<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_17_1218210</id>
	<title>Anonymous Newspaper Commenters Subpoenaed In Tax Case</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245243000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://gro.ylimafskoorbtaymerej/" rel="nofollow">skuzzlebutt</a> writes <i>"In a federal tax case reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal last week, a local businessman has been paying his employees in gold coins instead of cash or ACH, and has reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage &mdash; not the much higher market value of the metal. The United States disagreed, and <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html">brought him up on 57 counts of income tax evasion</a>, tax fraud and criminal conspiracy. The non-authenticated comments section of the original article brought a lot of supporters out of the woodwork, including a few who thought the jury should be hung (literally, procedurally, or figuratively ... pick one). In response, the prosecution has <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/48145032.html">subpoenaed the names of the anonymous commenters</a>, citing fears of jury safety. Or something. The obvious questions of privacy and protected speech aside, for the folks that support the defendant (the newspaper is fighting the subpoena), this also brings back into the spotlight the troll-empowering nature of pseudo-anonymous, non-authenticated boards. If they want to find you, they will; is anonymous commenting still worth it, or is it just too risky for the board owners?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>skuzzlebutt writes " In a federal tax case reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal last week , a local businessman has been paying his employees in gold coins instead of cash or ACH , and has reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage    not the much higher market value of the metal .
The United States disagreed , and brought him up on 57 counts of income tax evasion , tax fraud and criminal conspiracy .
The non-authenticated comments section of the original article brought a lot of supporters out of the woodwork , including a few who thought the jury should be hung ( literally , procedurally , or figuratively ... pick one ) .
In response , the prosecution has subpoenaed the names of the anonymous commenters , citing fears of jury safety .
Or something .
The obvious questions of privacy and protected speech aside , for the folks that support the defendant ( the newspaper is fighting the subpoena ) , this also brings back into the spotlight the troll-empowering nature of pseudo-anonymous , non-authenticated boards .
If they want to find you , they will ; is anonymous commenting still worth it , or is it just too risky for the board owners ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>skuzzlebutt writes "In a federal tax case reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal last week, a local businessman has been paying his employees in gold coins instead of cash or ACH, and has reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage — not the much higher market value of the metal.
The United States disagreed, and brought him up on 57 counts of income tax evasion, tax fraud and criminal conspiracy.
The non-authenticated comments section of the original article brought a lot of supporters out of the woodwork, including a few who thought the jury should be hung (literally, procedurally, or figuratively ... pick one).
In response, the prosecution has subpoenaed the names of the anonymous commenters, citing fears of jury safety.
Or something.
The obvious questions of privacy and protected speech aside, for the folks that support the defendant (the newspaper is fighting the subpoena), this also brings back into the spotlight the troll-empowering nature of pseudo-anonymous, non-authenticated boards.
If they want to find you, they will; is anonymous commenting still worth it, or is it just too risky for the board owners?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360693</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value. They have no choice in the matter. The government's isregarding face value of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" is illegal. The government issued that currency (or authorised its issuance) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.</p></div></blockquote><p>If I pay someone with a $20 bill and a lump of gold and then try to make the case that the employee only made $20, the IRS would come down on me like a ton of bricks and I would be laughed out of court.</p><p>In this case the goverment was stupid enough to stamp a $20 sign on a lump of gold, but that still doesn't change the fact that the employee receives a lot more wealth from me than $20 when taking the coin.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value .
They have no choice in the matter .
The government 's isregarding face value of " legal tender for all debts , public and private " is illegal .
The government issued that currency ( or authorised its issuance ) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.If I pay someone with a $ 20 bill and a lump of gold and then try to make the case that the employee only made $ 20 , the IRS would come down on me like a ton of bricks and I would be laughed out of court.In this case the goverment was stupid enough to stamp a $ 20 sign on a lump of gold , but that still does n't change the fact that the employee receives a lot more wealth from me than $ 20 when taking the coin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value.
They have no choice in the matter.
The government's isregarding face value of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" is illegal.
The government issued that currency (or authorised its issuance) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.If I pay someone with a $20 bill and a lump of gold and then try to make the case that the employee only made $20, the IRS would come down on me like a ton of bricks and I would be laughed out of court.In this case the goverment was stupid enough to stamp a $20 sign on a lump of gold, but that still doesn't change the fact that the employee receives a lot more wealth from me than $20 when taking the coin.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360961</id>
	<title>Re:Face Value vs Ore Value</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it, get a roll of pennies. Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?</p></div><p>If you get a penny that is worth $100 then no, that is NOT considered an extra $100 of income when you receive the penny.  If you were to take the penny and have it appraised by a collector and he told you it was worth $100 then it would still not be considered an extra $100 of income.</p><p>*BUT* if you were to sell that penny to someone for more than the $0.01 face value then any amount over the $0.01 face value *WOULD* be considered extra income and taxable.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So on the one hand we take Gold Coins and use the Ore Value, while on the other we take Quarters and use the Face Value.</p></div><p>Of course.  The value of the gold in the gold coin is worth far more than the face value of the coin assuming a pure gold coin.  Even if the face value of the coin was accurate when it was struck the price wouldn't remain the same for long.  I'm not sure of the value of the metals in a quarter these days but it probably isn't worth much more than a quarter if it exceeds the value by much (excepting things like collectible coins and actual siver quarters.)</p><p>Now, on to the article...</p><p>The man in the case this thread is about was paying employees with gold coins based on the value of the gold.  No taxes were being withheld for the employees.</p><p>This fellow is trying to game the IRS in order to not have to withhold taxes.  He's doing this by A) pretending the employees are independent contractors so he's not required to withhold taxes, and B) pretending the face value of the coins (probably $50 American Eagles) means he's paying them less than the amount that would require the income be reported to the government.</p><p>So to recap the man is attempting to value the coins at metal value for payment purposes and at face value for tax purposes.  If the difference between the value of the metal in the coins was not greatly different from the face value he might get off with a slap on the wrist.  Instead the face value differs from the metal value almost 20 times as of the moment I post this.  As you can well imagine this isn't going over any too well with the tax man.</p><p>It also isn't going over any too well with some of the folks who thought the fellow trying to game the government was some kind of hero for trying to "stick it to the man."  Some of these folks apparently posted some rather intemperate if not downright angry remarks, perhaps even threatening remarks, regarding members of government and members of the jury.  Remarks which led to the subpoenas mentioned in the article title.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Kahre contends his workers had agreed to be independent contractors, so he did not have to withhold taxes for them. His six businesses are in the trades of painting, drywall, tiling, plumbing, heating-cooling and electrical work.</p><p>Further, the $50 gold coins and the silver dollars Kahre used for payroll are designated by Congress as legal tender, so people are entitled to value them at their stamped denominations, he also contends. Taken at face value, each defendant's annual coin income placed him below the threshold for filing a federal tax return.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it , get a roll of pennies .
Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $ 100 to a collector... is that an extra $ 100 of Income ? If you get a penny that is worth $ 100 then no , that is NOT considered an extra $ 100 of income when you receive the penny .
If you were to take the penny and have it appraised by a collector and he told you it was worth $ 100 then it would still not be considered an extra $ 100 of income .
* BUT * if you were to sell that penny to someone for more than the $ 0.01 face value then any amount over the $ 0.01 face value * WOULD * be considered extra income and taxable.So on the one hand we take Gold Coins and use the Ore Value , while on the other we take Quarters and use the Face Value.Of course .
The value of the gold in the gold coin is worth far more than the face value of the coin assuming a pure gold coin .
Even if the face value of the coin was accurate when it was struck the price would n't remain the same for long .
I 'm not sure of the value of the metals in a quarter these days but it probably is n't worth much more than a quarter if it exceeds the value by much ( excepting things like collectible coins and actual siver quarters .
) Now , on to the article...The man in the case this thread is about was paying employees with gold coins based on the value of the gold .
No taxes were being withheld for the employees.This fellow is trying to game the IRS in order to not have to withhold taxes .
He 's doing this by A ) pretending the employees are independent contractors so he 's not required to withhold taxes , and B ) pretending the face value of the coins ( probably $ 50 American Eagles ) means he 's paying them less than the amount that would require the income be reported to the government.So to recap the man is attempting to value the coins at metal value for payment purposes and at face value for tax purposes .
If the difference between the value of the metal in the coins was not greatly different from the face value he might get off with a slap on the wrist .
Instead the face value differs from the metal value almost 20 times as of the moment I post this .
As you can well imagine this is n't going over any too well with the tax man.It also is n't going over any too well with some of the folks who thought the fellow trying to game the government was some kind of hero for trying to " stick it to the man .
" Some of these folks apparently posted some rather intemperate if not downright angry remarks , perhaps even threatening remarks , regarding members of government and members of the jury .
Remarks which led to the subpoenas mentioned in the article title.Kahre contends his workers had agreed to be independent contractors , so he did not have to withhold taxes for them .
His six businesses are in the trades of painting , drywall , tiling , plumbing , heating-cooling and electrical work.Further , the $ 50 gold coins and the silver dollars Kahre used for payroll are designated by Congress as legal tender , so people are entitled to value them at their stamped denominations , he also contends .
Taken at face value , each defendant 's annual coin income placed him below the threshold for filing a federal tax return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it, get a roll of pennies.
Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?If you get a penny that is worth $100 then no, that is NOT considered an extra $100 of income when you receive the penny.
If you were to take the penny and have it appraised by a collector and he told you it was worth $100 then it would still not be considered an extra $100 of income.
*BUT* if you were to sell that penny to someone for more than the $0.01 face value then any amount over the $0.01 face value *WOULD* be considered extra income and taxable.So on the one hand we take Gold Coins and use the Ore Value, while on the other we take Quarters and use the Face Value.Of course.
The value of the gold in the gold coin is worth far more than the face value of the coin assuming a pure gold coin.
Even if the face value of the coin was accurate when it was struck the price wouldn't remain the same for long.
I'm not sure of the value of the metals in a quarter these days but it probably isn't worth much more than a quarter if it exceeds the value by much (excepting things like collectible coins and actual siver quarters.
)Now, on to the article...The man in the case this thread is about was paying employees with gold coins based on the value of the gold.
No taxes were being withheld for the employees.This fellow is trying to game the IRS in order to not have to withhold taxes.
He's doing this by A) pretending the employees are independent contractors so he's not required to withhold taxes, and B) pretending the face value of the coins (probably $50 American Eagles) means he's paying them less than the amount that would require the income be reported to the government.So to recap the man is attempting to value the coins at metal value for payment purposes and at face value for tax purposes.
If the difference between the value of the metal in the coins was not greatly different from the face value he might get off with a slap on the wrist.
Instead the face value differs from the metal value almost 20 times as of the moment I post this.
As you can well imagine this isn't going over any too well with the tax man.It also isn't going over any too well with some of the folks who thought the fellow trying to game the government was some kind of hero for trying to "stick it to the man.
"  Some of these folks apparently posted some rather intemperate if not downright angry remarks, perhaps even threatening remarks, regarding members of government and members of the jury.
Remarks which led to the subpoenas mentioned in the article title.Kahre contends his workers had agreed to be independent contractors, so he did not have to withhold taxes for them.
His six businesses are in the trades of painting, drywall, tiling, plumbing, heating-cooling and electrical work.Further, the $50 gold coins and the silver dollars Kahre used for payroll are designated by Congress as legal tender, so people are entitled to value them at their stamped denominations, he also contends.
Taken at face value, each defendant's annual coin income placed him below the threshold for filing a federal tax return.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360621</id>
	<title>Kahre&#226;(TM)s Prosecutors Are Going Nutso</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245248760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More useful information about what is really going on here:</p><p>http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-06-12.asp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More useful information about what is really going on here : http : //www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-06-12.asp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More useful information about what is really going on here:http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-06-12.asp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362567</id>
	<title>Re:Constitution</title>
	<author>GNT</author>
	<datestamp>1245258780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh no -- Learn to read -- No State shall make ***...***BUT*** gold and silver etc</p><p>Which means that the Feds have the power to prevent the States from issuing FIAT currency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh no -- Learn to read -- No State shall make * * * ... * * * BUT * * * gold and silver etcWhich means that the Feds have the power to prevent the States from issuing FIAT currency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh no -- Learn to read -- No State shall make ***...***BUT*** gold and silver etcWhich means that the Feds have the power to prevent the States from issuing FIAT currency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360531</id>
	<title>Re:Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245248100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, it says that no "State shall".  Hence, the power is reserved to the federal government,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , it says that no " State shall " .
Hence , the power is reserved to the federal government,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, it says that no "State shall".
Hence, the power is reserved to the federal government,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361547</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245253860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incorrect.<br>"The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value. They have no choice in the matter."</p><p>For gold and silver coins after 1985, you are correct. That is not the issue at all.</p><p>Read the article, he was turning around and buying the coins at the metal value.  The is a clear scam becasue you pay taxes on the value of the item and since his intention and action indicate that his expected value of the gold was it's metal value NOT stamped value.<br>If he was just paying the coins, you would ahve a point; however that would never come to trial because it is in no way practical or cost effective to do that and he would soon be out of business.</p><p>The American tax code is not that complex at all. Seriously, it isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incorrect .
" The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value .
They have no choice in the matter .
" For gold and silver coins after 1985 , you are correct .
That is not the issue at all.Read the article , he was turning around and buying the coins at the metal value .
The is a clear scam becasue you pay taxes on the value of the item and since his intention and action indicate that his expected value of the gold was it 's metal value NOT stamped value.If he was just paying the coins , you would ahve a point ; however that would never come to trial because it is in no way practical or cost effective to do that and he would soon be out of business.The American tax code is not that complex at all .
Seriously , it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incorrect.
"The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value.
They have no choice in the matter.
"For gold and silver coins after 1985, you are correct.
That is not the issue at all.Read the article, he was turning around and buying the coins at the metal value.
The is a clear scam becasue you pay taxes on the value of the item and since his intention and action indicate that his expected value of the gold was it's metal value NOT stamped value.If he was just paying the coins, you would ahve a point; however that would never come to trial because it is in no way practical or cost effective to do that and he would soon be out of business.The American tax code is not that complex at all.
Seriously, it isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360985</id>
	<title>Re:IRS is right on this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But in this case there's no allegation these are collectible coins, they are still in circulation.</p><p>So if the price of nickel or copper were to shoot up, would you owe more in taxes if you were paid with those denomination coins than in bills?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But in this case there 's no allegation these are collectible coins , they are still in circulation.So if the price of nickel or copper were to shoot up , would you owe more in taxes if you were paid with those denomination coins than in bills ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in this case there's no allegation these are collectible coins, they are still in circulation.So if the price of nickel or copper were to shoot up, would you owe more in taxes if you were paid with those denomination coins than in bills?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361073</id>
	<title>One more...</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1245251340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scott Roeder</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scott Roeder</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scott Roeder</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360555</id>
	<title>Who were these authors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245248280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And should they have been prosecuted? They formented a war ya know.</p><p>Publius, Pacificus, Cattalus, Horatius and Philo Camillus, Silence Dogood, Alice Addertongue, Fanny Mournful, Obadiah Plainman, Busy Body, Populus, An American, A Son of Liberty<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,"Vindex the Avenger".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And should they have been prosecuted ?
They formented a war ya know.Publius , Pacificus , Cattalus , Horatius and Philo Camillus , Silence Dogood , Alice Addertongue , Fanny Mournful , Obadiah Plainman , Busy Body , Populus , An American , A Son of Liberty , " Vindex the Avenger " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And should they have been prosecuted?
They formented a war ya know.Publius, Pacificus, Cattalus, Horatius and Philo Camillus, Silence Dogood, Alice Addertongue, Fanny Mournful, Obadiah Plainman, Busy Body, Populus, An American, A Son of Liberty ,"Vindex the Avenger".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579</id>
	<title>The tax dodge itself seems spurious</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1245248400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, they can avoid income tax on 99\% of their income by being paid in $1000 worth of coins with a total face value of $10. That makes sense.<br> <br>
Surely then, should they choose to sell these they'll pay income tax on any profit they make.  If they use them as legal tender, they'll only be able to use the face value.  I suppose they might be able to haggle the price of a large purchase down a little but for everyday spending it seems the savings are small.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , they can avoid income tax on 99 \ % of their income by being paid in $ 1000 worth of coins with a total face value of $ 10 .
That makes sense .
Surely then , should they choose to sell these they 'll pay income tax on any profit they make .
If they use them as legal tender , they 'll only be able to use the face value .
I suppose they might be able to haggle the price of a large purchase down a little but for everyday spending it seems the savings are small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, they can avoid income tax on 99\% of their income by being paid in $1000 worth of coins with a total face value of $10.
That makes sense.
Surely then, should they choose to sell these they'll pay income tax on any profit they make.
If they use them as legal tender, they'll only be able to use the face value.
I suppose they might be able to haggle the price of a large purchase down a little but for everyday spending it seems the savings are small.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28365597</id>
	<title>Re:What is with the Slashdot support for crime?</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1245229860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A libertarian ethos combined with a belief that knowledge about technology implies the ability to outsmart the law leads to an unhealthy level of tax idiocy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A libertarian ethos combined with a belief that knowledge about technology implies the ability to outsmart the law leads to an unhealthy level of tax idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A libertarian ethos combined with a belief that knowledge about technology implies the ability to outsmart the law leads to an unhealthy level of tax idiocy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360665</id>
	<title>Free Speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free speech means the freedom to say \_anything\_.</p><p>While I may not agree with some troll suggesting death, hatred, or the holocaust didn't happen, doesn't mean he shouldn't have the right to anonymous free speech.</p><p>The anonymous part is very essential.  With the boondoggle of an election in Iran, the Tiananmen Square anniversary, etc. the need for anonymous free speech is essential.  The Military Industrial Complex fears the pen more than the sword.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free speech means the freedom to say \ _anything \ _.While I may not agree with some troll suggesting death , hatred , or the holocaust did n't happen , does n't mean he should n't have the right to anonymous free speech.The anonymous part is very essential .
With the boondoggle of an election in Iran , the Tiananmen Square anniversary , etc .
the need for anonymous free speech is essential .
The Military Industrial Complex fears the pen more than the sword .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free speech means the freedom to say \_anything\_.While I may not agree with some troll suggesting death, hatred, or the holocaust didn't happen, doesn't mean he shouldn't have the right to anonymous free speech.The anonymous part is very essential.
With the boondoggle of an election in Iran, the Tiananmen Square anniversary, etc.
the need for anonymous free speech is essential.
The Military Industrial Complex fears the pen more than the sword.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361667</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>Dr. Donuts</author>
	<datestamp>1245254460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender."</p><p>No, that's not what it says, although that is a commonly held misconception.</p><p>Article I, section 10: No state shall...coin money, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts...</p><p>This is a restriction on the States powers, not the Federal government. State governments can't issue their own currency, and if States did choose to enforce a tender for payment of debts, the only tender they can enforce is gold and silver.</p><p>For example, a State could require you to pay your taxes in gold and silver. It can't issue it's own notes and force you to pay your taxes with them. Nor could it force you to pay debts with anything else. For example, they couldn't force you to pay your taxes with, say, $1 coins.</p><p>Basically, States have to accept any legal tender if they don't explicitly require payment in gold and silver. There are no Constitutional restrictions on what the Federal government can define and issue as legal tender.</p><p>In short, whatever the Federal government defines and issues as legal tender, must be accepted for payment of debt, with the exception that States have the option of requiring payment in gold and silver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender .
" No , that 's not what it says , although that is a commonly held misconception.Article I , section 10 : No state shall...coin money , emit bills of credit , make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts...This is a restriction on the States powers , not the Federal government .
State governments ca n't issue their own currency , and if States did choose to enforce a tender for payment of debts , the only tender they can enforce is gold and silver.For example , a State could require you to pay your taxes in gold and silver .
It ca n't issue it 's own notes and force you to pay your taxes with them .
Nor could it force you to pay debts with anything else .
For example , they could n't force you to pay your taxes with , say , $ 1 coins.Basically , States have to accept any legal tender if they do n't explicitly require payment in gold and silver .
There are no Constitutional restrictions on what the Federal government can define and issue as legal tender.In short , whatever the Federal government defines and issues as legal tender , must be accepted for payment of debt , with the exception that States have the option of requiring payment in gold and silver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender.
"No, that's not what it says, although that is a commonly held misconception.Article I, section 10: No state shall...coin money, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts...This is a restriction on the States powers, not the Federal government.
State governments can't issue their own currency, and if States did choose to enforce a tender for payment of debts, the only tender they can enforce is gold and silver.For example, a State could require you to pay your taxes in gold and silver.
It can't issue it's own notes and force you to pay your taxes with them.
Nor could it force you to pay debts with anything else.
For example, they couldn't force you to pay your taxes with, say, $1 coins.Basically, States have to accept any legal tender if they don't explicitly require payment in gold and silver.
There are no Constitutional restrictions on what the Federal government can define and issue as legal tender.In short, whatever the Federal government defines and issues as legal tender, must be accepted for payment of debt, with the exception that States have the option of requiring payment in gold and silver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360349</id>
	<title>if it was truly anonymous</title>
	<author>mehrotra.akash</author>
	<datestamp>1245247020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how could they be traced in any way??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how could they be traced in any way ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how could they be traced in any way?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360841</id>
	<title>Anonymous Newspaper Commenters Subpoenaed in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...Jury Death-Threat case.</i>

There, fixed it for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Jury Death-Threat case .
There , fixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Jury Death-Threat case.
There, fixed it for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361193</id>
	<title>Re:Threats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245252000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't trust the government to protect my rights, but in this case they may have a point. Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense. If you choose to break the law, then you're giving the cops permission to hunt you down and prosecute you, "anonymous" or not. (Even if the law is a bad one and the cops are thugs controlled by a petty dictator.) (Iran, et al.)</p><p>Which doesn't mean that I think anonymity is bad; I just think that you should learn a little bit about the law and about search warrants and about technology before you start your life of crime. (True anonymity is necessary to defend freedom, even if it means a thousand Cletuses and Bubbas can use it, too.)</p></div><p>yes i agree this is a most Double-Plus Un Good offense</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't trust the government to protect my rights , but in this case they may have a point .
Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal , and freedom of speech is not a valid defense .
If you choose to break the law , then you 're giving the cops permission to hunt you down and prosecute you , " anonymous " or not .
( Even if the law is a bad one and the cops are thugs controlled by a petty dictator .
) ( Iran , et al .
) Which does n't mean that I think anonymity is bad ; I just think that you should learn a little bit about the law and about search warrants and about technology before you start your life of crime .
( True anonymity is necessary to defend freedom , even if it means a thousand Cletuses and Bubbas can use it , too .
) yes i agree this is a most Double-Plus Un Good offense</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't trust the government to protect my rights, but in this case they may have a point.
Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense.
If you choose to break the law, then you're giving the cops permission to hunt you down and prosecute you, "anonymous" or not.
(Even if the law is a bad one and the cops are thugs controlled by a petty dictator.
) (Iran, et al.
)Which doesn't mean that I think anonymity is bad; I just think that you should learn a little bit about the law and about search warrants and about technology before you start your life of crime.
(True anonymity is necessary to defend freedom, even if it means a thousand Cletuses and Bubbas can use it, too.
)yes i agree this is a most Double-Plus Un Good offense
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360775</id>
	<title>Re:i'll be the first to say..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>..what a terrible summary</p></div><p>I think it should be hung.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..what a terrible summaryI think it should be hung .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..what a terrible summaryI think it should be hung.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360699</id>
	<title>Re:Fucking losers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Off topic, but is anyone else seeing the credit line as " by Anonymous Cowardon Wednesday June 17"  It still has the space, but CSS is fucking it up. Of course, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.

