Tax Liability Question

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you dispute any of the facts presented in that article?

That's the thing with 'patchwork,' really: each piece contains its own pattern, color and theme.
One could make a complete blanket out of any one of them.
However, when one removes a single piece from the context of the whole, begins combining other pieces similarly removed from their original frames, one runs the risk of losing the perspective of the pieces in their stand-alone state.
The missing parts from the original are critical in order to appreciate even that little square.
What is missing, often, is just as important as what is revealed.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's the thing with 'patchwork,' really: each piece contains its own pattern, color and theme.
One could make a complete blanket out of any one of them.
However, when one removes a single piece from the context of the whole, begins combining other pieces similarly removed from their original frames, one runs the risk of losing the perspective of the pi ...[text shortened]... iate even that little square.
What is missing, often, is just as important as what is revealed.

I'll take that as a "no".

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'll take that as a "no".

Can you refute omission?
Then, yes, I refute the entire thing.
Because they use 'patches' of truth doesn't mean they show you the whole blanket.
Quit using naivete as some kind of free pass.