Re: Quackery and Tax Codes.

I just know I'm going to regret this, but:

1. Tony Sidaway goes to great length to quote extensively from relevant court documents. While he adds emphasis to illustrate his points, he includes sufficient surrounding context to at least let one determine whether his points are a valid interpretation. Since none of the CoS supporters have challenged him as to the accuracy of his quotes (modulo simple typos), one is led to believe his quotations are accurate.

2. Andrew Milne, in his replies, rarely quotes from the decisions, and when he does, ignores most of the context. He greatly prefers to, as he puts it, "summarize".

Given the points in dispute, why would a rational human being give any credence to (2) vs. (1)?

As for the E-meter debate, try this one on for size: During prohibition, the Roman Catholic Church still used sacramental wine in the Mass, as this was protected under the First Amendment. But I don't think any Catholic of that day saw this as some sort of great victory, and they certainly didn't assert that on this basis the doctrine of transubstantiation had been upheld by the courts.

-- Mike Lutz -- mjl@cs.rit.edu -- +1 (716) 475-2472 Department of Computer Science/Rochester Institute of Technology 102 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623-5608 USA