</p><p>on FF3.0.11/Win7</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Off topic , but is anyone else seeing the credit line as " by Anonymous Cowardon Wednesday June 17 " It still has the space , but CSS is fucking it up .
Of course , this is / .
on FF3.0.11/Win7</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Off topic, but is anyone else seeing the credit line as " by Anonymous Cowardon Wednesday June 17"  It still has the space, but CSS is fucking it up.
Of course, this is /.
on FF3.0.11/Win7</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360809</id>
	<title>wrong</title>
	<author>Reality Master 201</author>
	<datestamp>1245249780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>American workers are taxed on the dollar value of their earnings - this is typically payment in cash, but if you receive non-monetary compensation as part of your employment, you're still responsible for paying taxes on the dollar value of that compensation.  The value of the gold coinage was far higher than the currency face value - which was the whole point of giving it instead of normal greenbacks or a check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>American workers are taxed on the dollar value of their earnings - this is typically payment in cash , but if you receive non-monetary compensation as part of your employment , you 're still responsible for paying taxes on the dollar value of that compensation .
The value of the gold coinage was far higher than the currency face value - which was the whole point of giving it instead of normal greenbacks or a check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American workers are taxed on the dollar value of their earnings - this is typically payment in cash, but if you receive non-monetary compensation as part of your employment, you're still responsible for paying taxes on the dollar value of that compensation.
The value of the gold coinage was far higher than the currency face value - which was the whole point of giving it instead of normal greenbacks or a check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362893</id>
	<title>Re:IRS cannot tax bartering</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1245260460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if you help me move my furniture, and I treat you to dinner afterwards as a sign of appreciation for the help, the IRS is "right" to tax you for the meal as "income"?</p><p>By that definition, everything is taxable, right down to Pokemon cards. I hope your kids have filled out their 1099's properly, as that Pickachu card is pretty valuable!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if you help me move my furniture , and I treat you to dinner afterwards as a sign of appreciation for the help , the IRS is " right " to tax you for the meal as " income " ? By that definition , everything is taxable , right down to Pokemon cards .
I hope your kids have filled out their 1099 's properly , as that Pickachu card is pretty valuable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if you help me move my furniture, and I treat you to dinner afterwards as a sign of appreciation for the help, the IRS is "right" to tax you for the meal as "income"?By that definition, everything is taxable, right down to Pokemon cards.
I hope your kids have filled out their 1099's properly, as that Pickachu card is pretty valuable!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28367063</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all Slashdotters are Americans; otherwise they would be in support of free speech, truth in government and sound money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all Slashdotters are Americans ; otherwise they would be in support of free speech , truth in government and sound money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all Slashdotters are Americans; otherwise they would be in support of free speech, truth in government and sound money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</id>
	<title>Face value</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245248100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Further, the $50 gold coins and the silver dollars Kahre used for payroll are designated by Congress as legal tender, so people are entitled to value them at their stamped denominations, he also contends. Taken at face value, each defendant's annual coin income placed him below the threshold for filing a federal tax return.</p></div></blockquote><p>Both the IRS and Kahre are in the wrong here.</p><p>The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value. They have no choice in the matter. The government's isregarding face value of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" is illegal. The government issued that currency (or authorised its issuance) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.</p><p>However, if he wants to play the "face value" defense, which is legitimate (he should win that case) what he should be charged with is violating the federal minimum wage laws, not tax evasion.</p><p>What he and his employees engage in is tax <i>avoidance</i>, which is perfectly legal. Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability. Practically every politician engages in avoidance. Things such as claiming one's standard exemption, creating a shell company and having it lease one's vehicle for business purposes, and so forth. If I ever make the kind of money where it makes sense to do so, you bet your ass I would hire a tax lawyer and take advantage of the law to the my benefit. The tax code is needlessly complex for three things: to keep lawyers busy and make them rich, for social engineering (keep citizens in line by making them accept government control), and to benefit politicians who create hard-to-understand loopholes for their own use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , the $ 50 gold coins and the silver dollars Kahre used for payroll are designated by Congress as legal tender , so people are entitled to value them at their stamped denominations , he also contends .
Taken at face value , each defendant 's annual coin income placed him below the threshold for filing a federal tax return.Both the IRS and Kahre are in the wrong here.The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value .
They have no choice in the matter .
The government 's isregarding face value of " legal tender for all debts , public and private " is illegal .
The government issued that currency ( or authorised its issuance ) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.However , if he wants to play the " face value " defense , which is legitimate ( he should win that case ) what he should be charged with is violating the federal minimum wage laws , not tax evasion.What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance , which is perfectly legal .
Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability .
Practically every politician engages in avoidance .
Things such as claiming one 's standard exemption , creating a shell company and having it lease one 's vehicle for business purposes , and so forth .
If I ever make the kind of money where it makes sense to do so , you bet your ass I would hire a tax lawyer and take advantage of the law to the my benefit .
The tax code is needlessly complex for three things : to keep lawyers busy and make them rich , for social engineering ( keep citizens in line by making them accept government control ) , and to benefit politicians who create hard-to-understand loopholes for their own use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, the $50 gold coins and the silver dollars Kahre used for payroll are designated by Congress as legal tender, so people are entitled to value them at their stamped denominations, he also contends.
Taken at face value, each defendant's annual coin income placed him below the threshold for filing a federal tax return.Both the IRS and Kahre are in the wrong here.The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value.
They have no choice in the matter.
The government's isregarding face value of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" is illegal.
The government issued that currency (or authorised its issuance) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.However, if he wants to play the "face value" defense, which is legitimate (he should win that case) what he should be charged with is violating the federal minimum wage laws, not tax evasion.What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal.
Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability.
Practically every politician engages in avoidance.
Things such as claiming one's standard exemption, creating a shell company and having it lease one's vehicle for business purposes, and so forth.
If I ever make the kind of money where it makes sense to do so, you bet your ass I would hire a tax lawyer and take advantage of the law to the my benefit.
The tax code is needlessly complex for three things: to keep lawyers busy and make them rich, for social engineering (keep citizens in line by making them accept government control), and to benefit politicians who create hard-to-understand loopholes for their own use.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361581</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245254040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's one step more, imagine paying with that 1 bill and then immediatly buying it back frm the employee at it's collector value.<br>This means you wee operating at its' collector value, not it's minted value.<br>That is what is going to nail this guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's one step more , imagine paying with that 1 bill and then immediatly buying it back frm the employee at it 's collector value.This means you wee operating at its ' collector value , not it 's minted value.That is what is going to nail this guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's one step more, imagine paying with that 1 bill and then immediatly buying it back frm the employee at it's collector value.This means you wee operating at its' collector value, not it's minted value.That is what is going to nail this guy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362925</id>
	<title>Re:Why make it traceable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245260580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe because some forum administrators believe there are enough checks and balances in place to prevent abuse and it's socially responsible to maintain enough information to trace terrorists and criminals, and are willing to give that information to authorities? You'd never know it from reading YRO, there are some out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because some forum administrators believe there are enough checks and balances in place to prevent abuse and it 's socially responsible to maintain enough information to trace terrorists and criminals , and are willing to give that information to authorities ?
You 'd never know it from reading YRO , there are some out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because some forum administrators believe there are enough checks and balances in place to prevent abuse and it's socially responsible to maintain enough information to trace terrorists and criminals, and are willing to give that information to authorities?
You'd never know it from reading YRO, there are some out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361539</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1245253800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value.</p></div><p>So, say you've been paid in gold coins with a total face value of $50. Say you owe me $45. Give me one of those "$50" coins, I give you a 5 buck note in change and we're sorted.
</p><p>Happy?
</p><p>No?
</p><p>You mean that you're fully aware that the actual value is vastly more than the face value? That means that you're fully aware how much you're really being paid - and its not as if "payments in kind" etc. are exempt from tax. The fact that you <i>could</i> use a $50 gold coin to settle a $50 debt is irrelevant. If you insisted, I'm sure the IRS would be <i>delighted</i> to accept gold coins, at face value, as settlement for your tax bill.

</p><p>Or, to look at it another way, if you're paid with a "$50" coin worth $1000 then by all means put on your tax form that you're getting $50 cash + other considerations to the value of $950 and see if it changes your bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value.So , say you 've been paid in gold coins with a total face value of $ 50 .
Say you owe me $ 45 .
Give me one of those " $ 50 " coins , I give you a 5 buck note in change and we 're sorted .
Happy ? No ?
You mean that you 're fully aware that the actual value is vastly more than the face value ?
That means that you 're fully aware how much you 're really being paid - and its not as if " payments in kind " etc .
are exempt from tax .
The fact that you could use a $ 50 gold coin to settle a $ 50 debt is irrelevant .
If you insisted , I 'm sure the IRS would be delighted to accept gold coins , at face value , as settlement for your tax bill .
Or , to look at it another way , if you 're paid with a " $ 50 " coin worth $ 1000 then by all means put on your tax form that you 're getting $ 50 cash + other considerations to the value of $ 950 and see if it changes your bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value.So, say you've been paid in gold coins with a total face value of $50.
Say you owe me $45.
Give me one of those "$50" coins, I give you a 5 buck note in change and we're sorted.
Happy?
No?
You mean that you're fully aware that the actual value is vastly more than the face value?
That means that you're fully aware how much you're really being paid - and its not as if "payments in kind" etc.
are exempt from tax.
The fact that you could use a $50 gold coin to settle a $50 debt is irrelevant.
If you insisted, I'm sure the IRS would be delighted to accept gold coins, at face value, as settlement for your tax bill.
Or, to look at it another way, if you're paid with a "$50" coin worth $1000 then by all means put on your tax form that you're getting $50 cash + other considerations to the value of $950 and see if it changes your bill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360815</id>
	<title>Re:Threats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense.</p></div></blockquote><p>

But what the law fails to take into account is that throwing a message up on a board (esp. anonymously) is MUCH
more similar to actually speaking than writing.  <br>
Think about it like this: I get mad at someone and say "I cant believe you did that! I could kill you!!!"
Yes it's extreme, but unless the person turned up dead I doubt anyone is going to make a legal fuss over it.<br>
However, if you put those words on paper and are dumb enough to actually mail it, you bet there will be an investigation.
<br> <br>
The difference here is spontaneity.<br>
Writing a letter and mailing it is premeditated.<br>
Reading something online, getting mad, clicking in a text box, typing a rant, and clicking "post" all in a few seconds is not.<br> <br>
<br>
ps. Im a long time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. member.... I'm posting this AC just for the irony.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal , and freedom of speech is not a valid defense .
But what the law fails to take into account is that throwing a message up on a board ( esp .
anonymously ) is MUCH more similar to actually speaking than writing .
Think about it like this : I get mad at someone and say " I cant believe you did that !
I could kill you ! ! !
" Yes it 's extreme , but unless the person turned up dead I doubt anyone is going to make a legal fuss over it .
However , if you put those words on paper and are dumb enough to actually mail it , you bet there will be an investigation .
The difference here is spontaneity .
Writing a letter and mailing it is premeditated .
Reading something online , getting mad , clicking in a text box , typing a rant , and clicking " post " all in a few seconds is not .
ps. Im a long time / .
member.... I 'm posting this AC just for the irony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense.
But what the law fails to take into account is that throwing a message up on a board (esp.
anonymously) is MUCH
more similar to actually speaking than writing.
Think about it like this: I get mad at someone and say "I cant believe you did that!
I could kill you!!!
"
Yes it's extreme, but unless the person turned up dead I doubt anyone is going to make a legal fuss over it.
However, if you put those words on paper and are dumb enough to actually mail it, you bet there will be an investigation.
The difference here is spontaneity.
Writing a letter and mailing it is premeditated.
Reading something online, getting mad, clicking in a text box, typing a rant, and clicking "post" all in a few seconds is not.
ps. Im a long time /.
member.... I'm posting this AC just for the irony.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361159</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245251820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is also illegal to deface legal tender.  So in essence, melting it down and selling it as a pure metal would be illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is also illegal to deface legal tender .
So in essence , melting it down and selling it as a pure metal would be illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is also illegal to deface legal tender.
So in essence, melting it down and selling it as a pure metal would be illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364087</id>
	<title>Re:The IRS uses the "Fair Market Value" standard</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1245265740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the coins are US legal tender, regardless of compositional vaue, wouldn't that make them by very definition "cash"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the coins are US legal tender , regardless of compositional vaue , would n't that make them by very definition " cash " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the coins are US legal tender, regardless of compositional vaue, wouldn't that make them by very definition "cash"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361511</id>
	<title>Re:Basic human right???????</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1245253620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Careful here.  Plenty of people say things like "oh i'll kick your ass," even to people they don't know, but don't mean it, as evidienced by the fact that they don't kick the other persons ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful here .
Plenty of people say things like " oh i 'll kick your ass , " even to people they do n't know , but do n't mean it , as evidienced by the fact that they do n't kick the other persons ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful here.
Plenty of people say things like "oh i'll kick your ass," even to people they don't know, but don't mean it, as evidienced by the fact that they don't kick the other persons ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362237</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1245257280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, if he wants to play the "face value" defense, which is legitimate (he should win that case) what he should be charged with is violating the federal minimum wage laws, not tax evasion.</p></div><p>Do minimum wage laws apply to prices charged by contractors (which is how they were hired, to avoid withholding taxes)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , if he wants to play the " face value " defense , which is legitimate ( he should win that case ) what he should be charged with is violating the federal minimum wage laws , not tax evasion.Do minimum wage laws apply to prices charged by contractors ( which is how they were hired , to avoid withholding taxes ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, if he wants to play the "face value" defense, which is legitimate (he should win that case) what he should be charged with is violating the federal minimum wage laws, not tax evasion.Do minimum wage laws apply to prices charged by contractors (which is how they were hired, to avoid withholding taxes)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361751</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>Botia</author>
	<datestamp>1245254820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like they are both right here as well.  Tax law dictates that employees should be taxed on the value of items given to them in exchange for work.  For example, if an employee is given a nice DLR camera as a Christmas bonus, that employee would be taxed on the value of the camera.  The same could be applied to the coins as their value far exceeds their face value.

The simple solution is to get rid of income tax, as it was only meant to be temporary during the war.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like they are both right here as well .
Tax law dictates that employees should be taxed on the value of items given to them in exchange for work .
For example , if an employee is given a nice DLR camera as a Christmas bonus , that employee would be taxed on the value of the camera .
The same could be applied to the coins as their value far exceeds their face value .
The simple solution is to get rid of income tax , as it was only meant to be temporary during the war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like they are both right here as well.
Tax law dictates that employees should be taxed on the value of items given to them in exchange for work.
For example, if an employee is given a nice DLR camera as a Christmas bonus, that employee would be taxed on the value of the camera.
The same could be applied to the coins as their value far exceeds their face value.
The simple solution is to get rid of income tax, as it was only meant to be temporary during the war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463</id>
	<title>Why make it traceable?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1245247620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know why forum administrators even <i>bother</i> keeping around enough information to reveal the identity of an anonymous poster?</p><p>I mean, I can see keeping around the web server logs for a day or two, to help debug problems.  And if you do analytics, keeping the logs around long enough for the analytics software to compute aggregate data.</p><p>But why keep any data longer than that; especially data that's detailed enough to tie an IP# to a posted message?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know why forum administrators even bother keeping around enough information to reveal the identity of an anonymous poster ? I mean , I can see keeping around the web server logs for a day or two , to help debug problems .
And if you do analytics , keeping the logs around long enough for the analytics software to compute aggregate data.But why keep any data longer than that ; especially data that 's detailed enough to tie an IP # to a posted message ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know why forum administrators even bother keeping around enough information to reveal the identity of an anonymous poster?I mean, I can see keeping around the web server logs for a day or two, to help debug problems.
And if you do analytics, keeping the logs around long enough for the analytics software to compute aggregate data.But why keep any data longer than that; especially data that's detailed enough to tie an IP# to a posted message?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360383</id>
	<title>commentors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I f*ckin' hate anonymous comments. Those ppl are complete cowards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I f * ckin ' hate anonymous comments .
Those ppl are complete cowards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I f*ckin' hate anonymous comments.
Those ppl are complete cowards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360509</id>
	<title>the fine print...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Fine Print: The following comments are <b>owned</b> by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Fine Print : The following comments are owned by whoever posted them .
We are not responsible for them in any way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360327</id>
	<title>Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245246900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No State shall [...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]"<br>--Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution</p><p>Federal Reserve Notes are nothing but counterfeit money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No State shall [ ... ] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [ ... ] " --Article 1 , Section 10 of the United States ConstitutionFederal Reserve Notes are nothing but counterfeit money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No State shall [...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]"--Article 1, Section 10 of the United States ConstitutionFederal Reserve Notes are nothing but counterfeit money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360473</id>
	<title>YES!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...is anonymous commenting still worth it, or is it just too risky for the board owners?</i> <br>
<br>
Absolutely!<br>
<br>
Posting AC so <i>they</i> don't find out who I am.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is anonymous commenting still worth it , or is it just too risky for the board owners ?
Absolutely ! Posting AC so they do n't find out who I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is anonymous commenting still worth it, or is it just too risky for the board owners?
Absolutely!

Posting AC so they don't find out who I am.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360939</id>
	<title>RTFA first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The money is printed by the Federal Reserve and NOT by the Federal Government. Sheesh, don't you know the difference?<br>It is legal tender for all debts.<br>The IRS is NOT prosecuting him for paying in Gold. The IRS doesn't care how you pay someone. Gold, Silver, mud, iron, hell in Nevada even Sex.<br>What it cares about is its value in USD.<br>In this case this guy paid in Gold, whose real value is more than what its face value states.<br>RTFA and research before you open your pie hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The money is printed by the Federal Reserve and NOT by the Federal Government .
Sheesh , do n't you know the difference ? It is legal tender for all debts.The IRS is NOT prosecuting him for paying in Gold .
The IRS does n't care how you pay someone .
Gold , Silver , mud , iron , hell in Nevada even Sex.What it cares about is its value in USD.In this case this guy paid in Gold , whose real value is more than what its face value states.RTFA and research before you open your pie hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The money is printed by the Federal Reserve and NOT by the Federal Government.
Sheesh, don't you know the difference?It is legal tender for all debts.The IRS is NOT prosecuting him for paying in Gold.
The IRS doesn't care how you pay someone.
Gold, Silver, mud, iron, hell in Nevada even Sex.What it cares about is its value in USD.In this case this guy paid in Gold, whose real value is more than what its face value states.RTFA and research before you open your pie hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361025</id>
	<title>Re:The tax dodge itself seems spurious</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1245251040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the same way I look at it.  Either you use the gold coins at face value and don't pay tax on them, or you sell the gold coins at a profit and must claim that 'investment' income on your year end taxes.<br>
<br>
Maybe you keep bartering that gold coin for goods/services worth the approximate value of the gold in the coin, but it seems that eventually someone would cash it out and have to pay taxes on that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the same way I look at it .
Either you use the gold coins at face value and do n't pay tax on them , or you sell the gold coins at a profit and must claim that 'investment ' income on your year end taxes .
Maybe you keep bartering that gold coin for goods/services worth the approximate value of the gold in the coin , but it seems that eventually someone would cash it out and have to pay taxes on that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the same way I look at it.
Either you use the gold coins at face value and don't pay tax on them, or you sell the gold coins at a profit and must claim that 'investment' income on your year end taxes.
Maybe you keep bartering that gold coin for goods/services worth the approximate value of the gold in the coin, but it seems that eventually someone would cash it out and have to pay taxes on that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360497</id>
	<title>Re:Thought...</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245247860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This means that if my employer pays me in nickels then I also must pay more in income tax to the feds as a nickel is worth more then five cents in pure metal value these days.</p></div><p>All nickels minted after 1964 are made out of a copper-nickel clad (alloy).  The metal value of a nickel might be worth more than 5 cents, but I doubt it.  Anyway, it doesn't matter since federal states that the value of currency is the face value, period, and that any melting down of coins for metal is willful destruction of government property, which is, at the very least, a misdemeanor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means that if my employer pays me in nickels then I also must pay more in income tax to the feds as a nickel is worth more then five cents in pure metal value these days.All nickels minted after 1964 are made out of a copper-nickel clad ( alloy ) .
The metal value of a nickel might be worth more than 5 cents , but I doubt it .
Anyway , it does n't matter since federal states that the value of currency is the face value , period , and that any melting down of coins for metal is willful destruction of government property , which is , at the very least , a misdemeanor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means that if my employer pays me in nickels then I also must pay more in income tax to the feds as a nickel is worth more then five cents in pure metal value these days.All nickels minted after 1964 are made out of a copper-nickel clad (alloy).
The metal value of a nickel might be worth more than 5 cents, but I doubt it.
Anyway, it doesn't matter since federal states that the value of currency is the face value, period, and that any melting down of coins for metal is willful destruction of government property, which is, at the very least, a misdemeanor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362529</id>
	<title>Re:Constitution</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1245258660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"No State shall [...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]"<br>--Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution</p><p>Federal Reserve Notes are nothing but counterfeit money.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nice try, but Federal Reserve Notes are not made tender in payment of debts by any State, as the term "State" is used in the US Constitution, and therefore are not within the scope of that prohibition; they are legal tender by Act of Congress (Coinage Act of 1965, particularly that bit codified at <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc\_sec\_31\_00005103----000-.html" title="cornell.edu">31 USC Sec. 5103</a> [cornell.edu]: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." If Congress makes it money, it is real money, not conterfeit, because of Congress' express power in Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power [...] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; [...]"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" No State shall [ ... ] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [ ... ] " --Article 1 , Section 10 of the United States ConstitutionFederal Reserve Notes are nothing but counterfeit money.Nice try , but Federal Reserve Notes are not made tender in payment of debts by any State , as the term " State " is used in the US Constitution , and therefore are not within the scope of that prohibition ; they are legal tender by Act of Congress ( Coinage Act of 1965 , particularly that bit codified at 31 USC Sec .
5103 [ cornell.edu ] : " United States coins and currency ( including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks ) are legal tender for all debts , public charges , taxes , and dues .
" If Congress makes it money , it is real money , not conterfeit , because of Congress ' express power in Article I , Section 8 : " The Congress shall have power [ ... ] To coin money , regulate the value thereof , and of foreign coin , and fix the standard of weights and measures ; [ ... ] "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No State shall [...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]"--Article 1, Section 10 of the United States ConstitutionFederal Reserve Notes are nothing but counterfeit money.Nice try, but Federal Reserve Notes are not made tender in payment of debts by any State, as the term "State" is used in the US Constitution, and therefore are not within the scope of that prohibition; they are legal tender by Act of Congress (Coinage Act of 1965, particularly that bit codified at 31 USC Sec.
5103 [cornell.edu]: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
" If Congress makes it money, it is real money, not conterfeit, because of Congress' express power in Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power [...] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; [...]"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360935</id>
	<title>Stupid question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sheesh. Why a whole article? This is not a difficult question.</p><p>Anonymous comments are a great choice for speech that is legal, but might expose a public speaker to social consequences: reviews, dark humor, political criticism, whistleblowing, etc.</p><p>Anonymous comments should not be a shield for speech that is an illegal attack on others: libel, threats, intimidation, etc. If you want to say that kind of stuff, be prepared to own up to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sheesh .
Why a whole article ?
This is not a difficult question.Anonymous comments are a great choice for speech that is legal , but might expose a public speaker to social consequences : reviews , dark humor , political criticism , whistleblowing , etc.Anonymous comments should not be a shield for speech that is an illegal attack on others : libel , threats , intimidation , etc .
If you want to say that kind of stuff , be prepared to own up to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sheesh.
Why a whole article?
This is not a difficult question.Anonymous comments are a great choice for speech that is legal, but might expose a public speaker to social consequences: reviews, dark humor, political criticism, whistleblowing, etc.Anonymous comments should not be a shield for speech that is an illegal attack on others: libel, threats, intimidation, etc.
If you want to say that kind of stuff, be prepared to own up to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360921</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>squiggly12</author>
	<datestamp>1245250380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm, maybe I didn't look hard enough, but I didn't see anything in the US Constitution about legal tender.

