Calling Accountants/ Lawyers

[SNOWBOUND33]

Claim him as family if you like: I didn't start it: Where were you when he publicly misrepresented what I said. I let it go after the below post only to get cracked back on today.

 

Making false claims that I assumed something or calling me dishonest when I have quoted an article with the writers own words are classless and weak. Perhaps a mistake on his part but had he actually read what the author wrote or what I actually said he would find it was not me that made errors.

 

 

I don't mind BS or a difference of opinion but I expect some semblance of honesty or at least an accurate representation of facts. I would guess you would expect the same in return.

 

I get I have strong opinions just like many other around here.

 

 

 

Taylor Swift's ding dong, Are you really that dense or just want to argue? Any attempt for you or anyone to remotely justify this as science is ridiculous.

 

1)" Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

By Stephanie Pappas | LiveScience.com – 2 hrs 55 mins agoE"

 

The article quoted was written by her. Her opinions are strewn throughout this article. Where did I ever state she authored the study? You are just making that up.

2) From the article written by Pappas:

 

"In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. "

 

This simply demonstrates the author justifying a position linked to yet another study Hodson and Busseri in further attempt to sell a position by the author.

 

The assumptions made by you and others are simply framed by a science writer that has not provided the actual study but only snippets and quotes from two different works to drive a point.

 

While you may think this science, it is a simple opinion of writer with limited actual scientific knowledge. It is pure opinion when one makes a veiled attempt at linkage based on two works and that was the point.

 

I suggest you go back and read the article so you actually have a basic framework as to the conclusions of the author that only carries a Bachelors degree. Even the author of the actual studies listed by Pappas only surmises with words like " Might, May, and More Likely" so any attempt to pass this off as science is quite foolish and you should know that to be true.

 

As for claiming I was somehow dishonest, well if you actually read or retained the article written by Pappas you would not have made such a weak accusation. At any rate you can now see the qoute from Pappas.

Damn dude, you have a lot of time on your hands right now. Go find Bronco Bonehead, I'm sure he's up for an argument as always. He likes to skip facts and go right to the personal attacks. Hmmmmm Haven't seen him much since the Mediocre-at-best Broncos lost. Have a blast with him until he soils himself over his nonsensical rants and then puts you on his ignore list.

[SNOWBOUND33]

There you go! Lock away!

I said start a new thread...... Big John..........????

Edited February 2, 2012 by SNOWBOUND33

[Ice1]

I said start a new thread...... Big John..........????

 

Technically speaking, I went with the IF from your post!

[bpwallace49]

Jeez. Why so much h8 from ice1?

 

[whomper]

Again, I'm not a tax expert, but why would your company, or the IRS, treat that income any differently if your company provided services to Joe Blow as opposed to Joe Blow's company?

 

And what's your end game here? Are you going to refuse to provide the W-9 if you deem it innappropriate for Joe Blow's company to ask you to provide it?

 

 

Objection. Badgering the witness

[Scorcher]

Objection. Badgering the witness

 

 

[Ice1]

Jeez. Why so much h8 from ice1?

 

 

Not hating, just getting a little tired of the "click" with a serious agenda against those that are not as Liberal as they are.

 

I realize you posted the thread and named it Science as a joke. I agreed. However, as a member when one thread hops I will defend. That is my personality.

 

Since joining this site many from the click went out of their way to accuse me of being someone else, called me out as some talk radio guy, which I don't even listen to those idiots, all because some in the click have limited defense of a differing opinion. When I am called out as being dishonest for no reason, like many of you, I am not the type that will sit back and take it.

 

I said my piece, all is good.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Ice1

[Scorcher]

Objection. Badgering the witness

 

Objection! This post applies to the thread topic! Relevance?

[wiegie]

I suggest you go back and reread this thread and you will see that no one really jumped on the research as proof of anything.

 

The only thing that got jumped on was how you attacked the research when you knew nothing about. Let's list the errors you made:

--assumed the author of the news article was the author of the research study

--didn't realize (or else dishonestly ignored) the fact that the study examined more than 15,000 people rather than 250

--displayed a complete lack of knowledge about longitudinal studies

 

Each time you were called on any one of these mistakes, you just came up with new arguments. Given that your wife is working on her PhD, it should be very easy for you to get a copy of the paper for you to review and critique rather than just make up critiques out of thin air. As I wrote earlier

 

Taylor Swift's ding dong, Are you really that dense or just want to argue? Any attempt for you or anyone to remotely justify this as science is ridiculous.

