An Article Of Interest
- Thread starter Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC
- Start date
That's crazy! Sure some documentaries are legitimately non-profit, but to say everything educational is automatically not for profit? Man...
That was a fantastically poorly constructed article!
Wow! What sh!te!
Sometimes I don't know who's worse: the writer, the editor or the stupid readership that tolerates this drivel.
Both of the first two should know better.
The readership... well, I guess idiots need to at least have the opportunity to look like they're trying to pay attention.
- Pose an intriguing question!
- Point to whom it may affect in the local area...
- and infer its ramification to all throughout the known universe, about...
- a random citation...
- of one judge's QUESTIONING (not a ruling or anything substantial)...
- TWO STATES AWAY! (SF Cali to Arizona)
- of a subject she d@mn well should know already: Can an educational documentary be "for Profit".
OMG! That's rudimentary business knowledge. Any judge knows the [expletive] answer to that.
- Identify a plaintiff
- add some silly fluff, one aspect remotely relevant
- AMAZINGLY, drop that entire line of thought.
- Begin a new segue conversation expounding on self-deprecating ignorance
("Hi! I'm stupid! I have Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time on my coffee table! I read it! I don't understand it! It's all so Byzantine. But I have it on my coffee table! Please don't ask me who the Byzantians are!") F#ckin' idiot.
- Cite a random resource (misspelling their name in the process)...
- and discuss business vs. hobby expenses when the issue is can documentaries be "for profit" because they're supposed to be educational,...
- provide a cute, snarky quote of non-utilitarian merit...
- point at the plaintiff doing business...
- and bring up the IRS for the very first time.
- But don't address that one relevant party anymore.
Call it a day!
It's Miller Time!
A$$holes.
I hate people.
Wow! What sh!te!
Sometimes I don't know who's worse: the writer, the editor or the stupid readership that tolerates this drivel.
Both of the first two should know better.
The readership... well, I guess idiots need to at least have the opportunity to look like they're trying to pay attention.
- Pose an intriguing question!
- Point to whom it may affect in the local area...
- and infer its ramification to all throughout the known universe, about...
- a random citation...
- of one judge's QUESTIONING (not a ruling or anything substantial)...
- TWO STATES AWAY! (SF Cali to Arizona)
- of a subject she d@mn well should know already: Can an educational documentary be "for Profit".
OMG! That's rudimentary business knowledge. Any judge knows the [expletive] answer to that.
- Identify a plaintiff
- add some silly fluff, one aspect remotely relevant
- AMAZINGLY, drop that entire line of thought.
- Begin a new segue conversation expounding on self-deprecating ignorance
("Hi! I'm stupid! I have Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time on my coffee table! I read it! I don't understand it! It's all so Byzantine. But I have it on my coffee table! Please don't ask me who the Byzantians are!") F#ckin' idiot.
- Cite a random resource (misspelling their name in the process)...
- and discuss business vs. hobby expenses when the issue is can documentaries be "for profit" because they're supposed to be educational,...
- provide a cute, snarky quote of non-utilitarian merit...
- point at the plaintiff doing business...
- and bring up the IRS for the very first time.
- But don't address that one relevant party anymore.
Call it a day!
It's Miller Time!
A$$holes.
I hate people.
You're, mocking, me, aren't,,...y',o'.,u',,',?,'I love, how you love, to type, Ray.I think those commas are in the right spot.
Last edited:
Wait, wasn't this about whether her docu is classed as a business or as a hobby? I didn't really read much non-profit vs profit argument from that article.