<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html" title="cornell.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html</a> [cornell.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm , maybe I did n't look hard enough , but I did n't see anything in the US Constitution about legal tender .
http : //www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html [ cornell.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm, maybe I didn't look hard enough, but I didn't see anything in the US Constitution about legal tender.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html [cornell.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360413</id>
	<title>Re:Fucking losers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Only sad twats write into newspapers anyway.</p></div><p>Your mom's twat looks like Osama Bin Laden's beard.  She really needs to learn what a razor is...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only sad twats write into newspapers anyway.Your mom 's twat looks like Osama Bin Laden 's beard .
She really needs to learn what a razor is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only sad twats write into newspapers anyway.Your mom's twat looks like Osama Bin Laden's beard.
She really needs to learn what a razor is...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362661</id>
	<title>Re:Thought...</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1245259320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This means that if my employer pays me in nickels then I also must pay more in income tax to the feds as a nickel is worth more then five cents in pure metal value these days.</p></div><p>If that were true, that would still be less of an annoyance than dealing with all those nickels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means that if my employer pays me in nickels then I also must pay more in income tax to the feds as a nickel is worth more then five cents in pure metal value these days.If that were true , that would still be less of an annoyance than dealing with all those nickels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means that if my employer pays me in nickels then I also must pay more in income tax to the feds as a nickel is worth more then five cents in pure metal value these days.If that were true, that would still be less of an annoyance than dealing with all those nickels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360335</id>
	<title>Yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245246900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anonymous commenting is no longer worth the effort.<br> <br>
AC OUT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous commenting is no longer worth the effort .
AC OUT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous commenting is no longer worth the effort.
AC OUT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360661</id>
	<title>Re:Why make it traceable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's the dafault setting to keep the logs. Setting up guidelines and a system to delete stuff costs time and offers no monetary benefit. There is no incentive to delete anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's the dafault setting to keep the logs .
Setting up guidelines and a system to delete stuff costs time and offers no monetary benefit .
There is no incentive to delete anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's the dafault setting to keep the logs.
Setting up guidelines and a system to delete stuff costs time and offers no monetary benefit.
There is no incentive to delete anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28462043</id>
	<title>Re:IRS is right on this one</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245857340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You better not pay your employees in pennies and nickels, then! The IRS will be knocking on your door for not reporting the higher material value and trying to avoid taxes by using their face value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You better not pay your employees in pennies and nickels , then !
The IRS will be knocking on your door for not reporting the higher material value and trying to avoid taxes by using their face value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You better not pay your employees in pennies and nickels, then!
The IRS will be knocking on your door for not reporting the higher material value and trying to avoid taxes by using their face value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360369</id>
	<title>It's not worth it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymous commenting is never worth it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous commenting is never worth it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous commenting is never worth it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361981</id>
	<title>Re:Threats</title>
	<author>bitt3n</author>
	<datestamp>1245255960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense.</p></div><p>I'm not sure that's actually true. a supreme court quotation from the wikipedia 1st amendment article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.</p></div><p>saying "these people should be hanged" or whatever does not seem likely to incite imminent lawless action, which I (perhaps incorrectly) presume to mean action that the law cannot be expected to stop, such as in the case of a mob boss telling his crony "shoot that guy there in the head, right now," which would not be protected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal , and freedom of speech is not a valid defense.I 'm not sure that 's actually true .
a supreme court quotation from the wikipedia 1st amendment article : [ Our ] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.saying " these people should be hanged " or whatever does not seem likely to incite imminent lawless action , which I ( perhaps incorrectly ) presume to mean action that the law can not be expected to stop , such as in the case of a mob boss telling his crony " shoot that guy there in the head , right now , " which would not be protected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense.I'm not sure that's actually true.
a supreme court quotation from the wikipedia 1st amendment article:[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.saying "these people should be hanged" or whatever does not seem likely to incite imminent lawless action, which I (perhaps incorrectly) presume to mean action that the law cannot be expected to stop, such as in the case of a mob boss telling his crony "shoot that guy there in the head, right now," which would not be protected.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469</id>
	<title>Face Value vs Ore Value</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1245247680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So on the one hand we take Gold Coins and use the Ore Value, while on the other we take Quarters and use the Face Value.<br>
<br>
So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it, get a roll of pennies. Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So on the one hand we take Gold Coins and use the Ore Value , while on the other we take Quarters and use the Face Value .
So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it , get a roll of pennies .
Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $ 100 to a collector... is that an extra $ 100 of Income ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So on the one hand we take Gold Coins and use the Ore Value, while on the other we take Quarters and use the Face Value.
So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it, get a roll of pennies.
Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363171</id>
	<title>Re:The tax dodge itself seems spurious</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1245261660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surely then, should they choose to sell these they'll pay income tax on any profit they make.</p></div><p>They <em>should</em>. I suspect they didn't, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.</p><p>Cue a "Wait, you mean my contractors haven't been reporting all of their profits to you guys? But how is that my fault?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely then , should they choose to sell these they 'll pay income tax on any profit they make.They should .
I suspect they did n't , or we would n't be having this conversation.Cue a " Wait , you mean my contractors have n't been reporting all of their profits to you guys ?
But how is that my fault ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely then, should they choose to sell these they'll pay income tax on any profit they make.They should.
I suspect they didn't, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.Cue a "Wait, you mean my contractors haven't been reporting all of their profits to you guys?
But how is that my fault?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362477</id>
	<title>Re:i'll be the first to say..</title>
	<author>skuzzlebutt</author>
	<datestamp>1245258420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>re: ACH...meh...that's just how my brain works. I've worked in banking for over a decade and that's just what we call it. I spent all of four minutes writing the summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>re : ACH...meh...that 's just how my brain works .
I 've worked in banking for over a decade and that 's just what we call it .
I spent all of four minutes writing the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>re: ACH...meh...that's just how my brain works.
I've worked in banking for over a decade and that's just what we call it.
I spent all of four minutes writing the summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361051</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1245251220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No if you're paid with $20 in government currency then as far as the government is concerned you received $20 in wealth.</p><p>Otherwise it works the other way too and this $100 dollar paper note is only "worth" 1 cent and should be taxed as such.</p><p>Oh that's right, for some insane reason people always come down on the side of the government.</p><p>Perhaps you should ask *why* the government is stamping $30 on legal tender that actually costs 1000 $1 federal reserve notes (and counting).  These gold coins are not "special" collectors items, they are cold hard cash minted by the hundreds of thousands and hold enormous amounts of wealth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No if you 're paid with $ 20 in government currency then as far as the government is concerned you received $ 20 in wealth.Otherwise it works the other way too and this $ 100 dollar paper note is only " worth " 1 cent and should be taxed as such.Oh that 's right , for some insane reason people always come down on the side of the government.Perhaps you should ask * why * the government is stamping $ 30 on legal tender that actually costs 1000 $ 1 federal reserve notes ( and counting ) .
These gold coins are not " special " collectors items , they are cold hard cash minted by the hundreds of thousands and hold enormous amounts of wealth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No if you're paid with $20 in government currency then as far as the government is concerned you received $20 in wealth.Otherwise it works the other way too and this $100 dollar paper note is only "worth" 1 cent and should be taxed as such.Oh that's right, for some insane reason people always come down on the side of the government.Perhaps you should ask *why* the government is stamping $30 on legal tender that actually costs 1000 $1 federal reserve notes (and counting).
These gold coins are not "special" collectors items, they are cold hard cash minted by the hundreds of thousands and hold enormous amounts of wealth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361991</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>rpervinking</author>
	<datestamp>1245256020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please cite chapter and verse on this.  Specifically the part where it talks about the value of compensation passing from one person to another when the compensation is a form whose market value is HIGHER than the face value of the coin.

