4. Beginning 3/29/11, I am not going to approve new comments that, in my judgment, are just uninformed rants offering nothing useful to the readers of this blog. I allowed those up to this point but have decided that the readers of this blog should not have to read uninformed rantings of people who, for whatever, reason rant rather than discuss. I feel that I owe it to the many readers who are looking for informed discussion. So, readers who rant will have their comments deleted. I am not going to go back to earlier comments to eliminate the rants. That would just take too much time. But future ones will not be approved. And, for a comment that is primarily ranting but may have some good comments buried in it, I will not take the time to ferret out the good comments. I will just not approve the comment but the commenter can eliminate the rants and repost the good stuff. PLEASE KEEP THE COMMENTS AND THE TONE CIVIL, DECENT AND APPROPRIATE. YOU CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE IRS ACTION WITHOUT AD HOMINEN ATTACKS AGAINST THE IRS, TIM GEITNER, PRESIDENT OBAMA OR ANYONE ELSE THE COMMENTER MAY DISLIKE.I value comments with good discussion and legitimate questions and concerns. So, please keep commenting.
Thanks,
Jack Townsend
I don't agree with this policy. Ranters should perhaps have their own thread, but not shut-up.
ReplyDeleteWho knows, 30,000 angry ranters might just shut down the OVD programs.
This might have an impact on social policy. I am sure this blog is read by IRS representatives, and is thus influential.
@ M,
DeleteBut it is Jack's blog. If you want to rant, go to the Isaac Brock Society. Plenty of ranters there. (Some good ones though.)
Fair enough Jack. You have been more than tolerant with your time and help to many who ask questions here. I don't think your request for civility and relevance is unreasonable at all. I for one, really appreciate the work you do.
ReplyDelete"This blog on Federal Tax Crimes is for tax professionals and tax students." There are plenty enough tax protestor blogs for ranters to exercise their First Amendment rights. Rants are neither informative nor pursusaive. M says the rants "might have an impact on social policy." I, for one, don't want anyone, the Government included, making social policy on uninformed, unpursuasive rants. So, if this Blog is "thus [more] influential" than a tax protestor website, Prof. Townsend has done exactly the right thing: he has prevented ranters from misappropriating by association the credibility and goodwill of HIS influential professional and accademic forum. I thank you, Prof. Townsend, for what must be a significant amount of time and effort in maintaining this blog for students and practitioners who want to learn.
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeletePerhaps some of comments were too direct and you might not be comfortable hosting such comments on this blog which could question your reputation in some social circles. Fair enough.
However I do think you should allow a certain degree of criticism towards IRS and OVD programs. Moreover you could edit some of those posts to be appropriate enough.
1. Criticizing the IRS is not the issue. Readers can make all the criticism they want, and I will too. I just insist that the discourse be civil.
Delete2. I want the blog to be useful to readers. Uncivil discourse is not useful to anyone except perhaps the person who is ranting / blowing off steam. Even to have to read the rants is a waste of time and hence, makes this blog less useful to the readers.
3. My key is to provide useful information through the collective and thoughtful wisdom that I can bring to the blog and that the readers can bring to the blog.
4. What I may do (have not decided yet) is to create a page where I cut and paste the rants I do not approve. If I do that, I would open the page with a caution that, in my judgment, reading the rants would be a waste of time, and then let the readers read the rants if they chose to waste their time in that way. One purpose this would serve is to let the community of readers understand what I am not approving and feel comfortable that I am exercising good judgment in providing them good information, including the readers comments. I would appreciate feedback from readers as to whether that would be helpful to them.
Jack Townsend
I think that is great. The place where these posts go could be called the "Hall of Shame". I have ranted some on the subject matter but have shared my experiences in 2009 OVDP both to let off a little steam and to help others who may be stressed while in the process. Thanks Mr. Townsend for your time and wisdom in keeping this blog up.
ReplyDeleteAnon123
Jack,
ReplyDeleteThanks for hosting this blog. Its ok if you dont let us rant. We will visit your blog anyway.
We sometimes rant because we hope that someone at the IRS reading our rants realizes that we are cursing them and that they will suffer in their next life because of what they are doing.
This is the law of karma and it works with mathematical precision. I hope you will post this one. (:-))))
Given the misery that some of these immigrants are suffering as a result of just being immigrants, of having had a life in a different country, it is a surprise to me that all they do is rant.
ReplyDeleteThis is a result of malicious, vindictive, inept, ignorant, and then the covering-up of their errors polices in the IRS, the US Treasury and US Congress. Blame must be placed squarely on the leaders.
I consider the rants as "source documents". I am sure each and everyone would be an influential witness and be very convincing to a jury.
Without an injured plaintiff, there is not much of case. Multiple plaintiffs, with severe injuries, make a much stronger case.
That being said, though it would be best if the rants (complaints) be classified in an Appendix that does not break the continuity or the decorum of the proceedings.
Good policy Jack.
ReplyDeleteAnd I would assume that reasoned, or, conversely, praise, for bad or good policy and decisions,etc., including by particular people, would not qualify as objectionable so long as it is reasoned?
I at least would like to read hard-charging critique so long as it doesn't deteriorate into derogatory insulting remarks, agreement and disagreement on contentious points. In fact, that is a large part of why I read this blog: for the insightful comments and points of view.
But I hope all this does not mean no "BS Tax Shelter" postings from you!!! (;-))
I will certainly allow vigorous criticism of any of the actors in this drama and I will do my share of criticism. I will make every effort to make my criticism fair without overdoing the hyperbole things that overstate my case and thus make my case less credible. Readers should understand that, if you state your case powerfully, that is a lot different than stating it with ad hominem attacks that take away from the credibility of the arguments.
DeleteJack Townsend
I'm with you Jack, I think the blog is most useful if it focuses on experiences and information that can be useful to others. Criticism (and comment on how the OVDI programs could be run better) is one thing, and ranting another.
ReplyDelete