Paul, just to clarify ³A 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,²
Is that similar to chicanery? On 6/3/07 10:55 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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]; [email protected] > 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: [email protected] >> >> 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: [email protected] >> 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 >> <http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/fs-02-10.pdf> >> >> >> >> >> Al Krigman >> Left of Ivan Grozny >> >> >> >> >> >> > See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . > > > > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from > AOL at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437> . > > > > > 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 >
