed an agreement with him, or even just those using Bob's bikes. Bob gets something every time anybody in town does any riding at all, through an odd combination of circumstances that took many years to come together.
Here's how it happened...
Bob's Bicycles was launched long ago by the great grandfather of the present Bob (Bob IV). Great Grandpa Bob started out not only with a main location for his contract business-- he also had the bright idea of setting up spots around town where he parked some of his bikes for use by the more occasional rider, on an "honor system". Anyone could take and use one of these bikes, but they were expected to keep track of their mileage, and send Bob a "1040 Mileage Ridden/Rent Due Form" (and the appropriate rent), periodically. The initial design of the form was like this:
I said that Great Grandpa Bob planned to deal with these occasional riders on the "honor system", and that's true. But he liked his money, too, and didn't want to miss anything that was due him. So, after setting up the "self-serve" locations, Great Grandpa Bob went around handing out "W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms" to every other business in town. The forms-- accompanied by notices that if Bob didn't get his rent from someone riding a bicycle in connection with any business, he would sue the company involved-- said:
Click here to enjoy the rest of this illuminating little parable (and if you want to see a liberating transformation take place THIS YEAR, forward this file to everyone in your address book) Care to post a comment on this article? |
You Can’t Fight Well When You Don’t Know What You’re Fighting About
If you are having an argument with the IRS or any other tax agency,
You are being targeted because REAL EVIDENCE exists that YOU PERSONALLY HAD “INCOME” to which the revenue laws apply-- even though that evidence is almost certainly incorrect, and CAN be corrected.
There IS "A Law" By Which You Can Be Made Liable, And This Is How It Works
Now Learn How To Be Master Of The Situation
Care to post a comment on this article? |
*****
Photographed on 1-70 in Missouri. America is waking up.
Do You Know What Happens When YOU Decide To "Let Someone Else Do It"?
NOTHING.
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do."
-Everett Hale
(...and every other person who ever really deserved liberty)
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."
-Daniel Webster
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
-Edward R. Murrow
TOOLS FOR SPREADING THE LIBERATING TRUTH ABOUT THE TAX
Get this graphic as a printable/postable/mailable .pdf
Browse other transformational-truth-spreading tools
Test Your "Income" Tax IQ! CtC Warrior SanDiegoScott has put together a great little 20-question quiz to test your knowledge of the law regarding the United States "income" tax. Test yourself, test your friends and family! Test your accountant and tax attorney, and help them learn the liberating truth!!
Care to post a comment on this article? |
A "Pragmatic" Perspective On The Tax And The Rule Of Law Hey, don't bother me with that "morality" argument, and all that stuff about "upholding the rule of law". I'm a pragmatist. I'm just interested in looking out for numero uno, and living my life without any hassles from the IRS! So I'm okay with submissively letting my federal and state governments:
etc.... etc.... etc.. I'm good with all of it, just as long as I'm left alone, dude! -- TELL ME THIS ISN'T YOU! TELL ME YOU UNDERSTAND that leaving the government alone to break the law with impunity (and worse, participating in the process by lying on your own sworn tax returns, or by silently acquiescing to the erroneous allegations of others about your earnings) ensures NOT ONLY that you are morally and legally compromised, but also that you WON'T be "left alone, dude!" You DO understand this, right, dude? *** To suffer abuse without complaint or struggle is to suffer it nonetheless-- but to suffer it without the amelioration of dignity and self-respect. *** If You Have Done So, Aren't You Really, Really Glad YOU'VE Taken Control Of How Much Of YOUR Money Washington Gets To Spend, Just As The Founders Intended?
If You Haven't, ARE YOU CRAZY??!!
Seriously! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU??
Care to post a comment on this article? Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend LEARN the liberating, empowering, critically-important truth about the 16th Amendment and the liberating, empowering, critically-important truth about the "income" tax. STOP merely reading (or writing) about how bad things are and START DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT! *** BY THE WAY... WHERE ARE YOUR SCHOLARLY OR INSPIRATIONAL ARTICLES ON THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TAX, PEOPLE? Do you think I can change the law-defying false paradigm of the "ignorance-tax" beneficiaries all by myself? That's not possible!! YOU LAWYERS have to publish and post your own CtC-educated scholarly articles in your profession's journals and on its websites. YOU CPAS have to publish and post your own CtC-educated scholarly articles in your profession's journals and on its websites. YOU NON-SPECIALIZED AMERICAN GROWN-UPS have to publish and post your educated and inspirational letters and personal stories in your hometown newspapers, in every e-zine out there, and in every chat-room and news-group. I can't do it alone. But we CAN do it together-- if you'll do your part. |
CtC Videos And Audio Resources
*****
"Never must thou take up a false cry, or join hands with the guilty by giving false witness in their favor. Never must thou follow with the crowd in doing wrong, or be swayed by many voices so as to give false judgment; even pity for the poor must not sway thee when judgment is to be given."
-Exodus 23:1-3
Doing A Little High-Payoff Math
If each person receiving this newsletter each week distributed as few as 100 of any of the great outreach tools featured here to co-workers, friends, neighbors and family members (or just strangers on the street, in the mall, etc...), we could have SEVERAL MILLION new Americans suddenly introduced to the liberating truth about the tax!
Just like that! In one week!
C'mon, people, let's roll on this! |
“Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.”
‑Dale Carnegie
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
*****
*****
A Few Tips For Making Best Use Of This WebSite
USE THE SITE MAP!!!
USE THE SITE SEARCH!!!
When directed to a page by topic or link, read everything.
I know that this can mean the investment of a lot of time, attention and effort, but although some may imagine otherwise, I don't write as much as I do because I can't think of any other way to spend my time...
Furthermore, when you encounter a hyperlink within, or associated with, the text you are reading, follow it!
It is pretty common these days for web-based material to be littered with hyperlinks. Sometimes the purpose is to provide definitions or examples, in order to ensure that folks reading the original material aren't presented with a word or reference which they don't understand. Sometimes the links lead to illustrations pertinent to the original text.
It is common-- and perfectly understandable-- for folks who are confident that they are familiar with language or references within the main text they are reading to get in the habit of skipping over included links. I do it all the time, myself!
However, I very rarely include links for definitional or explanatory purposes; and when I DO make a link out of text in one page it is generally to another self-contained page, rather than merely illustrative material. These other pages contain material the clear understanding of which I deem highly important for the proper and complete understanding of the original page. (Links to CtC, the Victories pages, CtC Warriors and so on are obvious exceptions to this general rule. On the other hand, a link to the victory Highlights or 'Every Which Way But Loose' pages, which might seem like such exceptions, are not. The special selection of victories on those pages, and the filed docs and tax-agency correspondences included therewith, themselves constitute highly instructive material which merits careful attention. Thus care needs to be taken in all cases.)
Please make a habit of clicking on all provided links and at least looking briefly to ensure that the linked page is one with which you are completely familiar from another study session.
Finally, please keep in mind that, annoying though it may seem at first blush (but not, I trust, upon reflection), I constantly tweak material already posted. Obviously this doesn't mean that every page is in flux at all times, but it does mean that if you are directed to a page that IS familiar, it's worthwhile to read it through again if it's been a while since your last having done so.
*****
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a frienda>
"Those will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." -George Gordon (Lord) Byron |