After all, it's easy enough to believe you if you were claiming that the IRS would be required to accept 20 gold coins each stamped "Five Dollars" in payment of your $100 tax bill.  No change, thanks.  My guess is that you'd better show up with a lawyer to help keep you out of the loony bin if you tried that stunt, because they'd think you were crazy to overpay by that much.  But I simply don't believe that the requirement is that the government is required to take face value as the MAXIMUM value represented by compensation in this form.  If you can quote chapter and verse to that effect, and also, preferably, point to professional credentials in this field, fine.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please cite chapter and verse on this .
Specifically the part where it talks about the value of compensation passing from one person to another when the compensation is a form whose market value is HIGHER than the face value of the coin .
After all , it 's easy enough to believe you if you were claiming that the IRS would be required to accept 20 gold coins each stamped " Five Dollars " in payment of your $ 100 tax bill .
No change , thanks .
My guess is that you 'd better show up with a lawyer to help keep you out of the loony bin if you tried that stunt , because they 'd think you were crazy to overpay by that much .
But I simply do n't believe that the requirement is that the government is required to take face value as the MAXIMUM value represented by compensation in this form .
If you can quote chapter and verse to that effect , and also , preferably , point to professional credentials in this field , fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please cite chapter and verse on this.
Specifically the part where it talks about the value of compensation passing from one person to another when the compensation is a form whose market value is HIGHER than the face value of the coin.
After all, it's easy enough to believe you if you were claiming that the IRS would be required to accept 20 gold coins each stamped "Five Dollars" in payment of your $100 tax bill.
No change, thanks.
My guess is that you'd better show up with a lawyer to help keep you out of the loony bin if you tried that stunt, because they'd think you were crazy to overpay by that much.
But I simply don't believe that the requirement is that the government is required to take face value as the MAXIMUM value represented by compensation in this form.
If you can quote chapter and verse to that effect, and also, preferably, point to professional credentials in this field, fine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361141</id>
	<title>Re:Face Value vs Ore Value</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1245251700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that he was only doing reporting and withholding on the face value.  Since he was probably buying the coins over face value, that's fraud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that he was only doing reporting and withholding on the face value .
Since he was probably buying the coins over face value , that 's fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that he was only doing reporting and withholding on the face value.
Since he was probably buying the coins over face value, that's fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28365881</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>Tired and Emotional</author>
	<datestamp>1245231180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It also falls under the classification of "artifical task avoidance device". Schemes which might be legal if they served an actual commercial purpose are not if their sole purpose is to avoid paying taxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It also falls under the classification of " artifical task avoidance device " .
Schemes which might be legal if they served an actual commercial purpose are not if their sole purpose is to avoid paying taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also falls under the classification of "artifical task avoidance device".
Schemes which might be legal if they served an actual commercial purpose are not if their sole purpose is to avoid paying taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360811</id>
	<title>Re:The american tax system</title>
	<author>Zebai</author>
	<datestamp>1245249840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are laws designed to encourage you and your employer to have witholdings from your paycheck but for the most part yes you can avoid such things and face the news in April.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are laws designed to encourage you and your employer to have witholdings from your paycheck but for the most part yes you can avoid such things and face the news in April .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are laws designed to encourage you and your employer to have witholdings from your paycheck but for the most part yes you can avoid such things and face the news in April.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362301</id>
	<title>Re:wrong</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1245257580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>American Eagles are legal tender.</p><p>If I pay someone in $100 bills, you claim it should be taxed according to the $100 face value instead of the worthless penny or two the bills are worth.</p><p>But if I pay them with a $50 American Eagle, I'm supposed to ignore the $50 face value and value it according to the intrinsic material worth.</p><p>It's contradictory. Bot do you notice how the IRS always wins?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>American Eagles are legal tender.If I pay someone in $ 100 bills , you claim it should be taxed according to the $ 100 face value instead of the worthless penny or two the bills are worth.But if I pay them with a $ 50 American Eagle , I 'm supposed to ignore the $ 50 face value and value it according to the intrinsic material worth.It 's contradictory .
Bot do you notice how the IRS always wins ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American Eagles are legal tender.If I pay someone in $100 bills, you claim it should be taxed according to the $100 face value instead of the worthless penny or two the bills are worth.But if I pay them with a $50 American Eagle, I'm supposed to ignore the $50 face value and value it according to the intrinsic material worth.It's contradictory.
Bot do you notice how the IRS always wins?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360313</id>
	<title>i'll be the first to say..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245246780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..what a terrible summary</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..what a terrible summary</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..what a terrible summary</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363269</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245262140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do other people see Anonymous <b>Cowardon</b>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do other people see Anonymous Cowardon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do other people see Anonymous Cowardon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28462095</id>
	<title>Re:The tax dodge itself seems spurious</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245857700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, if they were to trade the $50 coin for $1000 in paper bills, then the gain would be subject to commodity capital gains tax, not income tax.</p><p>Second, there is no requirement to trade the coin for paper bills. It could be traded for goods directly. Technically if a $1000 product were traded for a $50 coin, that is likely a taxable event, but it's the same taxable event you would have if you traded your crappy bicycle worth $15 for a crappy fridge worth $100 on craigslist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , if they were to trade the $ 50 coin for $ 1000 in paper bills , then the gain would be subject to commodity capital gains tax , not income tax.Second , there is no requirement to trade the coin for paper bills .
It could be traded for goods directly .
Technically if a $ 1000 product were traded for a $ 50 coin , that is likely a taxable event , but it 's the same taxable event you would have if you traded your crappy bicycle worth $ 15 for a crappy fridge worth $ 100 on craigslist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, if they were to trade the $50 coin for $1000 in paper bills, then the gain would be subject to commodity capital gains tax, not income tax.Second, there is no requirement to trade the coin for paper bills.
It could be traded for goods directly.
Technically if a $1000 product were traded for a $50 coin, that is likely a taxable event, but it's the same taxable event you would have if you traded your crappy bicycle worth $15 for a crappy fridge worth $100 on craigslist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362449</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1245258240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Completely and utterly irrelevant, these are not "collectors" coins, they are boring straight from the mint, cold hard cash.  I think there's a mistake being made here that gold coins are somehow exotic.</p><p>They are not.</p><p>The money is legal tender, it's minted by the government by the hundreds of thousands every year.  If the government doesn't like the situation then they can alter the constitution or increase the face value of the coins to more closely match their true value.  Otherwise it goes the other way as well and paper money thats market value is about 0.1 cent - for the paper - can be "valued" at that rate too come tax time.</p><p>The government *cannot* have two "values" for its legal tender, as far as the government is concerned it's either what the government says it's worth (the face value) or it's not.  Otherwise the stack of $100 dollar paper notes (actually some sort of polymer here) I just got paid are only "worth" 1 cent each and that is what I'll claim them as.</p><p>I'm pretty sure no government is going to open the "market value" can of worms on its currency.  If it's good for the government to claim a currencies value is "market value" rather than face value at tax time then it's good for me.</p><p>All that aside, they're prosecuting a guy for the financial decisions of his contractors as paying someone in gold even if it's just bullion is perfectly legal.  How they then claim that on their taxes is their own responsibility not his.</p><p>It's a public example nothing more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Completely and utterly irrelevant , these are not " collectors " coins , they are boring straight from the mint , cold hard cash .
I think there 's a mistake being made here that gold coins are somehow exotic.They are not.The money is legal tender , it 's minted by the government by the hundreds of thousands every year .
If the government does n't like the situation then they can alter the constitution or increase the face value of the coins to more closely match their true value .
Otherwise it goes the other way as well and paper money thats market value is about 0.1 cent - for the paper - can be " valued " at that rate too come tax time.The government * can not * have two " values " for its legal tender , as far as the government is concerned it 's either what the government says it 's worth ( the face value ) or it 's not .
Otherwise the stack of $ 100 dollar paper notes ( actually some sort of polymer here ) I just got paid are only " worth " 1 cent each and that is what I 'll claim them as.I 'm pretty sure no government is going to open the " market value " can of worms on its currency .
If it 's good for the government to claim a currencies value is " market value " rather than face value at tax time then it 's good for me.All that aside , they 're prosecuting a guy for the financial decisions of his contractors as paying someone in gold even if it 's just bullion is perfectly legal .
How they then claim that on their taxes is their own responsibility not his.It 's a public example nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Completely and utterly irrelevant, these are not "collectors" coins, they are boring straight from the mint, cold hard cash.
I think there's a mistake being made here that gold coins are somehow exotic.They are not.The money is legal tender, it's minted by the government by the hundreds of thousands every year.
If the government doesn't like the situation then they can alter the constitution or increase the face value of the coins to more closely match their true value.
Otherwise it goes the other way as well and paper money thats market value is about 0.1 cent - for the paper - can be "valued" at that rate too come tax time.The government *cannot* have two "values" for its legal tender, as far as the government is concerned it's either what the government says it's worth (the face value) or it's not.
Otherwise the stack of $100 dollar paper notes (actually some sort of polymer here) I just got paid are only "worth" 1 cent each and that is what I'll claim them as.I'm pretty sure no government is going to open the "market value" can of worms on its currency.
If it's good for the government to claim a currencies value is "market value" rather than face value at tax time then it's good for me.All that aside, they're prosecuting a guy for the financial decisions of his contractors as paying someone in gold even if it's just bullion is perfectly legal.
How they then claim that on their taxes is their own responsibility not his.It's a public example nothing more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362117</id>
	<title>Re:Face Value vs Ore Value</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1245256740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These gold coins are not legal U.S. currency, so they should be treated at their value.</p></div><p>Eh? 31 USC 5103 states,</p><blockquote><div><p>United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.</p></div></blockquote><p>As American Eagles are minted by the U.S. Mint and include the motto, denomination, and everything else you'd expect to see on U.S. coinage, I don't see why they wouldn't be "United States coins".</p><p>Feel free to find sources that prove me wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These gold coins are not legal U.S. currency , so they should be treated at their value.Eh ?
31 USC 5103 states,United States coins and currency ( including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks ) are legal tender for all debts , public charges , taxes , and dues .
Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.As American Eagles are minted by the U.S. Mint and include the motto , denomination , and everything else you 'd expect to see on U.S. coinage , I do n't see why they would n't be " United States coins " .Feel free to find sources that prove me wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These gold coins are not legal U.S. currency, so they should be treated at their value.Eh?
31 USC 5103 states,United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.As American Eagles are minted by the U.S. Mint and include the motto, denomination, and everything else you'd expect to see on U.S. coinage, I don't see why they wouldn't be "United States coins".Feel free to find sources that prove me wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363505</id>
	<title>Re:The american tax system</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1245263340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends.</p><p>If you're paid cash (babysitting, lawnmowing, etc...), you're required to report those earnings on your income tax filing come April.</p><p>However, if you have proper employment, they'll withhold income taxes from your salary and they'll report your salary and the amount they withheld to the IRS. They'll also send you a W-2 form at the end of the fiscal year that contains this information. You fill out your tax return, using the information from the W-2, and you figure out how much you actually owed. If it was more than they withheld, you have to send them the difference. If it was less and they withheld too much, they'll return it (thus, the income tax return), and you can claim "exemptions" to your employer if you believe too much is being withheld. Claiming exemptions will reduce the amount they withhold, so you'll get a larger check and a smaller income tax return... but of course if you claim too many you'll end up sending the IRS a check in April.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends.If you 're paid cash ( babysitting , lawnmowing , etc... ) , you 're required to report those earnings on your income tax filing come April.However , if you have proper employment , they 'll withhold income taxes from your salary and they 'll report your salary and the amount they withheld to the IRS .
They 'll also send you a W-2 form at the end of the fiscal year that contains this information .
You fill out your tax return , using the information from the W-2 , and you figure out how much you actually owed .
If it was more than they withheld , you have to send them the difference .
If it was less and they withheld too much , they 'll return it ( thus , the income tax return ) , and you can claim " exemptions " to your employer if you believe too much is being withheld .
Claiming exemptions will reduce the amount they withhold , so you 'll get a larger check and a smaller income tax return... but of course if you claim too many you 'll end up sending the IRS a check in April .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends.If you're paid cash (babysitting, lawnmowing, etc...), you're required to report those earnings on your income tax filing come April.However, if you have proper employment, they'll withhold income taxes from your salary and they'll report your salary and the amount they withheld to the IRS.
They'll also send you a W-2 form at the end of the fiscal year that contains this information.
You fill out your tax return, using the information from the W-2, and you figure out how much you actually owed.
If it was more than they withheld, you have to send them the difference.
If it was less and they withheld too much, they'll return it (thus, the income tax return), and you can claim "exemptions" to your employer if you believe too much is being withheld.
Claiming exemptions will reduce the amount they withhold, so you'll get a larger check and a smaller income tax return... but of course if you claim too many you'll end up sending the IRS a check in April.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677</id>
	<title>IRS is right on this one</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1245249120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What this guy did was essentially barter gold bullion that happened to be in coin form for labor.</p><p>Even if the US government is required to trade a $20 bill for your $20 gold piece, that does not establish the value of the gold piece for tax purposes.</p><p>Even a $20 bill can be worth more than $20 if it's a collector's item, such as one that's in an uncut block, one that's old and still in original condition, one that's very old, or one that's been autographed by hand by the Treasurer of the United States or Secretary of the Treasury whose signature appears on the bill.</p><p>If I pay my employees in collector-value currency, you bet the IRS will consider it a barter-for-labor arrangement and tax accordingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What this guy did was essentially barter gold bullion that happened to be in coin form for labor.Even if the US government is required to trade a $ 20 bill for your $ 20 gold piece , that does not establish the value of the gold piece for tax purposes.Even a $ 20 bill can be worth more than $ 20 if it 's a collector 's item , such as one that 's in an uncut block , one that 's old and still in original condition , one that 's very old , or one that 's been autographed by hand by the Treasurer of the United States or Secretary of the Treasury whose signature appears on the bill.If I pay my employees in collector-value currency , you bet the IRS will consider it a barter-for-labor arrangement and tax accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this guy did was essentially barter gold bullion that happened to be in coin form for labor.Even if the US government is required to trade a $20 bill for your $20 gold piece, that does not establish the value of the gold piece for tax purposes.Even a $20 bill can be worth more than $20 if it's a collector's item, such as one that's in an uncut block, one that's old and still in original condition, one that's very old, or one that's been autographed by hand by the Treasurer of the United States or Secretary of the Treasury whose signature appears on the bill.If I pay my employees in collector-value currency, you bet the IRS will consider it a barter-for-labor arrangement and tax accordingly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360323</id>
	<title>Thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245246840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This means that if my employer pays me in nickels then I also must pay more in income tax to the feds as a nickel is worth more then five cents in pure metal value these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This means that if my employer pays me in nickels then I also must pay more in income tax to the feds as a nickel is worth more then five cents in pure metal value these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means that if my employer pays me in nickels then I also must pay more in income tax to the feds as a nickel is worth more then five cents in pure metal value these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362725</id>
	<title>Re:The IRS uses the "Fair Market Value" standard</title>
	<author>GNT</author>
	<datestamp>1245259560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And properly, everyone and your mother included, ignore this IRS barter "other forms of compensation" bullshit.</p><p>If you think about it, everyone working for labor has no profit because they trade a zero-sum --- time for money.  The value of their time is in fact their wage, and thus there is no profit technically.  Only the IRS with it's absurd nonsense of "standard deductions" forces a minimalist time valuation on you and taxes the difference.</p><p>And they do have the right to pay their traffic fine in pennies because it IS legal tender and there are several cases where this has happened much to the chagrin of the officials involved.</p><p>It is the End of the Age of Authority, which is the only thing that is good from the Obama election.</p><p>Twelve Visions -- Here we come</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And properly , everyone and your mother included , ignore this IRS barter " other forms of compensation " bullshit.If you think about it , everyone working for labor has no profit because they trade a zero-sum --- time for money .
The value of their time is in fact their wage , and thus there is no profit technically .
Only the IRS with it 's absurd nonsense of " standard deductions " forces a minimalist time valuation on you and taxes the difference.And they do have the right to pay their traffic fine in pennies because it IS legal tender and there are several cases where this has happened much to the chagrin of the officials involved.It is the End of the Age of Authority , which is the only thing that is good from the Obama election.Twelve Visions -- Here we come</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And properly, everyone and your mother included, ignore this IRS barter "other forms of compensation" bullshit.If you think about it, everyone working for labor has no profit because they trade a zero-sum --- time for money.
The value of their time is in fact their wage, and thus there is no profit technically.
Only the IRS with it's absurd nonsense of "standard deductions" forces a minimalist time valuation on you and taxes the difference.And they do have the right to pay their traffic fine in pennies because it IS legal tender and there are several cases where this has happened much to the chagrin of the officials involved.It is the End of the Age of Authority, which is the only thing that is good from the Obama election.Twelve Visions -- Here we come</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360867</id>
	<title>Re:Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, I think that string of logic is flawed.  Just because something is not explicitly prohibited does not mean it is allowed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , I think that string of logic is flawed .
Just because something is not explicitly prohibited does not mean it is allowed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, I think that string of logic is flawed.
Just because something is not explicitly prohibited does not mean it is allowed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363653</id>
	<title>Re:The american tax system</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1245263820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That depends on whether you're a regular employee or a contractor.  I've worked as both.
</p><p>
Right now, I'm a regular employee, which means that a certain amount of money is withheld from my paycheck and sent to the IRS.  The US tax system is quite complicated, and so this is an estimate of my tax liability, to be corrected with the final filing.
</p><p>
When I was a contractor, I was paid my hourly rate in my check (or however it was I was collecting - I used PayPal for a client or two), and it was up to me to pay taxes on it.  There are four times of the year, not all of them three months apart, when I was supposed to file estimated taxes, somewhat like the withholding.  Figuring taxes was more complicated, also, and I owed more to the Feds for social security/medicare/whatever.
</p><p>
Come income tax filing time, I figure what I owe and compare it to what my employer or I already sent in, and must pay if there's a shortage (I get any excess back). If I owe too much compared to how much was sent in already, I may be liable for penalties, which I have to pay.
</p><p>
If the money hasn't already been sent in, yes, I can break the law and keep it all.  I knew a guy once who worked as a contractor and didn't file taxes for a few years.  I hope he got that worked out with the IRS (they can be reasonable about it if you try to straighten it up before they notice you).  To counterbalance this, the IRS has a reputation for being slow but relentless when getting its money, so while many people will underreport income and cheat in other ways, very few try outright not paying.
</p><p>
Now, there are various ways for an employer to hire people:  regular employee, salaried employee, and contractor, to name three, which have different obligations.  For example, hiring a regular or salaried employee will put you into the unemployment compensation system, which does not happen with a contractor.  This means that an employer is likely to try to reclassify regular employees as salaried, or employees as contractors, to evade various potential costs and record-keeping.  Sometimes this is legal but the people being hired will want more compensation, and sometimes it is found flat-out illegal because there are certain requirements.
</p><p>
In this case, I'd suspect that the people doing the work may not have qualified as contractors, but since I post to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., and therefore never RTFA, I don't know whether there was any such dispute in the trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends on whether you 're a regular employee or a contractor .
I 've worked as both .
Right now , I 'm a regular employee , which means that a certain amount of money is withheld from my paycheck and sent to the IRS .
The US tax system is quite complicated , and so this is an estimate of my tax liability , to be corrected with the final filing .
When I was a contractor , I was paid my hourly rate in my check ( or however it was I was collecting - I used PayPal for a client or two ) , and it was up to me to pay taxes on it .
There are four times of the year , not all of them three months apart , when I was supposed to file estimated taxes , somewhat like the withholding .
Figuring taxes was more complicated , also , and I owed more to the Feds for social security/medicare/whatever .
Come income tax filing time , I figure what I owe and compare it to what my employer or I already sent in , and must pay if there 's a shortage ( I get any excess back ) .
If I owe too much compared to how much was sent in already , I may be liable for penalties , which I have to pay .
If the money has n't already been sent in , yes , I can break the law and keep it all .
I knew a guy once who worked as a contractor and did n't file taxes for a few years .
I hope he got that worked out with the IRS ( they can be reasonable about it if you try to straighten it up before they notice you ) .
To counterbalance this , the IRS has a reputation for being slow but relentless when getting its money , so while many people will underreport income and cheat in other ways , very few try outright not paying .
Now , there are various ways for an employer to hire people : regular employee , salaried employee , and contractor , to name three , which have different obligations .
For example , hiring a regular or salaried employee will put you into the unemployment compensation system , which does not happen with a contractor .
This means that an employer is likely to try to reclassify regular employees as salaried , or employees as contractors , to evade various potential costs and record-keeping .
Sometimes this is legal but the people being hired will want more compensation , and sometimes it is found flat-out illegal because there are certain requirements .
In this case , I 'd suspect that the people doing the work may not have qualified as contractors , but since I post to /. , and therefore never RTFA , I do n't know whether there was any such dispute in the trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That depends on whether you're a regular employee or a contractor.
I've worked as both.
Right now, I'm a regular employee, which means that a certain amount of money is withheld from my paycheck and sent to the IRS.
The US tax system is quite complicated, and so this is an estimate of my tax liability, to be corrected with the final filing.
When I was a contractor, I was paid my hourly rate in my check (or however it was I was collecting - I used PayPal for a client or two), and it was up to me to pay taxes on it.
There are four times of the year, not all of them three months apart, when I was supposed to file estimated taxes, somewhat like the withholding.
Figuring taxes was more complicated, also, and I owed more to the Feds for social security/medicare/whatever.
Come income tax filing time, I figure what I owe and compare it to what my employer or I already sent in, and must pay if there's a shortage (I get any excess back).
If I owe too much compared to how much was sent in already, I may be liable for penalties, which I have to pay.
If the money hasn't already been sent in, yes, I can break the law and keep it all.
I knew a guy once who worked as a contractor and didn't file taxes for a few years.
I hope he got that worked out with the IRS (they can be reasonable about it if you try to straighten it up before they notice you).
To counterbalance this, the IRS has a reputation for being slow but relentless when getting its money, so while many people will underreport income and cheat in other ways, very few try outright not paying.
Now, there are various ways for an employer to hire people:  regular employee, salaried employee, and contractor, to name three, which have different obligations.
For example, hiring a regular or salaried employee will put you into the unemployment compensation system, which does not happen with a contractor.
This means that an employer is likely to try to reclassify regular employees as salaried, or employees as contractors, to evade various potential costs and record-keeping.
Sometimes this is legal but the people being hired will want more compensation, and sometimes it is found flat-out illegal because there are certain requirements.
In this case, I'd suspect that the people doing the work may not have qualified as contractors, but since I post to /., and therefore never RTFA, I don't know whether there was any such dispute in the trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362917</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245260580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His workers were independent contractors... not employees.  If that defense held up in court, then there would be no violation of federal minimum-wage laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His workers were independent contractors... not employees .
If that defense held up in court , then there would be no violation of federal minimum-wage laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His workers were independent contractors... not employees.
If that defense held up in court, then there would be no violation of federal minimum-wage laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360877</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, because a piece of paper stamped with a 20 is worth something, but without is worth little or nothing. Why is monetary value derived from the little stamped in some cases and not in others? Because it's convenient for the government at the time? No, this guy just found a loophole in the law and took advantage of it.</p><p>Do you know how many people have "company" cars and get their company to pay for their gas, cell phone, and internet? Yeah, pretty much every business man.</p><p>The sooner you accept that the tax code is broken and fully exploited the sooner you will realize how much you've been fucked over in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , because a piece of paper stamped with a 20 is worth something , but without is worth little or nothing .
Why is monetary value derived from the little stamped in some cases and not in others ?
Because it 's convenient for the government at the time ?
No , this guy just found a loophole in the law and took advantage of it.Do you know how many people have " company " cars and get their company to pay for their gas , cell phone , and internet ?
Yeah , pretty much every business man.The sooner you accept that the tax code is broken and fully exploited the sooner you will realize how much you 've been fucked over in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, because a piece of paper stamped with a 20 is worth something, but without is worth little or nothing.
Why is monetary value derived from the little stamped in some cases and not in others?
Because it's convenient for the government at the time?
No, this guy just found a loophole in the law and took advantage of it.Do you know how many people have "company" cars and get their company to pay for their gas, cell phone, and internet?
Yeah, pretty much every business man.The sooner you accept that the tax code is broken and fully exploited the sooner you will realize how much you've been fucked over in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361133</id>
	<title>Re:Face Value vs Ore Value</title>
	<author>db32</author>
	<datestamp>1245251640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me the whole thing seems pretty simple.  He is paying employees with gold coins and trying to say they can only be taxed at face value.  So if I write $5 on a brand new jet that I want to "donate" to a congress person should it only be declared as $5?  That is f'ing stupid.  These gold coins are not legal U.S. currency, so they should be treated at their value.  Your quarter is worth that much because the government said so.  In fact, this has been a problem in the past when certain metals in certain coins become more valuable than the face value because people would melt them down and sell it.  So the government had to switch metals to make sure the face value is worth more than the materials used.<br> <br>
What this guy did was unbelievably stupid and uninformed and he deserves to...oh wait...not anonymous...uhm...well he deserves to be punished by the law.<br> <br>
The scenario you are describing is flawed in that noone tried to pay you based on that special value of the coin.  However, if you sold that coin, you can bet any taxes due would be based on the value of the sale not the face value of the penny.  However, if someone tried to pay you for a $100 job using a penny valued at $100 and said you only had to pay taxes on the $0.01 they would be stupid, and you would be stupid for believing them.  If it became a regular thing you could easily wind up on the hook in a nasty tax evasion scenario...just like this guy did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me the whole thing seems pretty simple .
He is paying employees with gold coins and trying to say they can only be taxed at face value .
So if I write $ 5 on a brand new jet that I want to " donate " to a congress person should it only be declared as $ 5 ?
That is f'ing stupid .
These gold coins are not legal U.S. currency , so they should be treated at their value .
Your quarter is worth that much because the government said so .
In fact , this has been a problem in the past when certain metals in certain coins become more valuable than the face value because people would melt them down and sell it .
So the government had to switch metals to make sure the face value is worth more than the materials used .
What this guy did was unbelievably stupid and uninformed and he deserves to...oh wait...not anonymous...uhm...well he deserves to be punished by the law .
The scenario you are describing is flawed in that noone tried to pay you based on that special value of the coin .
However , if you sold that coin , you can bet any taxes due would be based on the value of the sale not the face value of the penny .
However , if someone tried to pay you for a $ 100 job using a penny valued at $ 100 and said you only had to pay taxes on the $ 0.01 they would be stupid , and you would be stupid for believing them .
If it became a regular thing you could easily wind up on the hook in a nasty tax evasion scenario...just like this guy did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me the whole thing seems pretty simple.
He is paying employees with gold coins and trying to say they can only be taxed at face value.
So if I write $5 on a brand new jet that I want to "donate" to a congress person should it only be declared as $5?
That is f'ing stupid.
These gold coins are not legal U.S. currency, so they should be treated at their value.
Your quarter is worth that much because the government said so.
In fact, this has been a problem in the past when certain metals in certain coins become more valuable than the face value because people would melt them down and sell it.
So the government had to switch metals to make sure the face value is worth more than the materials used.
What this guy did was unbelievably stupid and uninformed and he deserves to...oh wait...not anonymous...uhm...well he deserves to be punished by the law.
The scenario you are describing is flawed in that noone tried to pay you based on that special value of the coin.
However, if you sold that coin, you can bet any taxes due would be based on the value of the sale not the face value of the penny.
However, if someone tried to pay you for a $100 job using a penny valued at $100 and said you only had to pay taxes on the $0.01 they would be stupid, and you would be stupid for believing them.
If it became a regular thing you could easily wind up on the hook in a nasty tax evasion scenario...just like this guy did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433</id>
	<title>Threats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't trust the government to protect my rights, but in this case they may have a point. Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense. If you choose to break the law, then you're giving the cops permission to hunt you down and prosecute you, "anonymous" or not. (Even if the law is a bad one and the cops are thugs controlled by a petty dictator.) (Iran, et al.)

Which doesn't mean that I think anonymity is bad; I just think that you should learn a little bit about the law and about search warrants and about technology before you start your life of crime. (True anonymity is necessary to defend freedom, even if it means a thousand Cletuses and Bubbas can use it, too.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't trust the government to protect my rights , but in this case they may have a point .
Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal , and freedom of speech is not a valid defense .
If you choose to break the law , then you 're giving the cops permission to hunt you down and prosecute you , " anonymous " or not .
( Even if the law is a bad one and the cops are thugs controlled by a petty dictator .
) ( Iran , et al .
) Which does n't mean that I think anonymity is bad ; I just think that you should learn a little bit about the law and about search warrants and about technology before you start your life of crime .
( True anonymity is necessary to defend freedom , even if it means a thousand Cletuses and Bubbas can use it , too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't trust the government to protect my rights, but in this case they may have a point.
Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense.
If you choose to break the law, then you're giving the cops permission to hunt you down and prosecute you, "anonymous" or not.
(Even if the law is a bad one and the cops are thugs controlled by a petty dictator.
) (Iran, et al.
)