 

1)" Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

By Stephanie Pappas | LiveScience.com – 2 hrs 55 mins agoE"

 

The article quoted was written by her. Her opinions are strewn throughout this article. Where did I ever state she authored the study? You are just making that up.

your first post in that thread was this:

Just Science?

 

It is not science when the author has this education level.

 

 

Education:

 

• University of California, Santa Cruz
  • Graduate certificate in Science Writing, June 2009

   

  [*] University of South Carolina, Columbia

  • Bachelor of arts in psychology, minor in medical humanities, May 2006

   

   

 

Come on people, this might as well have been authored by Snooki.

If this author had written something about special relativity, would that mean that you would have still considered "special relativity" not science?

 

Or are you suggesting that everyone else was thinking that this news story was considered "science" and you needed to clarify that such an article really isn't science? (I'll note that this interpretation is the only way out you have in this whole situation, but that would imply that you thought the rest of us were so stupid that we actually would think that the news article was "science"--trust me, none of us did.)

 

2) From the article written by Pappas:

 

"In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. "

as I noted, the primary part of the research article in question studied more than 15,000 people, the part with 254 people was just an add-on to the primary research study in the research article

 

Note that I didn't necessarily say you were dishonest, my first suggestion was that you failed to realize something (although since scientifically, I couldn't prove that your failure to know how many people were studied was due to inattentiveness, I wanted to additionally offer up the alternative hypothesis that you were dishonest).

This simply demonstrates the author justifying a position linked to yet another study Hodson and Busseri in further attempt to sell a position by the author.

 

The assumptions made by you and others are simply framed by a science writer that has not provided the actual study but only snippets and quotes from two different works to drive a point.

 

While you may think this science, it is a simple opinion of writer with limited actual scientific knowledge. It is pure opinion when one makes a veiled attempt at linkage based on two works and that was the point.

 

I suggest you go back and read the article so you actually have a basic framework as to the conclusions of the author that only carries a Bachelors degree. Even the author of the actual studies listed by Pappas only surmises with words like " Might, May, and More Likely" so any attempt to pass this off as science is quite foolish and you should know that to be true.

 

As for claiming I was somehow dishonest, well if you actually read or retained the article written by Pappas you would not have made such a weak accusation. At any rate you can now see the qoute from Pappas.

Again, nobody in that thread actually thought that the news article itself was "science".

 

 

 

Oh, there is no clique on this board other than people (across the ideological spectrum) being against blowhards who come in and act as though they are more intelligent than everybody else here. If you are open to it (and develop a thick skin) you will find that there are some pretty smart people here who can take it every bit as well as they give it out.

[Ursa Majoris]

Not hating, just getting a little tired of the "click" with a serious agenda against those that are not as Liberal as they are.

 

I realize you posted the thread and named it Science as a joke. I agreed. However, as a member when one thread hops I will defend. That is my personality.

 

Since joining this site many from the click went out of their way to accuse me of being someone else, called me out as some talk radio guy, which I don't even listen to those idiots, all because some in the click have limited defense of a differing opinion. When I am called out as being dishonest for no reason, like many of you, I am not the type that will sit back and take it.

 

I said my piece, all is good.

It's "clique".

[Scorcher]

QUOTE (Ice1 @ 2/2/12 11:23pm)

Claim him as family if you like: I didn't start it: Where were you when he publicly misrepresented what I said. I let it go after the below post only to get cracked back on today.

 

Making false claims that I assumed something or calling me dishonest when I have quoted an article with the writers own words are classless and weak. Perhaps a mistake on his part but had he actually read what the author wrote or what I actually said he would find it was not me that made errors.

 

 

I don't mind BS or a difference of opinion but I expect some semblance of honesty or at least an accurate representation of facts. I would guess you would expect the same in return.

 

I get I have strong opinions just like many other around here.

 

 

 

Taylor Swift's ding dong, Are you really that dense or just want to argue? Any attempt for you or anyone to remotely justify this as science is ridiculous.

 

1)" Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

By Stephanie Pappas | LiveScience.com – 2 hrs 55 mins agoE"

 

The article quoted was written by her. Her opinions are strewn throughout this article. Where did I ever state she authored the study? You are just making that up.

 

2) From the article written by Pappas:

 

"In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. "

 

This simply demonstrates the author justifying a position linked to yet another study Hodson and Busseri in further attempt to sell a position by the author.

