3 ms·

I've had some dealings with the "sovereign citizen" nutcases before, but I hadn't heard that the concepts were being adopted in the "inner-city-drug-dealer" mil

I've had some dealings with the "sovereign citizen" nutcases before, but I hadn't heard that the concepts were being adopted in the "inner-city-drug-dealer" milieu. It's bizarre stuff-- almost like the Flat Earth Society, but these people actually believe the nonsense they are spouting. I had one guy try to argue, with a straight face, that the word "includes" is limiting, so that when the Tax Code says something like "For the purposes of this act, The United States includes the District of Columbia", it actually means that the United States is only the District of Columbia, and does not include the 50 States.

Psyonic 18y ago
That sort of makes sense. Think of something like this. "The Blue Group will be performing in your home town tomorrow night. The Blue Group includes John the Juggler, Ryan the Rocketman, and Gina the Gorilla-fighter!" This seems to imply that John, Ryan, and Gina are the only members of The Blue Group. Comprises would probably be the better word to use here, but includes doesn't seem to out of place. Dictionary.com has more about the controversy: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/includes http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/includes
- maneesh 18y ago
  i always learned 'includes' means 'including but not limited to' and 'consists of' means 'including and no more'
- michael_dorfman 18y ago
  Sorry, but no. The "controversy", if you can call it that, is whether or not it is proper to use "includes" with a list that is complete-- everybody agrees that it is the best choice for an incomplete list. Check your link again. Seriously: if I said "The science faculty includes two Nobel Laureates", would you really think that there were only two professors on staff? It's a nonsensical argument at best-- and when folks attempt to use it to argue against common sense (like stating that the United States does not include the 50 States), reason is left whimpering in the corner.
kingkongrevenge 18y ago
I don't know exactly what these thugs are claiming, but it's far from nut-job territory to claim the feds have no business in these local drug and murder cases. The unmitigated contempt the author has for posse comitatus is a little disturbing. He can't even entertain the idea that perhaps there are good reasons the federal military should be barred from domestic law enforcement?
- william42 18y ago
  If that were the only thing they were claiming it would be different. But they are claiming that the person referred to on the federal documents isn't them because it's in capital letters.

Psyonic 18y ago

That sort of makes sense. Think of something like this. "The Blue Group will be performing in your home town tomorrow night. The Blue Group includes John the Juggler, Ryan the Rocketman, and Gina the Gorilla-fighter!" This seems to imply that John, Ryan, and Gina are the only members of The Blue Group. Comprises would probably be the better word to use here, but includes doesn't seem to out of place. Dictionary.com has more about the controversy: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/includes http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/includes

maneesh 18y ago
i always learned 'includes' means 'including but not limited to' and 'consists of' means 'including and no more'
michael_dorfman 18y ago
Sorry, but no. The "controversy", if you can call it that, is whether or not it is proper to use "includes" with a list that is complete-- everybody agrees that it is the best choice for an incomplete list. Check your link again. Seriously: if I said "The science faculty includes two Nobel Laureates", would you really think that there were only two professors on staff? It's a nonsensical argument at best-- and when folks attempt to use it to argue against common sense (like stating that the United States does not include the 50 States), reason is left whimpering in the corner.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago

I don't know exactly what these thugs are claiming, but it's far from nut-job territory to claim the feds have no business in these local drug and murder cases. The unmitigated contempt the author has for posse comitatus is a little disturbing. He can't even entertain the idea that perhaps there are good reasons the federal military should be barred from domestic law enforcement?

william42 18y ago
If that were the only thing they were claiming it would be different. But they are claiming that the person referred to on the federal documents isn't them because it's in capital letters.