Which doesn't mean that I think anonymity is bad; I just think that you should learn a little bit about the law and about search warrants and about technology before you start your life of crime.
(True anonymity is necessary to defend freedom, even if it means a thousand Cletuses and Bubbas can use it, too.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360715</id>
	<title>Re:Why make it traceable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are analytics and there are intrusion detection reasons for keeping the logs. Having said that, I run daily backups. I do not actively try to avoid backing up that data. I may, for example, need to test a different algorithm against my collected data in the future. The historical records will help me do that. I do not have an enough information to identify someone immediately. With some work, however, you can start correlating infromation and make some reasonable guesses. I am not sure they could hold up in a court of law, however.</p><p>Example:<br>I trace to a particular computer in a house. That house is the primary residence for a family of four, consisting of a mother, father, and two teenage offspring (minors). The computer runs Windows and has no password. Did a parent post the comments or one of the teenagers? Beyond being different applications of the law because of the minors, that is solidly reasonable doubt. It also does not remove the fact that it may have been done by a friend who was at that house, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are analytics and there are intrusion detection reasons for keeping the logs .
Having said that , I run daily backups .
I do not actively try to avoid backing up that data .
I may , for example , need to test a different algorithm against my collected data in the future .
The historical records will help me do that .
I do not have an enough information to identify someone immediately .
With some work , however , you can start correlating infromation and make some reasonable guesses .
I am not sure they could hold up in a court of law , however.Example : I trace to a particular computer in a house .
That house is the primary residence for a family of four , consisting of a mother , father , and two teenage offspring ( minors ) .
The computer runs Windows and has no password .
Did a parent post the comments or one of the teenagers ?
Beyond being different applications of the law because of the minors , that is solidly reasonable doubt .
It also does not remove the fact that it may have been done by a friend who was at that house , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are analytics and there are intrusion detection reasons for keeping the logs.
Having said that, I run daily backups.
I do not actively try to avoid backing up that data.
I may, for example, need to test a different algorithm against my collected data in the future.
The historical records will help me do that.
I do not have an enough information to identify someone immediately.
With some work, however, you can start correlating infromation and make some reasonable guesses.
I am not sure they could hold up in a court of law, however.Example:I trace to a particular computer in a house.
That house is the primary residence for a family of four, consisting of a mother, father, and two teenage offspring (minors).
The computer runs Windows and has no password.
Did a parent post the comments or one of the teenagers?
Beyond being different applications of the law because of the minors, that is solidly reasonable doubt.
It also does not remove the fact that it may have been done by a friend who was at that house, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360379</id>
	<title>Cato &amp; Brutus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So does no one remember Cato and Brutus in American history?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does no one remember Cato and Brutus in American history ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does no one remember Cato and Brutus in American history?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362659</id>
	<title>Re:IRS is right on this one</title>
	<author>GNT</author>
	<datestamp>1245259320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..  it does.  It is never the general market that sets the price but the transaction involved.  It doesn't matter what the hypothetical resale value is only what it actually sold at -- houses are the prime example, cars ditto.  It's only in the topsy turvy world of the IRS that bullshit like what you said above has any meaning.</p><p>The IRS is fundamentally an illegal unconstitutional organization that should be disbanded as soon as possible.  Along with the FDA, DEA, BATF and OSHA for starters and we can work from there.</p><p>Twelve Visions Party -- here we come!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually .. it does .
It is never the general market that sets the price but the transaction involved .
It does n't matter what the hypothetical resale value is only what it actually sold at -- houses are the prime example , cars ditto .
It 's only in the topsy turvy world of the IRS that bullshit like what you said above has any meaning.The IRS is fundamentally an illegal unconstitutional organization that should be disbanded as soon as possible .
Along with the FDA , DEA , BATF and OSHA for starters and we can work from there.Twelve Visions Party -- here we come !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually ..  it does.
It is never the general market that sets the price but the transaction involved.
It doesn't matter what the hypothetical resale value is only what it actually sold at -- houses are the prime example, cars ditto.
It's only in the topsy turvy world of the IRS that bullshit like what you said above has any meaning.The IRS is fundamentally an illegal unconstitutional organization that should be disbanded as soon as possible.
Along with the FDA, DEA, BATF and OSHA for starters and we can work from there.Twelve Visions Party -- here we come!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364175</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA first</title>
	<author>GNT</author>
	<datestamp>1245266220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No -- it's the artificial premium they think that he is delivering to them when gold is valued in FRN's.  The REALITY is he is paying them the face value of what used to be proper (gold/silver) dollars.  This debate only exists because of the fake fiat money called the Federal Reserve Note with an alleged face value of dollar.  Never mind in real terms the dollar has fallen well over 90\% since the inception of the federal reserve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No -- it 's the artificial premium they think that he is delivering to them when gold is valued in FRN 's .
The REALITY is he is paying them the face value of what used to be proper ( gold/silver ) dollars .
This debate only exists because of the fake fiat money called the Federal Reserve Note with an alleged face value of dollar .
Never mind in real terms the dollar has fallen well over 90 \ % since the inception of the federal reserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No -- it's the artificial premium they think that he is delivering to them when gold is valued in FRN's.
The REALITY is he is paying them the face value of what used to be proper (gold/silver) dollars.
This debate only exists because of the fake fiat money called the Federal Reserve Note with an alleged face value of dollar.
Never mind in real terms the dollar has fallen well over 90\% since the inception of the federal reserve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363969</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245265140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal. Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Sometimes I decide not to buy something due to the tax. For example, a $5 product costs $5.41 with tax. I guess I'm guilty of tax avoidance too...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance , which is perfectly legal .
Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability .
Sometimes I decide not to buy something due to the tax .
For example , a $ 5 product costs $ 5.41 with tax .
I guess I 'm guilty of tax avoidance too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal.
Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability.
Sometimes I decide not to buy something due to the tax.
For example, a $5 product costs $5.41 with tax.
I guess I'm guilty of tax avoidance too...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360917</id>
	<title>FuUck!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Niigers everywhere a previously this p0st up. they are Come</htmltext>
<tokenext>Niigers everywhere a previously this p0st up .
they are Come</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Niigers everywhere a previously this p0st up.
they are Come</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360835</id>
	<title>Wrong!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245250020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they want to find you, they will;</p></div><p>Try that with someone posting trough an anonymizing non-logging proxy that self-destroys as soon as its surrounding force fields change even a bit.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P<br>(Ok, in reality someone switching it off, removing/addingg hardware or logging in (honeypot anyway), is enough. But even my little linux server here can do this.)</p><p>A classic case of lack of imagination.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they want to find you , they will ; Try that with someone posting trough an anonymizing non-logging proxy that self-destroys as soon as its surrounding force fields change even a bit .
: P ( Ok , in reality someone switching it off , removing/addingg hardware or logging in ( honeypot anyway ) , is enough .
But even my little linux server here can do this .
) A classic case of lack of imagination .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they want to find you, they will;Try that with someone posting trough an anonymizing non-logging proxy that self-destroys as soon as its surrounding force fields change even a bit.
:P(Ok, in reality someone switching it off, removing/addingg hardware or logging in (honeypot anyway), is enough.
But even my little linux server here can do this.
)A classic case of lack of imagination.
;)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361017</id>
	<title>I'll bite on this</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1245250980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since I previously worked in a company that's primary business was in running (and selling advertising on) web-forums, I suppose I'd be as qualified as anyone to answer this:</p><p>a) The default behaviour of the software is to record IP addresses. It's not like most companies are building their own, they're using something like vBulletin, IPB, or possibly PHPBB. I'm not even sure if this is a feature that could be disabled without a plugin/hack</p><p>b) Basic security is tied to IP. Just as does slashdot, so do other forums get their share of trolls. You actually don't see it a lot here, but penis-enlargement, pr0n, scams and spam are also fairly common. The IP address is your only semi-reliable link to a real person, in which case you can block certain IP's or netblocks that become an issue, track down users with multiple accounts. I do say semi-reliably as IPs can be routed through proxies etc, but many boards actually have RBL's for known proxies</p><p>c) Advertising, which for many boards is the chief (or only) source of revenue, often ties to IP address. Most programs collect statistics by IP, and also other fun stuff like geo-targetting, rotation (so you don't see the same ad a gazillion times in a row), etc</p><p>d) User related to locality can be fairly well-determined by IP. If you've got issues where all your users in the Eastern US connect slowly/poorly, or possibly where you have many users in Western Europe but they have a shit connection, then it may lead you to consider adding services (local server, cache, or whatever) in those areas.</p><p>e) The last thing I can think of off the top of my head is statistics, which are also very important to many web-boards to see where they're growing and where they need improvement.</p><p>And yes, these work fairly well for 95\% of the John-Doe users. Most people, even those who consider themselves clever, don't make much use of proxies or other such things to post secretly on boards, which allows the wheat to be filtered from the chaff fairly well based on IP. Until a better method comes along, it's probably the best way.</p><p>p.s. Don't use my own board as an example of something spam-proof. It's using different software than I used at work, gets very little time dedicated to it, and the spam-collection is actually something of interest while I try to come up with fun methods of dealing with the spammers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I previously worked in a company that 's primary business was in running ( and selling advertising on ) web-forums , I suppose I 'd be as qualified as anyone to answer this : a ) The default behaviour of the software is to record IP addresses .
It 's not like most companies are building their own , they 're using something like vBulletin , IPB , or possibly PHPBB .
I 'm not even sure if this is a feature that could be disabled without a plugin/hackb ) Basic security is tied to IP .
Just as does slashdot , so do other forums get their share of trolls .
You actually do n't see it a lot here , but penis-enlargement , pr0n , scams and spam are also fairly common .
The IP address is your only semi-reliable link to a real person , in which case you can block certain IP 's or netblocks that become an issue , track down users with multiple accounts .
I do say semi-reliably as IPs can be routed through proxies etc , but many boards actually have RBL 's for known proxiesc ) Advertising , which for many boards is the chief ( or only ) source of revenue , often ties to IP address .
Most programs collect statistics by IP , and also other fun stuff like geo-targetting , rotation ( so you do n't see the same ad a gazillion times in a row ) , etcd ) User related to locality can be fairly well-determined by IP .
If you 've got issues where all your users in the Eastern US connect slowly/poorly , or possibly where you have many users in Western Europe but they have a shit connection , then it may lead you to consider adding services ( local server , cache , or whatever ) in those areas.e ) The last thing I can think of off the top of my head is statistics , which are also very important to many web-boards to see where they 're growing and where they need improvement.And yes , these work fairly well for 95 \ % of the John-Doe users .
Most people , even those who consider themselves clever , do n't make much use of proxies or other such things to post secretly on boards , which allows the wheat to be filtered from the chaff fairly well based on IP .
Until a better method comes along , it 's probably the best way.p.s .
Do n't use my own board as an example of something spam-proof .
It 's using different software than I used at work , gets very little time dedicated to it , and the spam-collection is actually something of interest while I try to come up with fun methods of dealing with the spammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I previously worked in a company that's primary business was in running (and selling advertising on) web-forums, I suppose I'd be as qualified as anyone to answer this:a) The default behaviour of the software is to record IP addresses.
It's not like most companies are building their own, they're using something like vBulletin, IPB, or possibly PHPBB.
I'm not even sure if this is a feature that could be disabled without a plugin/hackb) Basic security is tied to IP.
Just as does slashdot, so do other forums get their share of trolls.
You actually don't see it a lot here, but penis-enlargement, pr0n, scams and spam are also fairly common.
The IP address is your only semi-reliable link to a real person, in which case you can block certain IP's or netblocks that become an issue, track down users with multiple accounts.
I do say semi-reliably as IPs can be routed through proxies etc, but many boards actually have RBL's for known proxiesc) Advertising, which for many boards is the chief (or only) source of revenue, often ties to IP address.
Most programs collect statistics by IP, and also other fun stuff like geo-targetting, rotation (so you don't see the same ad a gazillion times in a row), etcd) User related to locality can be fairly well-determined by IP.
If you've got issues where all your users in the Eastern US connect slowly/poorly, or possibly where you have many users in Western Europe but they have a shit connection, then it may lead you to consider adding services (local server, cache, or whatever) in those areas.e) The last thing I can think of off the top of my head is statistics, which are also very important to many web-boards to see where they're growing and where they need improvement.And yes, these work fairly well for 95\% of the John-Doe users.
Most people, even those who consider themselves clever, don't make much use of proxies or other such things to post secretly on boards, which allows the wheat to be filtered from the chaff fairly well based on IP.
Until a better method comes along, it's probably the best way.p.s.
Don't use my own board as an example of something spam-proof.
It's using different software than I used at work, gets very little time dedicated to it, and the spam-collection is actually something of interest while I try to come up with fun methods of dealing with the spammers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361097</id>
	<title>Re:Face Value vs Ore Value</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1245251460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?</p></div></blockquote><p>If you sold it to a collector for that $100, it most certainly would be.  I'm little fuzzier on what it would be if you hung on to it, but I think the answer is probably yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $ 100 to a collector... is that an extra $ 100 of Income ? If you sold it to a collector for that $ 100 , it most certainly would be .
I 'm little fuzzier on what it would be if you hung on to it , but I think the answer is probably yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?If you sold it to a collector for that $100, it most certainly would be.
I'm little fuzzier on what it would be if you hung on to it, but I think the answer is probably yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, he's clearly paying his employees based on the market value of the coins, not the face value.
</p><p>Imagine I paid my employees with one dollar bills signed by Jesus, Buddha, and Abe Lincoln. Clearly these would fetch a high price on the autograph market, significantly above $1 (yeah, I know, you're not supposed to mutilate currency). I think the IRS would be perfectly justified in treating these as having a worth above their face value, since any reasonable person would recognize that they are not just an ordinary dollar bill.
</p><p>
He's being prosecuted <b>not</b> for paying his employees in gold, which is perfectly fine (if dumb), but for lying about its value, which <b>is</b> against the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , he 's clearly paying his employees based on the market value of the coins , not the face value .
Imagine I paid my employees with one dollar bills signed by Jesus , Buddha , and Abe Lincoln .
Clearly these would fetch a high price on the autograph market , significantly above $ 1 ( yeah , I know , you 're not supposed to mutilate currency ) .
I think the IRS would be perfectly justified in treating these as having a worth above their face value , since any reasonable person would recognize that they are not just an ordinary dollar bill .
He 's being prosecuted not for paying his employees in gold , which is perfectly fine ( if dumb ) , but for lying about its value , which is against the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, he's clearly paying his employees based on the market value of the coins, not the face value.
Imagine I paid my employees with one dollar bills signed by Jesus, Buddha, and Abe Lincoln.
Clearly these would fetch a high price on the autograph market, significantly above $1 (yeah, I know, you're not supposed to mutilate currency).
I think the IRS would be perfectly justified in treating these as having a worth above their face value, since any reasonable person would recognize that they are not just an ordinary dollar bill.
He's being prosecuted not for paying his employees in gold, which is perfectly fine (if dumb), but for lying about its value, which is against the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360553</id>
	<title>Re:Face Value vs Ore Value</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1245248280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it, get a roll of pennies. Further suppose<br>
that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?</p></div><p>
If you go on and sell it for that price, it very probably is, yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it , get a roll of pennies .
Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $ 100 to a collector... is that an extra $ 100 of Income ?
If you go on and sell it for that price , it very probably is , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it, get a roll of pennies.
Further suppose
that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?
If you go on and sell it for that price, it very probably is, yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364703</id>
	<title>Re:Constitution</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245268740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read article I section 8, just about section 10? You know, where the Constitution grants Congress the power to issue money? Or do you fail to understand the difference between taking quotes out of context and, you know, actually reading and understanding what's in writing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read article I section 8 , just about section 10 ?
You know , where the Constitution grants Congress the power to issue money ?
Or do you fail to understand the difference between taking quotes out of context and , you know , actually reading and understanding what 's in writing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read article I section 8, just about section 10?
You know, where the Constitution grants Congress the power to issue money?
Or do you fail to understand the difference between taking quotes out of context and, you know, actually reading and understanding what's in writing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360429</id>
	<title>it's the nature of the web...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with the prosecution though, all these anonymous cowards should be sentenced to death by hanging....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the prosecution though , all these anonymous cowards should be sentenced to death by hanging... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the prosecution though, all these anonymous cowards should be sentenced to death by hanging....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360947</id>
	<title>Re:Threats</title>
	<author>Tanktalus</author>
	<datestamp>1245250560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Even if the law is a bad one and the cops are thugs controlled by a petty dictator.) (Iran, et al.)</p></div><p>Right up to that "Iran" bit, I thought you were talking about North America, and referring to union bosses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Even if the law is a bad one and the cops are thugs controlled by a petty dictator .
) ( Iran , et al .
) Right up to that " Iran " bit , I thought you were talking about North America , and referring to union bosses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Even if the law is a bad one and the cops are thugs controlled by a petty dictator.
) (Iran, et al.
)Right up to that "Iran" bit, I thought you were talking about North America, and referring to union bosses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360439</id>
	<title>Re:i'll be the first to say..</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245247500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  ACH == <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated\_Clearing\_House" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Automated Clearing House</a> [wikipedia.org], which is what most people would just call 'direct deposit'.  Furthermore, the big ideas should have been at the top of the summary, with the detail about the case down into the paragraphs.</p><p>I know this and I've never had one single journalism class, albeit I did take the required writing and composition classes in college.</p><p>Anyway, this just goes to show that for those that want true anonymity need to employ something that like that darknet technology in yesterday's articles.  (Go find it yourself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
ACH = = Automated Clearing House [ wikipedia.org ] , which is what most people would just call 'direct deposit' .
Furthermore , the big ideas should have been at the top of the summary , with the detail about the case down into the paragraphs.I know this and I 've never had one single journalism class , albeit I did take the required writing and composition classes in college.Anyway , this just goes to show that for those that want true anonymity need to employ something that like that darknet technology in yesterday 's articles .
( Go find it yourself ; ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
ACH == Automated Clearing House [wikipedia.org], which is what most people would just call 'direct deposit'.
Furthermore, the big ideas should have been at the top of the summary, with the detail about the case down into the paragraphs.I know this and I've never had one single journalism class, albeit I did take the required writing and composition classes in college.Anyway, this just goes to show that for those that want true anonymity need to employ something that like that darknet technology in yesterday's articles.
(Go find it yourself ;).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361221</id>
	<title>Re:Constitution</title>
	<author>conspirator57</author>
	<datestamp>1245252120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think it'd be great for a state to coin some silver and gold money.  might help keep the fed more honest.</p><p>and it'd lead to a legitimate constitutional challenge to the legal tender laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think it 'd be great for a state to coin some silver and gold money .
might help keep the fed more honest.and it 'd lead to a legitimate constitutional challenge to the legal tender laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think it'd be great for a state to coin some silver and gold money.
might help keep the fed more honest.and it'd lead to a legitimate constitutional challenge to the legal tender laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362749</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA first</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1245259680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The IRS is NOT prosecuting him for paying in Gold. The IRS doesn't care how you pay someone. Gold, Silver, mud, iron, hell in Nevada even Sex.</p></div></blockquote><p>Couple of problems here. How much is sex valued? Do we charge every act of sex with the same value? Would having sex with Cowboy Neal be worth more or less than sex with Milla Jovovich?</p><p>Did Bill Clinton have to pay for that blowjob he got from Monica as taxable income, and what is the fair market value of that blowjob?</p><p>IRS tax laws are stupid, arbitrary and capricious, and as such, should be deemed illegal.</p><p>I'm wondering why some industrious lawyer hasn't taken this kind of logic into court? I think I could have the jury in stitches, laughing so hard at how ridiculous the IRS is in all of the rules it has.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The IRS is NOT prosecuting him for paying in Gold .
The IRS does n't care how you pay someone .
Gold , Silver , mud , iron , hell in Nevada even Sex.Couple of problems here .
How much is sex valued ?
Do we charge every act of sex with the same value ?
Would having sex with Cowboy Neal be worth more or less than sex with Milla Jovovich ? Did Bill Clinton have to pay for that blowjob he got from Monica as taxable income , and what is the fair market value of that blowjob ? IRS tax laws are stupid , arbitrary and capricious , and as such , should be deemed illegal.I 'm wondering why some industrious lawyer has n't taken this kind of logic into court ?
I think I could have the jury in stitches , laughing so hard at how ridiculous the IRS is in all of the rules it has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IRS is NOT prosecuting him for paying in Gold.
The IRS doesn't care how you pay someone.
Gold, Silver, mud, iron, hell in Nevada even Sex.Couple of problems here.
How much is sex valued?
Do we charge every act of sex with the same value?
Would having sex with Cowboy Neal be worth more or less than sex with Milla Jovovich?Did Bill Clinton have to pay for that blowjob he got from Monica as taxable income, and what is the fair market value of that blowjob?IRS tax laws are stupid, arbitrary and capricious, and as such, should be deemed illegal.I'm wondering why some industrious lawyer hasn't taken this kind of logic into court?
I think I could have the jury in stitches, laughing so hard at how ridiculous the IRS is in all of the rules it has.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361191</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1245251940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>IF the government doesn't like it they need to change the law and outlaw the gold coins that they mint as legal tender.</i> </p><p>
Actually, they needed to <b>not</b> change the law. For a while, this would, indeed, be illegal, as private ownership of gold bullion was illegal. They not only changed the law, they started <b>making</b> gold coins again.</p><p>
And, indeed. I don't care what the IRS says. If the government prints $10 on a coin, and issues it, WRT the government it's worth ten dollars, period. If the government doesn't like that, it can stop issuing such coins.</p><p>
Incidentally, before anyone tries to lump me it with 'the government should not issue paper money' people, I think those people are crazy. However, there's a valid point that if the government is issuing something as money, it has to <b>treat</b> it as money.</p><p>
Incidentally, this guy probably committed a bunch of crimes. Not only is he in violation of min wage laws, but I bet his bookkeeping would be interesting, too. It's either lying and showing people were paid in full, or it's showing min wage violations. And it's showing some purchase by the company of expensive gold coins that just vanished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IF the government does n't like it they need to change the law and outlaw the gold coins that they mint as legal tender .
Actually , they needed to not change the law .
For a while , this would , indeed , be illegal , as private ownership of gold bullion was illegal .
They not only changed the law , they started making gold coins again .
And , indeed .
I do n't care what the IRS says .
If the government prints $ 10 on a coin , and issues it , WRT the government it 's worth ten dollars , period .
If the government does n't like that , it can stop issuing such coins .
Incidentally , before anyone tries to lump me it with 'the government should not issue paper money ' people , I think those people are crazy .
However , there 's a valid point that if the government is issuing something as money , it has to treat it as money .
Incidentally , this guy probably committed a bunch of crimes .
Not only is he in violation of min wage laws , but I bet his bookkeeping would be interesting , too .
It 's either lying and showing people were paid in full , or it 's showing min wage violations .
And it 's showing some purchase by the company of expensive gold coins that just vanished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> IF the government doesn't like it they need to change the law and outlaw the gold coins that they mint as legal tender.
Actually, they needed to not change the law.
For a while, this would, indeed, be illegal, as private ownership of gold bullion was illegal.
They not only changed the law, they started making gold coins again.
And, indeed.
I don't care what the IRS says.
If the government prints $10 on a coin, and issues it, WRT the government it's worth ten dollars, period.
If the government doesn't like that, it can stop issuing such coins.
Incidentally, before anyone tries to lump me it with 'the government should not issue paper money' people, I think those people are crazy.
However, there's a valid point that if the government is issuing something as money, it has to treat it as money.
Incidentally, this guy probably committed a bunch of crimes.
Not only is he in violation of min wage laws, but I bet his bookkeeping would be interesting, too.
It's either lying and showing people were paid in full, or it's showing min wage violations.
And it's showing some purchase by the company of expensive gold coins that just vanished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361269</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA first</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1245252300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right.  Unless he had a huge cache of old coins, he was buying the coins at over face value, paying them to employees, then reporting and withholding based on face value.  That's tax fraud.
<br> <br>
If an old guy had a kid mow his lawn for $20, then paid the kid in a $20 gold piece, the kid would only have to report $20 of income until he sold the coin, then report the difference as income.