 

The assumptions made by you and others are simply framed by a science writer that has not provided the actual study but only snippets and quotes from two different works to drive a point.

 

While you may think this science, it is a simple opinion of writer with limited actual scientific knowledge. It is pure opinion when one makes a veiled attempt at linkage based on two works and that was the point.

 

I suggest you go back and read the article so you actually have a basic framework as to the conclusions of the author that only carries a Bachelors degree. Even the author of the actual studies listed by Pappas only surmises with words like " Might, May, and More Likely" so any attempt to pass this off as science is quite foolish and you should know that to be true.

 

As for claiming I was somehow dishonest, well if you actually read or retained the article written by Pappas you would not have made such a weak accusation. At any rate you can now see the qoute from Pappas.

Damn dude, you have a lot of time on your hands right now. Go find Bronco Bonehead, I'm sure he's up for an argument as always. He likes to skip facts and go right to the personal attacks. Hmmmmm Haven't seen him much since the Mediocre-at-best Broncos lost. Have a blast with him until he soils himself over his nonsensical rants and then puts you on his ignore list.

 

 

--------------------

So, does this mean I should accept the 1099?

[Big Country]

Objection. Badgering the witness

 

At least he didn't try to honey badger him.

[Ice1]

--------------------

So, does this mean I should accept the 1099?

 

 

Yes

[Sugar Magnolia]

Yes, you have to accept the 1099 and explained the best by Byoder, IMO. You report all of your income whether you receive a 1099 or not. 1099's do not change how your reporting is done or how you are taxed, unless you weren't planning on reporting said income. In that case, you better report it if you receive a 1099.

 

You have an opportunity to dispute the amount. The 1099 is expected to be issued by 2/1 of the following tax year. The issuer of the 1099, his deadline to file the W-9, which is a cover sheet for the 1099's, is 3/1. This gives you, the recipient of the 1099, a month to do your own audit, and get back to the issuer to fix the 1099 if necessary, if he/she under or over reports your income. If the issuer sends in the W-9 early, and there is an error, it becomes a paperwork fiasco to fix it with the IRS. Been there done that.

[Ice1]

If this author had written

 

1) Of course that was my first post and who did I quote and speak about? The Author. Assuming otherwise was on you.

 

2) The Author also mentioned the second study which apparently you completely overlooked so that somehow made you say this --didn't realize (or else dishonestly ignored) the fact that the study examined more than 15,000 people rather than 250.

 

Seems to me you were the one ignoring given the fact I quoted the author.

 

Just saying....spin as you like

Edited February 3, 2012 by Ice1

[Ursa Majoris]

1) Of course that was my first post and who did I quote and speak about? The Author. Assuming otherwise was on you.

 

2) The Author also mentioned the second study which apparently you completely overlooked so that somehow made you say this --didn't realize (or else dishonestly ignored) the fact that the study examined more than 15,000 people rather than 250.

 

Seems to me you were the one ignoring given the fact I quoted the author.

 

Just saying....spin as you like

Seems to me the issue is that you impugned the author of the article when you ought to have been impugning the subject matter of the article.

 

It was this that led to the hole you dug. BTW, none of us were taking the article particularly seriously until you came along and gave it some substance.

[wiegie]

1) Of course that was my first post and who did I quote and speak about? The Author. Assuming otherwise was on you.

OK, I'll take you at your word that you were merely saying that the news article itself wasn't science. Of course, this is something that anyone with 1/4 of a brain already knew, so it is very weird that you felt the need to say it; but ok, that's what you meant.

 

[2) The Author also mentioned the second study which apparently you completely overlooked so that somehow made you say this --didn't realize (or else dishonestly ignored) the fact that the study examined more than 15,000 people rather than 250.

 

Seems to me you were the one ignoring given the fact I quoted the author.

The simple fact is that the primary study of the research article being discussed had more than 15,000 subjects. Why you chose to focus on the study of only 250 people is beyond me. It makes no difference if you directly quoted the part of the article that talked about the study of 250 people, because the important part of the article was about the study of 15,000 people which you somehow overlooked (or just ignored).

[Azazello1313]

OK, I'll take you at your word that you were merely saying that the news article itself wasn't science. Of course, this is something that anyone with 1/4 of a brain already knew, so it is very weird that you felt the need to say it; but ok, that's what you meant.

 

 

The simple fact is that the primary study of the research article being discussed had more than 15,000 subjects. Why you chose to focus on the study of only 250 people is beyond me. It makes no difference if you directly quoted the part of the article that talked about the study of 250 people, because the important part of the article was about the study of 15,000 people which you somehow overlooked (or just ignored).

 

well, I do think it's relevant to compare the spin of the linked article with the conclusions of the underlying study. the article of course is what was posted.

[wiegie]

well, I do think it's relevant to compare the spin of the linked article with the conclusions of the underlying study.

no problem with that at all

 

now, my question to you is: Do you really and truly think that is what Ice1 was trying to do? (Please answer with a simple yes or no using Occam's razor as a guide in helping you answer the question.) (And as you answer, please keep in mind that Ice1 also revealed that he didn't understand how longitudinal studies are conducted.)

Edited February 3, 2012 by wiegie

[jetsfan]

no problem with that at all

 

now, my question to you is: Do you really and truly think that is what Ice1 was trying to do? (Please answer with a simple yes or no using Occam's razor as a guide in helping you answer the question.) (And as you answer, please keep in mind that Ice1 also revealed that he didn't understand how longitudinal studies are conducted.)

 

My Russian colleagues have the perfect way to answer these types of questions. данеть. In short, yes-no, as one word.

They always complain that English is too specific.

[Ice1]

no problem with that at all

 

now, my question to you is: Do you really and truly think that is what Ice1 was trying to do? (Please answer with a simple yes or no using Occam's razor as a guide in helping you answer the question.) (And as you answer, please keep in mind that Ice1 also revealed that he didn't understand how longitudinal studies are conducted.)

 

Just to clear up yet another interesting opinion by wiegie, It was his interpretation that I didn't understand a Longitudinal Study.

 

Further this article was not about the European study itself but their interpretation of said study linked to another study of 254 people in 2010. They set the parameters and the criteria model complete with their definitions then applied it to others work. Where they fall down was using the model equating Conservatism to Authoritarianism as a Right-Wing Ideology as a primary reasoning for prejudice.

 

Unfortunately, when one takes cognitive ability towards as they call Right-Wing Ideology (Conservatism,

a Authoritarianism) and then surmise the net result is prejudice using one of the studies dating back to 1958 and then link to yet another study of 254 to drive a point one will question from a political perspective.

 

When one makes it political in nature it carries about as much weight as if they plugged in Left Wing Liberal Authoritarianism parameters to achieve the same interpretation.

 

The name of the article by Pappas was Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice.

 

The linkage to their hypothesis used a Keiller (2010) American Study of 254 undergraduates from American University 172 Women and 58 men.

 

The leap from cognitive ability leads to prejudice, towards one possesses Right Wing Ideology as the intermediary renders this weak especially when linked to 254 undergraduate students. They could have just as easily found 254 inner city dwellers with no education, no job, and on complete government assistance that hold Liberal views as an example and come up with the same conclusions.

 

Further weakening the argument was this criteria: "( right-wing conservative

ideologies and a lack of contact with out-groups mediate the link between cognitive ability and prejudice."

 

Key Phrase is highlighted. Making a political hypothesis carries no real weight unless compared to the same Left Wing type group.

 

Overall, The article was weak and the study as portrayed boarders on an ad hominem attack against modern day conservatives based on authoritarian principles IMO.

 

BTW, those that think it was simply based on a single approximate 15,000 person European study dating back to 1958 going forward, simply didn't understand what they were reading.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Ice1

[yo mama]

Just to clear up yet another interesting opinion by wiegie, It was his interpretation that I didn't understand a Longitudinal Study.

Wrong again - nobody thinks wiegie's opinions are interesting.

[wiegie]

Just to clear up yet another interesting opinion by wiegie, It was his interpretation that I didn't understand a Longitudinal Study.

yes, and it is a perfectly correct interpretation given that you wrote this

While I am convinced you have no substantial education, if you really believe they tracked down all these people then spoke with all of them 20 or so years later you are sadly mistaken.

 

Edit to add: I think he was talking about bushwacked when he made the comment about a lack of education (although I am scared to assume anything).

Edited February 3, 2012 by wiegie

[wiegie]

Wrong again - nobody thinks wiegie's opinions are interesting.

most correct thing said in this whole f'ing thread

[yo mama]

most correct thing said in this whole f'ing thread

:blush: You're just sayin' that because I don't have the low IQ or conservative beliefs typically linked to prejudice thinking.