If the kid uses the coin to buy $20 worth of merchandise, he's ok, it's up the the next guy to sell the coin at a profit and claim the income.
<br>

If an employer routinely tried to use this to game the system, it's fraud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Unless he had a huge cache of old coins , he was buying the coins at over face value , paying them to employees , then reporting and withholding based on face value .
That 's tax fraud .
If an old guy had a kid mow his lawn for $ 20 , then paid the kid in a $ 20 gold piece , the kid would only have to report $ 20 of income until he sold the coin , then report the difference as income .
If the kid uses the coin to buy $ 20 worth of merchandise , he 's ok , it 's up the the next guy to sell the coin at a profit and claim the income .
If an employer routinely tried to use this to game the system , it 's fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Unless he had a huge cache of old coins, he was buying the coins at over face value, paying them to employees, then reporting and withholding based on face value.
That's tax fraud.
If an old guy had a kid mow his lawn for $20, then paid the kid in a $20 gold piece, the kid would only have to report $20 of income until he sold the coin, then report the difference as income.
If the kid uses the coin to buy $20 worth of merchandise, he's ok, it's up the the next guy to sell the coin at a profit and claim the income.
If an employer routinely tried to use this to game the system, it's fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361605</id>
	<title>Re:anonymity is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On my blog I allow anonymous comments and I wrote "(optional)" next to the email and WWW fields on the comment submit form. I get TONS more spam because of this, but that's a service I feel is essential to my readers and integral to the fabric of the web.</p></div><p>Which, in turn, means you get fewer new readers to your blog because they don't want to wade through mountains of spam to get to the one or two comments that mean something, and they similarly don't want their comments lost in the landfill of junk posts you get.</p><p>To be perfectly frank, I care about the readers of my website (not linking it because, well, this isn't meant to be an advertisement) enough to not have to force them to sift through tons of spam to get to actual content.  What you're doing is appeasing the paranoid (who, on the whole, also have a superiority complex and don't really want to add anything to the conversations of you lesser mortals) at the cost of actual readers and conversation.  Remind me not to visit your blog.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On my blog I allow anonymous comments and I wrote " ( optional ) " next to the email and WWW fields on the comment submit form .
I get TONS more spam because of this , but that 's a service I feel is essential to my readers and integral to the fabric of the web.Which , in turn , means you get fewer new readers to your blog because they do n't want to wade through mountains of spam to get to the one or two comments that mean something , and they similarly do n't want their comments lost in the landfill of junk posts you get.To be perfectly frank , I care about the readers of my website ( not linking it because , well , this is n't meant to be an advertisement ) enough to not have to force them to sift through tons of spam to get to actual content .
What you 're doing is appeasing the paranoid ( who , on the whole , also have a superiority complex and do n't really want to add anything to the conversations of you lesser mortals ) at the cost of actual readers and conversation .
Remind me not to visit your blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my blog I allow anonymous comments and I wrote "(optional)" next to the email and WWW fields on the comment submit form.
I get TONS more spam because of this, but that's a service I feel is essential to my readers and integral to the fabric of the web.Which, in turn, means you get fewer new readers to your blog because they don't want to wade through mountains of spam to get to the one or two comments that mean something, and they similarly don't want their comments lost in the landfill of junk posts you get.To be perfectly frank, I care about the readers of my website (not linking it because, well, this isn't meant to be an advertisement) enough to not have to force them to sift through tons of spam to get to actual content.
What you're doing is appeasing the paranoid (who, on the whole, also have a superiority complex and don't really want to add anything to the conversations of you lesser mortals) at the cost of actual readers and conversation.
Remind me not to visit your blog.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360595</id>
	<title>How anonymous is slashdot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245248580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the logs aren't there, the subpoena doesn't hurt anything.  So I ask what sort of logs does slashdot keep that could conceivably be used to track down an AC?  Be imaginative in your answers (e.g. someone could try matching the HTTP access logs against the time the comment was posted(*)).  Think like a smart technical cop who really wants to figure this out.</p><p>(*) There are probably too many accesses in a single minute to determine that reliably, but it may give you a candidate list that you could then correlate with other data.  Like I said, be imaginative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the logs are n't there , the subpoena does n't hurt anything .
So I ask what sort of logs does slashdot keep that could conceivably be used to track down an AC ?
Be imaginative in your answers ( e.g .
someone could try matching the HTTP access logs against the time the comment was posted ( * ) ) .
Think like a smart technical cop who really wants to figure this out .
( * ) There are probably too many accesses in a single minute to determine that reliably , but it may give you a candidate list that you could then correlate with other data .
Like I said , be imaginative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the logs aren't there, the subpoena doesn't hurt anything.
So I ask what sort of logs does slashdot keep that could conceivably be used to track down an AC?
Be imaginative in your answers (e.g.
someone could try matching the HTTP access logs against the time the comment was posted(*)).
Think like a smart technical cop who really wants to figure this out.
(*) There are probably too many accesses in a single minute to determine that reliably, but it may give you a candidate list that you could then correlate with other data.
Like I said, be imaginative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361983</id>
	<title>Re:Threats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245255960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal</p><p>Under federal criminal statutes?  Really?  Even when there is no reasonable apprehension of the threat being carried out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Threatening people with bodily harm is illegalUnder federal criminal statutes ?
Really ? Even when there is no reasonable apprehension of the threat being carried out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Threatening people with bodily harm is illegalUnder federal criminal statutes?
Really?  Even when there is no reasonable apprehension of the threat being carried out?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364301</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question</title>
	<author>JRHelgeson</author>
	<datestamp>1245267060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah? I keeeel you!!!</p><p>Oh, crap, I forgot to click the Anonymous Coward Box...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah ?
I keeeel you ! !
! Oh , crap , I forgot to click the Anonymous Coward Box.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah?
I keeeel you!!
!Oh, crap, I forgot to click the Anonymous Coward Box...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360965</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much did he pay for the "$50" coins?  That's the approximate value the employees were receiving as renumeration.  If the employer got them for $50 from the government, that's fine.  That's what was being paid out.  But from checking around, these are 1 ounce of gold and the coins currently go for about $900-$1000 (and the price hasn't been below $500 in years).  That was the value being handed over to the employees, not the stamped-on "$50".  Handing over something worth about 20x "face value" and then claiming employees could do their taxes with the face value as their "income" is a creative bit of tax "avoidance" indeed, but all the employer did was transform 20x the money into something <i>labeled</i> much lower.  Everybody knows the value is far more, employee included.  As you say, if it really was worth only that much, the employee was being underpaid and the employer is in trouble for other reasons.</p><p>From the original article: "It's whether he believed what he did was legal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... on how to value post-1985 gold or silver coins"</p><p>I mean, who in the hell would honestly believe the coins were worth 20x less if the guy had <i>just paid $900-1000 to buy them</i> on the open market?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much did he pay for the " $ 50 " coins ?
That 's the approximate value the employees were receiving as renumeration .
If the employer got them for $ 50 from the government , that 's fine .
That 's what was being paid out .
But from checking around , these are 1 ounce of gold and the coins currently go for about $ 900- $ 1000 ( and the price has n't been below $ 500 in years ) .
That was the value being handed over to the employees , not the stamped-on " $ 50 " .
Handing over something worth about 20x " face value " and then claiming employees could do their taxes with the face value as their " income " is a creative bit of tax " avoidance " indeed , but all the employer did was transform 20x the money into something labeled much lower .
Everybody knows the value is far more , employee included .
As you say , if it really was worth only that much , the employee was being underpaid and the employer is in trouble for other reasons.From the original article : " It 's whether he believed what he did was legal ... on how to value post-1985 gold or silver coins " I mean , who in the hell would honestly believe the coins were worth 20x less if the guy had just paid $ 900-1000 to buy them on the open market ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much did he pay for the "$50" coins?
That's the approximate value the employees were receiving as renumeration.
If the employer got them for $50 from the government, that's fine.
That's what was being paid out.
But from checking around, these are 1 ounce of gold and the coins currently go for about $900-$1000 (and the price hasn't been below $500 in years).
That was the value being handed over to the employees, not the stamped-on "$50".
Handing over something worth about 20x "face value" and then claiming employees could do their taxes with the face value as their "income" is a creative bit of tax "avoidance" indeed, but all the employer did was transform 20x the money into something labeled much lower.
Everybody knows the value is far more, employee included.
As you say, if it really was worth only that much, the employee was being underpaid and the employer is in trouble for other reasons.From the original article: "It's whether he believed what he did was legal ... on how to value post-1985 gold or silver coins"I mean, who in the hell would honestly believe the coins were worth 20x less if the guy had just paid $900-1000 to buy them on the open market?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360611</id>
	<title>The american tax system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245248640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a European this all seems pretty strange. Are you, as a citizen in the USA, responsible for paying the income tax yourself?</p><p>If you earn $2000/mo, do you actually receive $2000/mo in your hand or via some payslip/cheque system?</p><p>Does this mean you can choose to keep it all if you feel like breaking the law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a European this all seems pretty strange .
Are you , as a citizen in the USA , responsible for paying the income tax yourself ? If you earn $ 2000/mo , do you actually receive $ 2000/mo in your hand or via some payslip/cheque system ? Does this mean you can choose to keep it all if you feel like breaking the law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a European this all seems pretty strange.
Are you, as a citizen in the USA, responsible for paying the income tax yourself?If you earn $2000/mo, do you actually receive $2000/mo in your hand or via some payslip/cheque system?Does this mean you can choose to keep it all if you feel like breaking the law?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362065</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1245256380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal. Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>........ If I ever make the kind of money where it makes sense to do so, you bet your ass I would hire a tax lawyer and take advantage of the law to the my benefit.</p></div><p>It's not that complicated, or expensive, dude.  For example, you pay a higher cap gains tax rate on assets owned more than a year (long term rate vs short term rate).  So, given the choice of selling stock after owning it 364 days or after 367 days, I'd wait the three days.</p><p>Another way is to offset cap gains with realized cap losses.  Lets say you're retired and some investments made money, some lost.  Well, when you cash in the winners, make sure to cash in the correct ratio of losers, so as to have a net cap gain of zero, thus no tax need be paid.  Worst case would be to sell all the winners and pay a nice high tax, and next year sell all the losers and have an immense capital loss that exceeds your ability to apply to your taxes.</p><p>If you can itemize, you don't have to pay income tax on money paid to the bank as mortgage interest (paying down principle has no effect, beyond obviously paying less interest next year).  So, if you own a home and itemize (Schedule A) you are pretty much by definition a "tax avoider" since you could pay taxes on your mortgage interest merely by not itemizing Schedule A.</p><p>Also any time you decline to participate in commerce because the taxes would eliminate the profit, you are a "tax avoider".  So, if you have the option to buy property, and its all profitable until you add in the high property taxes, so you don't buy the property, you are a "tax avoider".  Same with not smoking, not drinking, not buying much gasoline.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance , which is perfectly legal .
Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability .
........ If I ever make the kind of money where it makes sense to do so , you bet your ass I would hire a tax lawyer and take advantage of the law to the my benefit.It 's not that complicated , or expensive , dude .
For example , you pay a higher cap gains tax rate on assets owned more than a year ( long term rate vs short term rate ) .
So , given the choice of selling stock after owning it 364 days or after 367 days , I 'd wait the three days.Another way is to offset cap gains with realized cap losses .
Lets say you 're retired and some investments made money , some lost .
Well , when you cash in the winners , make sure to cash in the correct ratio of losers , so as to have a net cap gain of zero , thus no tax need be paid .
Worst case would be to sell all the winners and pay a nice high tax , and next year sell all the losers and have an immense capital loss that exceeds your ability to apply to your taxes.If you can itemize , you do n't have to pay income tax on money paid to the bank as mortgage interest ( paying down principle has no effect , beyond obviously paying less interest next year ) .
So , if you own a home and itemize ( Schedule A ) you are pretty much by definition a " tax avoider " since you could pay taxes on your mortgage interest merely by not itemizing Schedule A.Also any time you decline to participate in commerce because the taxes would eliminate the profit , you are a " tax avoider " .
So , if you have the option to buy property , and its all profitable until you add in the high property taxes , so you do n't buy the property , you are a " tax avoider " .
Same with not smoking , not drinking , not buying much gasoline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal.
Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability.
........ If I ever make the kind of money where it makes sense to do so, you bet your ass I would hire a tax lawyer and take advantage of the law to the my benefit.It's not that complicated, or expensive, dude.
For example, you pay a higher cap gains tax rate on assets owned more than a year (long term rate vs short term rate).
So, given the choice of selling stock after owning it 364 days or after 367 days, I'd wait the three days.Another way is to offset cap gains with realized cap losses.
Lets say you're retired and some investments made money, some lost.
Well, when you cash in the winners, make sure to cash in the correct ratio of losers, so as to have a net cap gain of zero, thus no tax need be paid.
Worst case would be to sell all the winners and pay a nice high tax, and next year sell all the losers and have an immense capital loss that exceeds your ability to apply to your taxes.If you can itemize, you don't have to pay income tax on money paid to the bank as mortgage interest (paying down principle has no effect, beyond obviously paying less interest next year).
So, if you own a home and itemize (Schedule A) you are pretty much by definition a "tax avoider" since you could pay taxes on your mortgage interest merely by not itemizing Schedule A.Also any time you decline to participate in commerce because the taxes would eliminate the profit, you are a "tax avoider".
So, if you have the option to buy property, and its all profitable until you add in the high property taxes, so you don't buy the property, you are a "tax avoider".
Same with not smoking, not drinking, not buying much gasoline.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443</id>
	<title>anonymity is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that in the (implied, non-existant) Internet charter of rights anonymity is a basic human right.  I believe in opt-in, not opt-out.  A webmaster has a sacred trust that he will guard his users' IP addresses and only leverage them for internal use, if at all.  Besides, that IP address could have been used by the subscriber, a child, a wardriver, a cheapskate nextdoor neighbour, or an entirely different household if the ISP made a mistake in their logs.</p><p>On my blog I allow anonymous comments and I wrote "(optional)" next to the email and WWW fields on the comment submit form.  I get TONS more spam because of this, but that's a service I feel is essential to my readers and integral to the fabric of the web.</p><p>If the government fears how people react to facts then maybe they should outlaw news media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that in the ( implied , non-existant ) Internet charter of rights anonymity is a basic human right .
I believe in opt-in , not opt-out .
A webmaster has a sacred trust that he will guard his users ' IP addresses and only leverage them for internal use , if at all .
Besides , that IP address could have been used by the subscriber , a child , a wardriver , a cheapskate nextdoor neighbour , or an entirely different household if the ISP made a mistake in their logs.On my blog I allow anonymous comments and I wrote " ( optional ) " next to the email and WWW fields on the comment submit form .
I get TONS more spam because of this , but that 's a service I feel is essential to my readers and integral to the fabric of the web.If the government fears how people react to facts then maybe they should outlaw news media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that in the (implied, non-existant) Internet charter of rights anonymity is a basic human right.
I believe in opt-in, not opt-out.
A webmaster has a sacred trust that he will guard his users' IP addresses and only leverage them for internal use, if at all.
Besides, that IP address could have been used by the subscriber, a child, a wardriver, a cheapskate nextdoor neighbour, or an entirely different household if the ISP made a mistake in their logs.On my blog I allow anonymous comments and I wrote "(optional)" next to the email and WWW fields on the comment submit form.
I get TONS more spam because of this, but that's a service I feel is essential to my readers and integral to the fabric of the web.If the government fears how people react to facts then maybe they should outlaw news media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361089</id>
	<title>Re:Basic human right???????</title>
	<author>stonewallred</author>
	<datestamp>1245251460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about demonstrable harm? Where is the harm in the anonymous threats? Who is injured? How are they injured? How could the court system make the threatened whole again? If there is no harm, and no way for the threatened to be made whole (since they suffered no demonstrable harm) then it should not be a crime. I am all for people taking personal responsibility for their action, up to including my non-support for public schools, fire departments and other wasteful spending. Government should be composed of police, courts and military and diplomatic corps. Everything else should be privately supported by those who desire the service or goods. Yes I am a Libertarian, with the exception that I believe the border should be sealed tighter than Fort Knox in regards to illegal crossings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about demonstrable harm ?
Where is the harm in the anonymous threats ?
Who is injured ?
How are they injured ?
How could the court system make the threatened whole again ?
If there is no harm , and no way for the threatened to be made whole ( since they suffered no demonstrable harm ) then it should not be a crime .
I am all for people taking personal responsibility for their action , up to including my non-support for public schools , fire departments and other wasteful spending .
Government should be composed of police , courts and military and diplomatic corps .
Everything else should be privately supported by those who desire the service or goods .
Yes I am a Libertarian , with the exception that I believe the border should be sealed tighter than Fort Knox in regards to illegal crossings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about demonstrable harm?
Where is the harm in the anonymous threats?
Who is injured?
How are they injured?
How could the court system make the threatened whole again?
If there is no harm, and no way for the threatened to be made whole (since they suffered no demonstrable harm) then it should not be a crime.
I am all for people taking personal responsibility for their action, up to including my non-support for public schools, fire departments and other wasteful spending.
Government should be composed of police, courts and military and diplomatic corps.
Everything else should be privately supported by those who desire the service or goods.
Yes I am a Libertarian, with the exception that I believe the border should be sealed tighter than Fort Knox in regards to illegal crossings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360635</id>
	<title>Re:Face Value vs Ore Value</title>
	<author>algerath</author>
	<datestamp>1245248820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you sell it for $100 yes, you should pay taxes on $100<br> <br>

I think your argument would only work if the people getting paid were actually spending the gold coins at face value, which would be incredibly stupid.<br> <br>

It is really no different than if the boss pays you in merchandise which you then sell, you can't then claim he never paid you with money so you owe no taxes, well I guess you can claim that but it won't work</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you sell it for $ 100 yes , you should pay taxes on $ 100 I think your argument would only work if the people getting paid were actually spending the gold coins at face value , which would be incredibly stupid .
It is really no different than if the boss pays you in merchandise which you then sell , you ca n't then claim he never paid you with money so you owe no taxes , well I guess you can claim that but it wo n't work</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you sell it for $100 yes, you should pay taxes on $100 

I think your argument would only work if the people getting paid were actually spending the gold coins at face value, which would be incredibly stupid.
It is really no different than if the boss pays you in merchandise which you then sell, you can't then claim he never paid you with money so you owe no taxes, well I guess you can claim that but it won't work</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362327</id>
	<title>Re:Threats</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1245257700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is also the right of the defendant to reject illegitimate requests for unrelated information.</p><p>Names of 2 or 3 posters who made veiled threats could be considered legitimate.</p><p>Names of all posters on the board, regardless of the content of their post, is not legitimate.  It's like subpoenaing the tax records of an entire neighborhood because one person is engaged in tax evasion.  It does not make sense, and the prosecutor does not have a right to request that information.</p><p>This is all related to the First Amendment, philosophicaly if not literally.  Newspapers have a long history with the First Amendment, and they tend to fight anything even remotely related to it, because it is their protective shield.</p><p>So they are fighting this, and apparently have gotten the prosecution to back the request down to two posters instead of the entire list, if what other slashdotter's say is true.  That is much more reasonable, but may still be worth fighting for the newspaper.  They've gotten anonymous sources pretty well protected (though not completely).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also the right of the defendant to reject illegitimate requests for unrelated information.Names of 2 or 3 posters who made veiled threats could be considered legitimate.Names of all posters on the board , regardless of the content of their post , is not legitimate .
It 's like subpoenaing the tax records of an entire neighborhood because one person is engaged in tax evasion .
It does not make sense , and the prosecutor does not have a right to request that information.This is all related to the First Amendment , philosophicaly if not literally .
Newspapers have a long history with the First Amendment , and they tend to fight anything even remotely related to it , because it is their protective shield.So they are fighting this , and apparently have gotten the prosecution to back the request down to two posters instead of the entire list , if what other slashdotter 's say is true .
That is much more reasonable , but may still be worth fighting for the newspaper .
They 've gotten anonymous sources pretty well protected ( though not completely ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also the right of the defendant to reject illegitimate requests for unrelated information.Names of 2 or 3 posters who made veiled threats could be considered legitimate.Names of all posters on the board, regardless of the content of their post, is not legitimate.
It's like subpoenaing the tax records of an entire neighborhood because one person is engaged in tax evasion.
It does not make sense, and the prosecutor does not have a right to request that information.This is all related to the First Amendment, philosophicaly if not literally.
Newspapers have a long history with the First Amendment, and they tend to fight anything even remotely related to it, because it is their protective shield.So they are fighting this, and apparently have gotten the prosecution to back the request down to two posters instead of the entire list, if what other slashdotter's say is true.
That is much more reasonable, but may still be worth fighting for the newspaper.
They've gotten anonymous sources pretty well protected (though not completely).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28373175</id>
	<title>Re:Face Value vs Ore Value</title>
	<author>jonatha</author>
	<datestamp>1245336540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not an appropriate model.

You should be asking "if my employer pays me in pennies and one of those pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is that an extra $100 of income?"

The tax law is fairly clear - yes, it is an extra $100 of income, whether you sell it or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not an appropriate model .
You should be asking " if my employer pays me in pennies and one of those pennies has some rare quality making it worth $ 100 to a collector ... is that an extra $ 100 of income ?
" The tax law is fairly clear - yes , it is an extra $ 100 of income , whether you sell it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not an appropriate model.
You should be asking "if my employer pays me in pennies and one of those pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector ... is that an extra $100 of income?
"

The tax law is fairly clear - yes, it is an extra $100 of income, whether you sell it or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360361</id>
	<title>And so..</title>
	<author>GeorgeStone22</author>
	<datestamp>1245247140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I TROEL U</htmltext>
<tokenext>I TROEL U</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I TROEL U</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360759</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1245249600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be true if we were all a bunch of mindless zombies and the law was a completely clear and undebatable codex that needed no real-world interpretation. In the REAL world common sense can, does, and should play a role in the law and its interpretation. This sort of "letter of the law" mentality is what leads to stupid shit like kids getting expelled from school for bringing plastic knives in with their lunch (because TECHNICALLY they did indeed "bring a knife to school"). What it comes down to this case isn't "Was he technically following the exact letter of the law?" It comes down to "Would a jury of reasonable peers conclude that this man was willfully engaging in tax evasion?" And I think it's clear that the answer to the latter question is, in the mind of anything resembling a reasonable human being, a resounding "Yes."</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be true if we were all a bunch of mindless zombies and the law was a completely clear and undebatable codex that needed no real-world interpretation .
In the REAL world common sense can , does , and should play a role in the law and its interpretation .
This sort of " letter of the law " mentality is what leads to stupid shit like kids getting expelled from school for bringing plastic knives in with their lunch ( because TECHNICALLY they did indeed " bring a knife to school " ) .
What it comes down to this case is n't " Was he technically following the exact letter of the law ?
" It comes down to " Would a jury of reasonable peers conclude that this man was willfully engaging in tax evasion ?
" And I think it 's clear that the answer to the latter question is , in the mind of anything resembling a reasonable human being , a resounding " Yes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be true if we were all a bunch of mindless zombies and the law was a completely clear and undebatable codex that needed no real-world interpretation.
In the REAL world common sense can, does, and should play a role in the law and its interpretation.
This sort of "letter of the law" mentality is what leads to stupid shit like kids getting expelled from school for bringing plastic knives in with their lunch (because TECHNICALLY they did indeed "bring a knife to school").
What it comes down to this case isn't "Was he technically following the exact letter of the law?
" It comes down to "Would a jury of reasonable peers conclude that this man was willfully engaging in tax evasion?
" And I think it's clear that the answer to the latter question is, in the mind of anything resembling a reasonable human being, a resounding "Yes.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362763</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1245259740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine I paid my employees with one dollar bills signed by Jesus, Buddha, and Abe Lincoln.</p></div><p>Then they're receiving two forms of compensation: legal tender with $1 printed on it, and a signature worth some unspecified large amount.</p><p>This guy was just paying them in legal tender with $50 stamped on. It's the government's own stupid fault that they're putting face values on legal tender that's intrinsically worth far more than the amount they stamp onto it.</p><p>Hypothetical scenario: we know that copper pennies (the older ones, before they contained mostly zinc) are worth more, by the copper they contain, than their 1 cent face value. Since it's illegal to melt them down, nobody values them for their metal content; but let's disregard that...</p><p>Suppose in our hypothetical scenario that I know of a plot to overthrow the U.S. government, and thus melting down pennies will be no longer illegal. (Or, suppose my employees are going to break federal law by melting them down anyway.)</p><p>So, if I pay my employees in copper pennies, knowing full well that their value (to my employees) is greater than their face value, what is the taxable value?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine I paid my employees with one dollar bills signed by Jesus , Buddha , and Abe Lincoln.Then they 're receiving two forms of compensation : legal tender with $ 1 printed on it , and a signature worth some unspecified large amount.This guy was just paying them in legal tender with $ 50 stamped on .
It 's the government 's own stupid fault that they 're putting face values on legal tender that 's intrinsically worth far more than the amount they stamp onto it.Hypothetical scenario : we know that copper pennies ( the older ones , before they contained mostly zinc ) are worth more , by the copper they contain , than their 1 cent face value .
Since it 's illegal to melt them down , nobody values them for their metal content ; but let 's disregard that...Suppose in our hypothetical scenario that I know of a plot to overthrow the U.S. government , and thus melting down pennies will be no longer illegal .
( Or , suppose my employees are going to break federal law by melting them down anyway .
) So , if I pay my employees in copper pennies , knowing full well that their value ( to my employees ) is greater than their face value , what is the taxable value ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine I paid my employees with one dollar bills signed by Jesus, Buddha, and Abe Lincoln.Then they're receiving two forms of compensation: legal tender with $1 printed on it, and a signature worth some unspecified large amount.This guy was just paying them in legal tender with $50 stamped on.
It's the government's own stupid fault that they're putting face values on legal tender that's intrinsically worth far more than the amount they stamp onto it.Hypothetical scenario: we know that copper pennies (the older ones, before they contained mostly zinc) are worth more, by the copper they contain, than their 1 cent face value.
Since it's illegal to melt them down, nobody values them for their metal content; but let's disregard that...Suppose in our hypothetical scenario that I know of a plot to overthrow the U.S. government, and thus melting down pennies will be no longer illegal.
(Or, suppose my employees are going to break federal law by melting them down anyway.
)So, if I pay my employees in copper pennies, knowing full well that their value (to my employees) is greater than their face value, what is the taxable value?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361227</id>
	<title>Re:Threats</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1245252120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA.
</p><p>The feds are going after <i>everyone</i> who posted anonymously, not just anonymous posters who made comments that might be threatening (or might only be juvenile hyperbole).

</p><p>A much more targeted subpoena could have been easily drafted, demanding information on only on a list of the anonymous posts that could be construed in some way as threatening. That was not done; the subpoena is not properly focused. The only obvious reason for constructing the subpoena this way is to use it as a threat to silent public discussions that the prosecution does not like.

</p><p>In addition, those that did actually RTFA know that the subpoena is demanding data that is technically absurd and would require the newspaper to do the investigative work of law enforcement: in addition to names and IP addresses of all the anonymous posters, the subpoena calls for their street address, age, and gender.

</p><p>The subpoena was initiated at least in part by the prosecutor in the tax evasion case, and on its face it looks like an attempt by that prosecutor to use the Grand Jury system to manipulate public expressions that could affect his political aspirations. That is definitely in violation of professional ethics, and almost certainly in violation of the prosecutor's legally binding limitations as an officer of the Court.

</p><p>I'm glad to see the ACLU is proactively involving itself in this. And I would hope the Federal Justice Department is taking a look at whether its employee is mishandling his responsibilities. This looks like a Damm mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
The feds are going after everyone who posted anonymously , not just anonymous posters who made comments that might be threatening ( or might only be juvenile hyperbole ) .
A much more targeted subpoena could have been easily drafted , demanding information on only on a list of the anonymous posts that could be construed in some way as threatening .
That was not done ; the subpoena is not properly focused .
The only obvious reason for constructing the subpoena this way is to use it as a threat to silent public discussions that the prosecution does not like .
In addition , those that did actually RTFA know that the subpoena is demanding data that is technically absurd and would require the newspaper to do the investigative work of law enforcement : in addition to names and IP addresses of all the anonymous posters , the subpoena calls for their street address , age , and gender .
The subpoena was initiated at least in part by the prosecutor in the tax evasion case , and on its face it looks like an attempt by that prosecutor to use the Grand Jury system to manipulate public expressions that could affect his political aspirations .
That is definitely in violation of professional ethics , and almost certainly in violation of the prosecutor 's legally binding limitations as an officer of the Court .
I 'm glad to see the ACLU is proactively involving itself in this .
And I would hope the Federal Justice Department is taking a look at whether its employee is mishandling his responsibilities .
This looks like a Damm mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
The feds are going after everyone who posted anonymously, not just anonymous posters who made comments that might be threatening (or might only be juvenile hyperbole).
A much more targeted subpoena could have been easily drafted, demanding information on only on a list of the anonymous posts that could be construed in some way as threatening.
That was not done; the subpoena is not properly focused.
The only obvious reason for constructing the subpoena this way is to use it as a threat to silent public discussions that the prosecution does not like.
In addition, those that did actually RTFA know that the subpoena is demanding data that is technically absurd and would require the newspaper to do the investigative work of law enforcement: in addition to names and IP addresses of all the anonymous posters, the subpoena calls for their street address, age, and gender.
The subpoena was initiated at least in part by the prosecutor in the tax evasion case, and on its face it looks like an attempt by that prosecutor to use the Grand Jury system to manipulate public expressions that could affect his political aspirations.
That is definitely in violation of professional ethics, and almost certainly in violation of the prosecutor's legally binding limitations as an officer of the Court.
I'm glad to see the ACLU is proactively involving itself in this.
And I would hope the Federal Justice Department is taking a look at whether its employee is mishandling his responsibilities.
This looks like a Damm mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361633</id>
	<title>Different Laws</title>
	<author>ratboy666</author>
	<datestamp>1245254280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The value of a US Gold Coin is, to the government, precisely what was marked on that coin. Since it is not legal for citizens to physically destroy that coin, rendering it into bullion, its value remains that.</p><p>Now, you could sell that coin elsewhere (I am sure that the coins can be converted to bullion in other countries), and thus achieve a profit, but that is dealt with by other provisions.</p><p>The ONLY danger in the US itself is paying in such currency is a severe de-valuing of paper currency. Given that an ounce of gold runs $900 or so in paper currency, 10 to 20 coins will pay for a car! That values the car at $500 to $1000, and not $9000 to $18000. An order of magnitude.</p><p>The taxes from this transaction are now severely limited - a mere tenth of what they were. Think of it - two different prices, depending on what currency is used. This is not unusual, pricing is set according to currency value by all international companies.</p><p>The error made by the US was to fix a face value on the American Eagle. The Krugerrand, directly comparable, has no such face value. Its value is the value of 1oz of gold bullion. That same car also costs 10 to 20 coins. But, there is no disparity between face value and "paper value".</p><p>Introducing the face value means that a section of the economy could choose to "live in the past" and simply accept that valuation. Which is why the government attacks -- people just "shouldn't" be doing that sort of thing. It's almost as if, you know, the government could be held to task for the valuation!</p><p>Let's use a "J. Random" quote we find on the Internet (actually from a user aikitrader, but who really cares?):</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "OK...take Americans for instance....we know with reasonable certainty that a 1 oz Gold American Eagle contains one ounce of Gold. Now if I were trading a car for Gold and my car is worth $1120...I would ask for 2 Gold Eagles in return today. How many $20 Swiss Francs would I ask for? I am not sure of the Gold content in the $20 Swiss Franc? So I don't want to trade my car for a Swiss Franc because I am not sure of it's value. I am not familiar with it."</p><p>We can plainly see that aikitrader is converting paper US currency, gold content, and Swiss currency. As we also note, all of these have a marked face values. aikitrader will use face value for paper, and for swiss currency. But for American Eagle coins contemplates the transaction in terms of NUMBER OF COINS, and not really face value. What is the price of the car? Simple enough, it is $1120 in paper, two American Eagle coins, or the equivalent in face conversion in Swiss Francs. What is the face value (US government valuation) of the American Eagles? $100. As long as aikitrader is NOT destroying the coin, she can value it as she chooses, and the government values it at $50.</p><p>A tax issue? I think not. And, if you (presuming you live in the US) think it IS, I would recommend another revolution. Simply because you can't trust your government anymore. The issue shouldn't even come up -- even if the government wanted to control it, there are much better remedies than tax law. Simply buy up the damn coins. The government issued, they should be able to de-issue. It's done all the time with other currency.</p><p>I can give a clue to the US Government here - stop minting the damn things! Face value of $50 and initial sale of $1000 paper, with a continued valuation of $800 or so... the government is really screwing with your heads.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The value of a US Gold Coin is , to the government , precisely what was marked on that coin .
Since it is not legal for citizens to physically destroy that coin , rendering it into bullion , its value remains that.Now , you could sell that coin elsewhere ( I am sure that the coins can be converted to bullion in other countries ) , and thus achieve a profit , but that is dealt with by other provisions.The ONLY danger in the US itself is paying in such currency is a severe de-valuing of paper currency .
Given that an ounce of gold runs $ 900 or so in paper currency , 10 to 20 coins will pay for a car !
That values the car at $ 500 to $ 1000 , and not $ 9000 to $ 18000 .
An order of magnitude.The taxes from this transaction are now severely limited - a mere tenth of what they were .
Think of it - two different prices , depending on what currency is used .
This is not unusual , pricing is set according to currency value by all international companies.The error made by the US was to fix a face value on the American Eagle .
The Krugerrand , directly comparable , has no such face value .
Its value is the value of 1oz of gold bullion .
That same car also costs 10 to 20 coins .
But , there is no disparity between face value and " paper value " .Introducing the face value means that a section of the economy could choose to " live in the past " and simply accept that valuation .
Which is why the government attacks -- people just " should n't " be doing that sort of thing .
It 's almost as if , you know , the government could be held to task for the valuation ! Let 's use a " J. Random " quote we find on the Internet ( actually from a user aikitrader , but who really cares ?
) :         " OK...take Americans for instance....we know with reasonable certainty that a 1 oz Gold American Eagle contains one ounce of Gold .
Now if I were trading a car for Gold and my car is worth $ 1120...I would ask for 2 Gold Eagles in return today .
How many $ 20 Swiss Francs would I ask for ?
I am not sure of the Gold content in the $ 20 Swiss Franc ?
So I do n't want to trade my car for a Swiss Franc because I am not sure of it 's value .
I am not familiar with it .
" We can plainly see that aikitrader is converting paper US currency , gold content , and Swiss currency .
As we also note , all of these have a marked face values .
aikitrader will use face value for paper , and for swiss currency .
But for American Eagle coins contemplates the transaction in terms of NUMBER OF COINS , and not really face value .
What is the price of the car ?
Simple enough , it is $ 1120 in paper , two American Eagle coins , or the equivalent in face conversion in Swiss Francs .
What is the face value ( US government valuation ) of the American Eagles ?
$ 100. As long as aikitrader is NOT destroying the coin , she can value it as she chooses , and the government values it at $ 50.A tax issue ?
I think not .
And , if you ( presuming you live in the US ) think it IS , I would recommend another revolution .
Simply because you ca n't trust your government anymore .
The issue should n't even come up -- even if the government wanted to control it , there are much better remedies than tax law .
Simply buy up the damn coins .
The government issued , they should be able to de-issue .
It 's done all the time with other currency.I can give a clue to the US Government here - stop minting the damn things !
Face value of $ 50 and initial sale of $ 1000 paper , with a continued valuation of $ 800 or so... the government is really screwing with your heads .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The value of a US Gold Coin is, to the government, precisely what was marked on that coin.
Since it is not legal for citizens to physically destroy that coin, rendering it into bullion, its value remains that.Now, you could sell that coin elsewhere (I am sure that the coins can be converted to bullion in other countries), and thus achieve a profit, but that is dealt with by other provisions.The ONLY danger in the US itself is paying in such currency is a severe de-valuing of paper currency.
Given that an ounce of gold runs $900 or so in paper currency, 10 to 20 coins will pay for a car!
That values the car at $500 to $1000, and not $9000 to $18000.
An order of magnitude.The taxes from this transaction are now severely limited - a mere tenth of what they were.
Think of it - two different prices, depending on what currency is used.
This is not unusual, pricing is set according to currency value by all international companies.The error made by the US was to fix a face value on the American Eagle.
The Krugerrand, directly comparable, has no such face value.
Its value is the value of 1oz of gold bullion.
That same car also costs 10 to 20 coins.
But, there is no disparity between face value and "paper value".Introducing the face value means that a section of the economy could choose to "live in the past" and simply accept that valuation.
Which is why the government attacks -- people just "shouldn't" be doing that sort of thing.
It's almost as if, you know, the government could be held to task for the valuation!Let's use a "J. Random" quote we find on the Internet (actually from a user aikitrader, but who really cares?
):
        "OK...take Americans for instance....we know with reasonable certainty that a 1 oz Gold American Eagle contains one ounce of Gold.
Now if I were trading a car for Gold and my car is worth $1120...I would ask for 2 Gold Eagles in return today.
How many $20 Swiss Francs would I ask for?
I am not sure of the Gold content in the $20 Swiss Franc?
So I don't want to trade my car for a Swiss Franc because I am not sure of it's value.
I am not familiar with it.
"We can plainly see that aikitrader is converting paper US currency, gold content, and Swiss currency.
As we also note, all of these have a marked face values.
aikitrader will use face value for paper, and for swiss currency.
But for American Eagle coins contemplates the transaction in terms of NUMBER OF COINS, and not really face value.
What is the price of the car?
Simple enough, it is $1120 in paper, two American Eagle coins, or the equivalent in face conversion in Swiss Francs.
What is the face value (US government valuation) of the American Eagles?
$100. As long as aikitrader is NOT destroying the coin, she can value it as she chooses, and the government values it at $50.A tax issue?
I think not.
And, if you (presuming you live in the US) think it IS, I would recommend another revolution.
Simply because you can't trust your government anymore.
The issue shouldn't even come up -- even if the government wanted to control it, there are much better remedies than tax law.
Simply buy up the damn coins.
The government issued, they should be able to de-issue.
It's done all the time with other currency.I can give a clue to the US Government here - stop minting the damn things!
Face value of $50 and initial sale of $1000 paper, with a continued valuation of $800 or so... the government is really screwing with your heads.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360655</id>
	<title>Re:Threats</title>
	<author>jackb\_guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1245249000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do not have point of asking for ALL information of EVERY ONE that posted.  This includes Credit Card Numbers, ISP, and Addresses for every poster.</p><p>If they tailored request to those few (I read three) that actually crossed the line into threatening, then it is what you say.</p><p>I believe it is the over reach that is why ACLU and Review are both fighting for anonymity of their posters.</p><p>It is also a pleasure to a media outlet that lives by the 1st Amendment to support their reader 1st Amendment rights. -- Do you hear that NBC, FOX and others that force user give up those rights to respond to articles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do not have point of asking for ALL information of EVERY ONE that posted .
This includes Credit Card Numbers , ISP , and Addresses for every poster.If they tailored request to those few ( I read three ) that actually crossed the line into threatening , then it is what you say.I believe it is the over reach that is why ACLU and Review are both fighting for anonymity of their posters.It is also a pleasure to a media outlet that lives by the 1st Amendment to support their reader 1st Amendment rights .
-- Do you hear that NBC , FOX and others that force user give up those rights to respond to articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do not have point of asking for ALL information of EVERY ONE that posted.
This includes Credit Card Numbers, ISP, and Addresses for every poster.If they tailored request to those few (I read three) that actually crossed the line into threatening, then it is what you say.I believe it is the over reach that is why ACLU and Review are both fighting for anonymity of their posters.It is also a pleasure to a media outlet that lives by the 1st Amendment to support their reader 1st Amendment rights.
-- Do you hear that NBC, FOX and others that force user give up those rights to respond to articles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362703</id>
	<title>spam fix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245259500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to get rid of the spam problem, just stick a meaningless field in your form and hide it with css. If the form is submitted with a value in that field, then reject it silently.  It is a stupid little trick that could be easily by-passed, but nobody bothers with this and I have been using it successfully for years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to get rid of the spam problem , just stick a meaningless field in your form and hide it with css .
If the form is submitted with a value in that field , then reject it silently .
It is a stupid little trick that could be easily by-passed , but nobody bothers with this and I have been using it successfully for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to get rid of the spam problem, just stick a meaningless field in your form and hide it with css.
If the form is submitted with a value in that field, then reject it silently.
It is a stupid little trick that could be easily by-passed, but nobody bothers with this and I have been using it successfully for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361371</id>
	<title>Re:How anonymous is slashdot?</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1245252960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the logs aren't there, the subpoena doesn't hurt anything.</p></div><p>Not true; even though this kind of subpoena may be technically impossible to comply with, it still stifles free speech, so it definitely hurts.

</p><p>The DoJ needs to take a long, hard look at the way these Federal Prosecutors are abusing the Grand Jury system and the other tools they have been entrusted with. Some housecleaning is long over due. It is a statistical certainty that there are now a countable number of Federal Prosecutors who should be fired (and maybe prosecuted for crimes in office).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the logs are n't there , the subpoena does n't hurt anything.Not true ; even though this kind of subpoena may be technically impossible to comply with , it still stifles free speech , so it definitely hurts .
The DoJ needs to take a long , hard look at the way these Federal Prosecutors are abusing the Grand Jury system and the other tools they have been entrusted with .
Some housecleaning is long over due .
It is a statistical certainty that there are now a countable number of Federal Prosecutors who should be fired ( and maybe prosecuted for crimes in office ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the logs aren't there, the subpoena doesn't hurt anything.Not true; even though this kind of subpoena may be technically impossible to comply with, it still stifles free speech, so it definitely hurts.
The DoJ needs to take a long, hard look at the way these Federal Prosecutors are abusing the Grand Jury system and the other tools they have been entrusted with.
Some housecleaning is long over due.
It is a statistical certainty that there are now a countable number of Federal Prosecutors who should be fired (and maybe prosecuted for crimes in office).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360845</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1245250020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value.</p></div><p>Only paper money is "legal tender for all debts, public and private".
<br> <br>
Coinage is different, under a different set of laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value.Only paper money is " legal tender for all debts , public and private " .
Coinage is different , under a different set of laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value.Only paper money is "legal tender for all debts, public and private".
Coinage is different, under a different set of laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28462071</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245857520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's value is set by the US government. The US government set the value at $50, and you're saying he's lying by reporting that the value was $50? What are you smoking?</p><p>These are not collectors items any more than dollar bills are collectors items. This is minted legal tender created by the US government and with a face value set by the federal government. The same situation happens with pennies and nickels, where the materials are worth more than the face value set by the US government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's value is set by the US government .
The US government set the value at $ 50 , and you 're saying he 's lying by reporting that the value was $ 50 ?
What are you smoking ? These are not collectors items any more than dollar bills are collectors items .
This is minted legal tender created by the US government and with a face value set by the federal government .
The same situation happens with pennies and nickels , where the materials are worth more than the face value set by the US government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's value is set by the US government.
The US government set the value at $50, and you're saying he's lying by reporting that the value was $50?
What are you smoking?These are not collectors items any more than dollar bills are collectors items.
This is minted legal tender created by the US government and with a face value set by the federal government.
The same situation happens with pennies and nickels, where the materials are worth more than the face value set by the US government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361541</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1245253800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you said, if you alter the currency, then that is illegal and certainly there is a case for taxing its value based on the alteration.</p><p>However, if you are passing unaltered currency, it's currency.  Legal tender at the face value.  It has to be, or what happens when the price of nickel or copper goes up?  Do I suddenly have to pay taxes on the increased metal value on my nickels, dimes, quarters and pennies?  I know that they had to change the composition of pennies due to copper prices at least once.  Would I be breaking the law simply by holding my coins long enough for their metal value to go up?</p><p>If this is a big loophole, the government has the means to close it easily.  They can simply legislate that tender cannot be altered or sold, except at face value.  That would mean that you could make platinum pennies inlaid with diamonds, emeralds and rubies and it could still only be sold for one cent, unless returned to the government.  Of course, the black market would go to work, but then the IRS would truly have a case for tax evasion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you said , if you alter the currency , then that is illegal and certainly there is a case for taxing its value based on the alteration.However , if you are passing unaltered currency , it 's currency .
Legal tender at the face value .
It has to be , or what happens when the price of nickel or copper goes up ?
Do I suddenly have to pay taxes on the increased metal value on my nickels , dimes , quarters and pennies ?
I know that they had to change the composition of pennies due to copper prices at least once .
Would I be breaking the law simply by holding my coins long enough for their metal value to go up ? If this is a big loophole , the government has the means to close it easily .
They can simply legislate that tender can not be altered or sold , except at face value .
That would mean that you could make platinum pennies inlaid with diamonds , emeralds and rubies and it could still only be sold for one cent , unless returned to the government .
Of course , the black market would go to work , but then the IRS would truly have a case for tax evasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you said, if you alter the currency, then that is illegal and certainly there is a case for taxing its value based on the alteration.However, if you are passing unaltered currency, it's currency.
Legal tender at the face value.
It has to be, or what happens when the price of nickel or copper goes up?
Do I suddenly have to pay taxes on the increased metal value on my nickels, dimes, quarters and pennies?
I know that they had to change the composition of pennies due to copper prices at least once.
Would I be breaking the law simply by holding my coins long enough for their metal value to go up?If this is a big loophole, the government has the means to close it easily.
They can simply legislate that tender cannot be altered or sold, except at face value.
That would mean that you could make platinum pennies inlaid with diamonds, emeralds and rubies and it could still only be sold for one cent, unless returned to the government.
Of course, the black market would go to work, but then the IRS would truly have a case for tax evasion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361403</id>
	<title>Re:Threats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245253080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh come on now.</p><p>There's a huge difference in my standing in front of you and threatening you with bodily harm, and my posting an equivalent comment on a message board on the internet.</p><p>The first case is the one you take seriously, because I'm there right there in front of you. The second case you dismiss as a crank, especially if you're fairly certain that I don't have the slightest idea who you really are or how to find you.</p><p>When did the world sudden fill up with whiny crybabies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on now.There 's a huge difference in my standing in front of you and threatening you with bodily harm , and my posting an equivalent comment on a message board on the internet.The first case is the one you take seriously , because I 'm there right there in front of you .
The second case you dismiss as a crank , especially if you 're fairly certain that I do n't have the slightest idea who you really are or how to find you.When did the world sudden fill up with whiny crybabies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on now.There's a huge difference in my standing in front of you and threatening you with bodily harm, and my posting an equivalent comment on a message board on the internet.The first case is the one you take seriously, because I'm there right there in front of you.
The second case you dismiss as a crank, especially if you're fairly certain that I don't have the slightest idea who you really are or how to find you.When did the world sudden fill up with whiny crybabies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364713</id>
	<title>Re:Constitution</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245268800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In context, my string of logic is not flawed.  Read Article 1 ssection 8, two sections above section 10.  Then you'll see that my logic is impervious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In context , my string of logic is not flawed .
Read Article 1 ssection 8 , two sections above section 10 .
Then you 'll see that my logic is impervious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In context, my string of logic is not flawed.
Read Article 1 ssection 8, two sections above section 10.
Then you'll see that my logic is impervious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360517</id>
	<title>Hypocritical?</title>
	<author>asdfndsagse</author>
	<datestamp>1245248040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now if I pay a debt to a store in quarters I only have to pay sales tax on 13\% of the face value as the quarter melt value is only 3.25c?</p><p><a href="http://www.coinflation.com/coins/1965-2007-Washington-Quarter-Value.html" title="coinflation.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coinflation.com/coins/1965-2007-Washington-Quarter-Value.html</a> [coinflation.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now if I pay a debt to a store in quarters I only have to pay sales tax on 13 \ % of the face value as the quarter melt value is only 3.25c ? http : //www.coinflation.com/coins/1965-2007-Washington-Quarter-Value.html [ coinflation.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now if I pay a debt to a store in quarters I only have to pay sales tax on 13\% of the face value as the quarter melt value is only 3.25c?http://www.coinflation.com/coins/1965-2007-Washington-Quarter-Value.html [coinflation.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361091</id>
	<title>Re:i'll be the first to say..</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1245251460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Furthermore, the big ideas should have been at the top of the summary, with the detail about the case down into the paragraphs. I know this and I've never had one single journalism class, albeit I did take the required writing and composition classes in college."
<br> <br>
There is also some sort of rule about the facts and disclaimers coming either at the end of the story or in the court ordered retraction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Furthermore , the big ideas should have been at the top of the summary , with the detail about the case down into the paragraphs .
I know this and I 've never had one single journalism class , albeit I did take the required writing and composition classes in college .
" There is also some sort of rule about the facts and disclaimers coming either at the end of the story or in the court ordered retraction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Furthermore, the big ideas should have been at the top of the summary, with the detail about the case down into the paragraphs.
I know this and I've never had one single journalism class, albeit I did take the required writing and composition classes in college.
"
 
There is also some sort of rule about the facts and disclaimers coming either at the end of the story or in the court ordered retraction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363019</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1245261060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that gold and silver are legal tender. Gold and silver are the only things excluded from the set of things <i>states</i> are prohibited from deciding, on their own, to make legal tender, but that's not the same thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender.Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that gold and silver are legal tender .
Gold and silver are the only things excluded from the set of things states are prohibited from deciding , on their own , to make legal tender , but that 's not the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender.Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that gold and silver are legal tender.
Gold and silver are the only things excluded from the set of things states are prohibited from deciding, on their own, to make legal tender, but that's not the same thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361427</id>
	<title>Re:Threats</title>
	<author>metamorphage</author>
	<datestamp>1245253200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are you talking about?  Anonymity does not equal the First Amendment.  You have every right to post whatever you want on NBC's forums - they just want some information in exchange.  Don't like it, don't post there.  The First Amendment only comes into play when somebody tries to prosecute you for what you've said - anonymous or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ?
Anonymity does not equal the First Amendment .
You have every right to post whatever you want on NBC 's forums - they just want some information in exchange .
Do n't like it , do n't post there .
The First Amendment only comes into play when somebody tries to prosecute you for what you 've said - anonymous or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about?
Anonymity does not equal the First Amendment.
You have every right to post whatever you want on NBC's forums - they just want some information in exchange.
Don't like it, don't post there.
The First Amendment only comes into play when somebody tries to prosecute you for what you've said - anonymous or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573</id>
	<title>Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1245248400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage -- not the much higher market value of the metal"</p><p>The money paid is 100\% legal United States Currency, minted by the United States Government itself.</p><p>The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender.</p><p>What's the problem?  It's not his problem that the US government has destroyed the value of money so that "old" but perfectly legal currency is now worth 1000 times more than it's equivalent "new" money...IF the government doesn't like it they need to change the law and outlaw the gold coins that they mint as legal tender.</p><p>Otherwise he's being prosecuted for something that "feels" illegal, which is a deadly slippery slope to go down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage -- not the much higher market value of the metal " The money paid is 100 \ % legal United States Currency , minted by the United States Government itself.The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender.What 's the problem ?
It 's not his problem that the US government has destroyed the value of money so that " old " but perfectly legal currency is now worth 1000 times more than it 's equivalent " new " money...IF the government does n't like it they need to change the law and outlaw the gold coins that they mint as legal tender.Otherwise he 's being prosecuted for something that " feels " illegal , which is a deadly slippery slope to go down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage -- not the much higher market value of the metal"The money paid is 100\% legal United States Currency, minted by the United States Government itself.The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender.What's the problem?
It's not his problem that the US government has destroyed the value of money so that "old" but perfectly legal currency is now worth 1000 times more than it's equivalent "new" money...IF the government doesn't like it they need to change the law and outlaw the gold coins that they mint as legal tender.Otherwise he's being prosecuted for something that "feels" illegal, which is a deadly slippery slope to go down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361139</id>
	<title>What is with the Slashdot support for crime?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245251700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am surprised at the number of Slashdotters who support tax evasion and violent threats.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am surprised at the number of Slashdotters who support tax evasion and violent threats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am surprised at the number of Slashdotters who support tax evasion and violent threats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363757</id>
	<title>Re:Basic human right???????</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1245264240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm talking about internet anonymity - being able to publish anonymously without fear.  There's a world of difference between words and actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm talking about internet anonymity - being able to publish anonymously without fear .
There 's a world of difference between words and actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm talking about internet anonymity - being able to publish anonymously without fear.
There's a world of difference between words and actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360333</id>
	<title>Fucking losers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245246900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only sad twats write into newspapers anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only sad twats write into newspapers anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only sad twats write into newspapers anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360943</id>
	<title>Re:The tax dodge itself seems spurious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are correct. If paying them $10 in face value was legal (and it's a tax dodge, so it's not), then as soon as they traded the gold in, there would be a $990 *Short Term Capital Gain* which is all taxable, and has to be reported.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct .
If paying them $ 10 in face value was legal ( and it 's a tax dodge , so it 's not ) , then as soon as they traded the gold in , there would be a $ 990 * Short Term Capital Gain * which is all taxable , and has to be reported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct.
If paying them $10 in face value was legal (and it's a tax dodge, so it's not), then as soon as they traded the gold in, there would be a $990 *Short Term Capital Gain* which is all taxable, and has to be reported.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28365671</id>
	<title>Re:Face value</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1245230160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fair market value of the gold coins is more than the $20 printed on the face, as demonstrated by Kahre's willingness to purchase the coins for more than that value.</p><p>The fair market value of a $100 bill, on the other hand, is exactly $100.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fair market value of the gold coins is more than the $ 20 printed on the face , as demonstrated by Kahre 's willingness to purchase the coins for more than that value.The fair market value of a $ 100 bill , on the other hand , is exactly $ 100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fair market value of the gold coins is more than the $20 printed on the face, as demonstrated by Kahre's willingness to purchase the coins for more than that value.The fair market value of a $100 bill, on the other hand, is exactly $100.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28380971</id>
	<title>Re:Thought...</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1245320880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All nickels minted after 1964 are made out of a copper-nickel clad (alloy). The metal value of a nickel might be worth more than 5 cents, but I doubt it.</p></div></blockquote><p>You can always check <a href="http://www.coinflation.com/" title="coinflation.com">here</a> [coinflation.com], but the upshot is that you would be correct to doubt it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All nickels minted after 1964 are made out of a copper-nickel clad ( alloy ) .
The metal value of a nickel might be worth more than 5 cents , but I doubt it.You can always check here [ coinflation.com ] , but the upshot is that you would be correct to doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All nickels minted after 1964 are made out of a copper-nickel clad (alloy).
The metal value of a nickel might be worth more than 5 cents, but I doubt it.You can always check here [coinflation.com], but the upshot is that you would be correct to doubt it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360583</id>
	<title>Basic human right???????</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245248400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>W T F ????</p><p>So the ability to make threats or derogatory comments without having to take responsibility is a basic human right?</p><p>When does responsibility for ones actions apply?  Or is it a basic human right not be responsible for what one does or says?  Or is that only when the subject agreed upon is mutually acceptable for ostracism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>W T F ? ? ?
? So the ability to make threats or derogatory comments without having to take responsibility is a basic human right ? When does responsibility for ones actions apply ?
Or is it a basic human right not be responsible for what one does or says ?
Or is that only when the subject agreed upon is mutually acceptable for ostracism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>W T F ???
?So the ability to make threats or derogatory comments without having to take responsibility is a basic human right?When does responsibility for ones actions apply?
Or is it a basic human right not be responsible for what one does or says?
Or is that only when the subject agreed upon is mutually acceptable for ostracism?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361599</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA first</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1245254100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At certain points in the past, coins that are made of other metals are worth more than their face value in metal costs.  Do we suddenly become tax evaders for paying people in pennies?</p><p>Also, usually the metal cost of a coin is less than its face value.  Since the government doesn't care about the face value, according to what you are saying, then do we get tax discounts for being paid in money that is worth less than its face value?</p><p>The Federal Reserve may not be "the government", but its notes and the coinage is legal tender for all debts, public and private.  They have that authority by law.  So, the government is saying that they will accept their money, even if its not directly made by the "government".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At certain points in the past , coins that are made of other metals are worth more than their face value in metal costs .
Do we suddenly become tax evaders for paying people in pennies ? Also , usually the metal cost of a coin is less than its face value .
Since the government does n't care about the face value , according to what you are saying , then do we get tax discounts for being paid in money that is worth less than its face value ? The Federal Reserve may not be " the government " , but its notes and the coinage is legal tender for all debts , public and private .
They have that authority by law .
So , the government is saying that they will accept their money , even if its not directly made by the " government " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At certain points in the past, coins that are made of other metals are worth more than their face value in metal costs.
Do we suddenly become tax evaders for paying people in pennies?Also, usually the metal cost of a coin is less than its face value.
Since the government doesn't care about the face value, according to what you are saying, then do we get tax discounts for being paid in money that is worth less than its face value?The Federal Reserve may not be "the government", but its notes and the coinage is legal tender for all debts, public and private.
They have that authority by law.
So, the government is saying that they will accept their money, even if its not directly made by the "government".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360459</id>
	<title>How the judge SHOULD rule</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1245247620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The judge should look at each comment individually as well as holistically against other comments apparently by the same commenter.</p><p>If the comments appear to be a credible and actual threat against a juror, as opposed to someone blowing off steam, making non-credible threats, or just blowing off steam, then it's worth a closer look.</p><p>To determine if unauthenticated comments apparently made by the same commenter are made by the same commenter I would order the newspaper to provide a statement saying the comments are very likely from the same computer, very unlikely from the same computer, or there is no way to tell.  If the post looks like it's from the same person, and the computer is the same, the court can assume it's the same until someone claims otherwise.</p><p>Now once I have a list of comments that are credible threats, then it's time to go further:<br>I would give a special master subpoena power for the IP and login-time information for those posts and subpoena power to the ISPs for the approximate street address of the customer.  The court would use this to determine if the seemingly credible threats really were credible.  If a threat said "I'm going to walk into your office and shoot you" but the threat came from a town 3 states away, that's likely not credible.  Once I've gotten down to the credible threats, then and only I would allow the person's name and address to be subpoenaed.  I would also look very favorably on anyone who, upon being contacted by the court or the police, claimed they were joking or blowing off steam.  After all, out of every random group of people making credible-sounding threats like these, by far most are harmless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge should look at each comment individually as well as holistically against other comments apparently by the same commenter.If the comments appear to be a credible and actual threat against a juror , as opposed to someone blowing off steam , making non-credible threats , or just blowing off steam , then it 's worth a closer look.To determine if unauthenticated comments apparently made by the same commenter are made by the same commenter I would order the newspaper to provide a statement saying the comments are very likely from the same computer , very unlikely from the same computer , or there is no way to tell .
If the post looks like it 's from the same person , and the computer is the same , the court can assume it 's the same until someone claims otherwise.Now once I have a list of comments that are credible threats , then it 's time to go further : I would give a special master subpoena power for the IP and login-time information for those posts and subpoena power to the ISPs for the approximate street address of the customer .
The court would use this to determine if the seemingly credible threats really were credible .
If a threat said " I 'm going to walk into your office and shoot you " but the threat came from a town 3 states away , that 's likely not credible .
Once I 've gotten down to the credible threats , then and only I would allow the person 's name and address to be subpoenaed .
I would also look very favorably on anyone who , upon being contacted by the court or the police , claimed they were joking or blowing off steam .
After all , out of every random group of people making credible-sounding threats like these , by far most are harmless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge should look at each comment individually as well as holistically against other comments apparently by the same commenter.If the comments appear to be a credible and actual threat against a juror, as opposed to someone blowing off steam, making non-credible threats, or just blowing off steam, then it's worth a closer look.To determine if unauthenticated comments apparently made by the same commenter are made by the same commenter I would order the newspaper to provide a statement saying the comments are very likely from the same computer, very unlikely from the same computer, or there is no way to tell.
If the post looks like it's from the same person, and the computer is the same, the court can assume it's the same until someone claims otherwise.Now once I have a list of comments that are credible threats, then it's time to go further:I would give a special master subpoena power for the IP and login-time information for those posts and subpoena power to the ISPs for the approximate street address of the customer.
The court would use this to determine if the seemingly credible threats really were credible.
If a threat said "I'm going to walk into your office and shoot you" but the threat came from a town 3 states away, that's likely not credible.
Once I've gotten down to the credible threats, then and only I would allow the person's name and address to be subpoenaed.
I would also look very favorably on anyone who, upon being contacted by the court or the police, claimed they were joking or blowing off steam.
After all, out of every random group of people making credible-sounding threats like these, by far most are harmless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361321</id>
	<title>Re:Unlawful governance</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1245252600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's actually a federal offence to deface US currency.<br> <br>

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE <br>
PART I - CRIMES <br>
CHAPTER 17 - COINS AND CURRENCY<br>
  333. Mutilation of national bank obligations <br> <br>
Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or
unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill,
draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking
association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System,
with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence
of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually a federal offence to deface US currency .
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 17 - COINS AND CURRENCY 333 .
Mutilation of national bank obligations Whoever mutilates , cuts , defaces , disfigures , or perforates , or unites or cements together , or does any other thing to any bank bill , draft , note , or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association , or Federal Reserve bank , or the Federal Reserve System , with intent to render such bank bill , draft , note , or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued , shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months , or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually a federal offence to deface US currency.
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 
PART I - CRIMES 
CHAPTER 17 - COINS AND CURRENCY
  333.
Mutilation of national bank obligations  
Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or
unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill,
draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking
association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System,
with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence
of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361251</id>
	<title>The IRS uses the "Fair Market Value" standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245252240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The IRS taxes all wages <i>and other forms of compensation</i> based on the fair market value of the items or services provided to the employee.  From the IRS website:<blockquote><div><p>Wages not paid in money.   If in the course of your trade or business you pay your employees in a medium that is neither cash nor a readily negotiable instrument, such as a check, you are said to pay them "in kind." Payments in kind may be in the form of goods, lodging, food, clothing, or services. Generally, the fair market value of such payments at the time that they are provided is subject to federal income tax withholding and social security, Medicare, and FUTA taxes.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Apparently, the tax cheat is arguing that gold coins are cash.  I think the more reasonable interpretation is that gold coins are not "a readily negotiable instrument," and thus fall under the definition of an "in kind" payment.  In kind payments are taxable at the fair market value "at the time they are provided" to the employee.  <br> <br>Really, this particular IRS rule is a common sense rule of reason.  Moreover, the "all debts" language is not unlimited.  The classic example is that someone does not have the right to pay their traffic fine in pennies just to spite the court.  Really people -- not that complicated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The IRS taxes all wages and other forms of compensation based on the fair market value of the items or services provided to the employee .
From the IRS website : Wages not paid in money .
If in the course of your trade or business you pay your employees in a medium that is neither cash nor a readily negotiable instrument , such as a check , you are said to pay them " in kind .
" Payments in kind may be in the form of goods , lodging , food , clothing , or services .
Generally , the fair market value of such payments at the time that they are provided is subject to federal income tax withholding and social security , Medicare , and FUTA taxes .
Apparently , the tax cheat is arguing that gold coins are cash .
I think the more reasonable interpretation is that gold coins are not " a readily negotiable instrument , " and thus fall under the definition of an " in kind " payment .
In kind payments are taxable at the fair market value " at the time they are provided " to the employee .
Really , this particular IRS rule is a common sense rule of reason .
Moreover , the " all debts " language is not unlimited .
The classic example is that someone does not have the right to pay their traffic fine in pennies just to spite the court .
Really people -- not that complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IRS taxes all wages and other forms of compensation based on the fair market value of the items or services provided to the employee.
From the IRS website:Wages not paid in money.
If in the course of your trade or business you pay your employees in a medium that is neither cash nor a readily negotiable instrument, such as a check, you are said to pay them "in kind.
" Payments in kind may be in the form of goods, lodging, food, clothing, or services.
Generally, the fair market value of such payments at the time that they are provided is subject to federal income tax withholding and social security, Medicare, and FUTA taxes.
Apparently, the tax cheat is arguing that gold coins are cash.
I think the more reasonable interpretation is that gold coins are not "a readily negotiable instrument," and thus fall under the definition of an "in kind" payment.
In kind payments are taxable at the fair market value "at the time they are provided" to the employee.
Really, this particular IRS rule is a common sense rule of reason.
Moreover, the "all debts" language is not unlimited.
The classic example is that someone does not have the right to pay their traffic fine in pennies just to spite the court.
Really people -- not that complicated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361357</id>
	<title>Re:The tax dodge itself seems spurious</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1245252840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surely then, should they choose to sell these they'll pay income tax on any profit they make.</p> </div><p>Not necessarily.  For example, there is no law that I can't buy a laptop "worth" $1000 from someone for $10 (assuming they're not fencing stolen goods, etc, etc)</p><p>That kind of stupidity happens all the time at yard sales, where "ugly old painting" is bought for $10 by someone whom recognizes it as an original Van Gogh or whatever.  Somebody buys a worthless old postcard from paris for 50 cents because they have special knowledge that the cancelled rare stamp is worth 50 bucks but the seller has no idea.  That is no tax dodge.</p><p>The tax dodge is when somebody far enough down the line eventually trades the "$10 coin" for $1000 of federal reserve notes and doesn't pay the capital gains tax.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely then , should they choose to sell these they 'll pay income tax on any profit they make .
Not necessarily .
For example , there is no law that I ca n't buy a laptop " worth " $ 1000 from someone for $ 10 ( assuming they 're not fencing stolen goods , etc , etc ) That kind of stupidity happens all the time at yard sales , where " ugly old painting " is bought for $ 10 by someone whom recognizes it as an original Van Gogh or whatever .
Somebody buys a worthless old postcard from paris for 50 cents because they have special knowledge that the cancelled rare stamp is worth 50 bucks but the seller has no idea .
That is no tax dodge.The tax dodge is when somebody far enough down the line eventually trades the " $ 10 coin " for $ 1000 of federal reserve notes and does n't pay the capital gains tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely then, should they choose to sell these they'll pay income tax on any profit they make.
Not necessarily.
For example, there is no law that I can't buy a laptop "worth" $1000 from someone for $10 (assuming they're not fencing stolen goods, etc, etc)That kind of stupidity happens all the time at yard sales, where "ugly old painting" is bought for $10 by someone whom recognizes it as an original Van Gogh or whatever.
Somebody buys a worthless old postcard from paris for 50 cents because they have special knowledge that the cancelled rare stamp is worth 50 bucks but the seller has no idea.
That is no tax dodge.The tax dodge is when somebody far enough down the line eventually trades the "$10 coin" for $1000 of federal reserve notes and doesn't pay the capital gains tax.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360951</id>
	<title>Re:Why make it traceable?</title>
	<author>iceperson</author>
	<datestamp>1245250560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most forum admins record the IP of posters to ban spammers and/or abusive posters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most forum admins record the IP of posters to ban spammers and/or abusive posters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most forum admins record the IP of posters to ban spammers and/or abusive posters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361275</id>
	<title>Re:Face Value vs Ore Value</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1245252300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So on the one hand we take Gold Coins and use the Ore Value, while on the other we take Quarters and use the Face Value.</p></div><p>No: in both cases you take an <b>honest and reasonable</b> appraisal of the value of the object in question. For a regular quarter, however many bizarre and unlikely scenarios you contrive, the only honest and reasonable valuation is 25c. For a bullion coin, the honest and reasonable valuation is the metal value + any rarity value - no reasonable person would use a solid gold dollar to settle a $1 debt. Different things are worth different amounts - film at 11!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>is that an extra $100 of Income?</p></div><p>Yes - you got lucky, but its still income, even if 99\% of people would "forget" to declare the odd minor windfall like that.
</p><p>If, however, you somehow "knew" that roll of pennies would contain a rare coin then shenanigans are clearly afoot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So on the one hand we take Gold Coins and use the Ore Value , while on the other we take Quarters and use the Face Value.No : in both cases you take an honest and reasonable appraisal of the value of the object in question .
For a regular quarter , however many bizarre and unlikely scenarios you contrive , the only honest and reasonable valuation is 25c .
For a bullion coin , the honest and reasonable valuation is the metal value + any rarity value - no reasonable person would use a solid gold dollar to settle a $ 1 debt .
Different things are worth different amounts - film at 11 ! is that an extra $ 100 of Income ? Yes - you got lucky , but its still income , even if 99 \ % of people would " forget " to declare the odd minor windfall like that .
If , however , you somehow " knew " that roll of pennies would contain a rare coin then shenanigans are clearly afoot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So on the one hand we take Gold Coins and use the Ore Value, while on the other we take Quarters and use the Face Value.No: in both cases you take an honest and reasonable appraisal of the value of the object in question.
For a regular quarter, however many bizarre and unlikely scenarios you contrive, the only honest and reasonable valuation is 25c.
For a bullion coin, the honest and reasonable valuation is the metal value + any rarity value - no reasonable person would use a solid gold dollar to settle a $1 debt.
Different things are worth different amounts - film at 11!is that an extra $100 of Income?Yes - you got lucky, but its still income, even if 99\% of people would "forget" to declare the odd minor windfall like that.
If, however, you somehow "knew" that roll of pennies would contain a rare coin then shenanigans are clearly afoot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28365597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28373175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28365671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28380971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28462071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28367063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28365881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28462043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28462095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1218210_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360583
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28367063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28365597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28462071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28365881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360921
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360867
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362567
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28380971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28462095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361427
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28373175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361051
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28365671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360985
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28462043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361251
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362725
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28362301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28361159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28364301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1218210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28360335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1218210.28363269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
