Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[D'rok]

BTW: Have you had any success discouraging WFS'ers from taking the full-blown FOTL plunge?

 

[Hans]

Jlords comment on the menu canard brought to my mind the Second World War being fought between people mailing 'fee schedules' at one another.

At last count Germany owed France 26.4 quattuordecillion francs

 

[drewid]

Hang on. I'm just going to write up my fee schedule for my time spent reading Maynards BS posts

 

[JLord]

BTW: Have you had any success discouraging WFS'ers from taking the full-blown FOTL plunge?

Yes, both IRL and on the internet. I still don't have really fool proof way of doing so, and there may not be one. I'm still trying to figure the best way of doing so. I think the problem is that once a person has invested enough time and energy in the movement they reach a point of no return where to admit they are wrong becomes impossible because of the amount of time they spent already and the amount of people they told about it makes it impossible to turn back without seriously losing face. Kind of like what happens to people who join cults.

But a lot of people, looking for a desperate last resport turn to freeman ideology thinking it may be their best option. These people have not invested a lot in the movement yet and are still open to reasonable, respectful, well sourced arguments pointing out the errors in the freeman logic. I also try to not get into any political arguments ("who is going to pay for the roads?") and generally I sympathize with the libertarian aspects of the freeman philosophy while criticizing the "ignore reality and pretend your ideology has some force of law" parts of the freeman movement. I don't have a problem with someone promoting a libertarian political philosophy, but if that's your thing join the libertarian party and support the cause, no need to make up a bunch of nonsense about the actual state of the law.

For example here is a recent thread where something like that appears to have occured:

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=10377

At least in terms of the main freeman logic behind his initital argument, the OP in this thread appears to have listened to reason and moved on from the freeman ideology. There are other examples but this was the one that came to mind that I could find.

 

[Paul]

And you call yourself a critical thinker, and have to resort to ludicrous example to try and defeat the argument.

You have no argument that requires defeating, you have a staggering lack of understanding.

Where did I mention murder?

Where did anyone say you did?

According to your logic, since a murderer can't rely upon a fee schedule to evade justice, a restaurant can't use one to ensure it.

As only an idiot would agree with that statement, it must be your logic.

To have to speak of murderers when the situation was about service and performance under contract as per the law in a restaurant is simply the stupidest thing I have seen here yet!

You don't proof-read your own posts then?

Just cause there are situations where a Fee Schedule can not be used, does not mean there are no situations where it can be used

This, amazingly for you, is true. However, it does not mean that any moron can start charging people for anything they want anytime they want.

Your stupid notion of a fee schedule you can activate in an attempt to bully people who try to hold you accountable for you actions does not, has not, and will not work.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Menard wrote:

According to your logic, since a murderer can't rely upon a fee schedule to evade justice, a restaurant can't use one to ensure it.

That is not what I am saying.
You have in the past promoted the use of a fee schedule when somebody has been charged with a minor offence such as a motoring charge. You likened the fee schedule in such an instance as similar to the charges on a menu in a restaurant. You did that, not me.
So, I asked why shouldn't a murderer also invoke a fee schedule when expecting arrest?
Why would a murderer's fee schedule fail whilst a motorist without insurance or registration who has submitted a fee schedule succeed?
You have stated that a murderer cannot rely on a fee schedule.
Why?

 

[Mojo]

JB comes to you and demands you sign a contract with him, and then be obliged to follow his rules or the terms of the contract. He demands you sell him your car for $1. You refuse to consent to it. So he then says "Fine, I do not consent to contract law!" (but of course he calls contract law 'freeman philosophy', cause he is that stupid.) So you end up in court, where the judge decides if you have to sell him your car for $1. You state that there is no contract, as you did not consent. JB says no contract is needed, cause he does not consent to contact law.

That sounds remarkably like the "fee schedule" nonsense.

Go to any restaurant, look at their fee schedule, or menu...

...or offer...

...order from it...

...offer accepted...

...receive your order, and then try claiming that the Fee Schedule or menu, (because that’s all a menu is, a restaurants Fee Schedule,) has no basis in law.

Can anyone see where the contract arises?

 

[tsig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_y-gLm9Hrw&feature=player_embedded

There you go!

You think a video where two cops are killed proves your point?

 

[Loss Leader]

Many posts have been moved to AAH for incivility and attacking the arguer. Calling another poster "liar", "stupid", "conman" and other insults is a violation of the membership agreement. The title of the thread has been changed to reflect this rule. Remain civil and polite, attack the argument and not the individual.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[D'rok]

Yes, both IRL and on the internet. I still don't have really fool proof way of doing so, and there may not be one. I'm still trying to figure the best way of doing so. I think the problem is that once a person has invested enough time and energy in the movement they reach a point of no return where to admit they are wrong becomes impossible because of the amount of time they spent already and the amount of people they told about it makes it impossible to turn back without seriously losing face. Kind of like what happens to people who join cults.

But a lot of people, looking for a desperate last resport turn to freeman ideology thinking it may be their best option. These people have not invested a lot in the movement yet and are still open to reasonable, respectful, well sourced arguments pointing out the errors in the freeman logic. I also try to not get into any political arguments ("who is going to pay for the roads?") and generally I sympathize with the libertarian aspects of the freeman philosophy while criticizing the "ignore reality and pretend your ideology has some force of law" parts of the freeman movement. I don't have a problem with someone promoting a libertarian political philosophy, but if that's your thing join the libertarian party and support the cause, no need to make up a bunch of nonsense about the actual state of the law.

For example here is a recent thread where something like that appears to have occured:

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=10377

At least in terms of the main freeman logic behind his initital argument, the OP in this thread appears to have listened to reason and moved on from the freeman ideology. There are other examples but this was the one that came to mind that I could find.

Nicely done. I have no idea how you have the patience for that.

 

[gtm]

So you need to be shown and can't use your own brain or employ logic. Standard here isn't it?
And if I showed you an affidavit from someone who had done so you would not accept it.

FMOTL-style Fee Schedule is the same as that used by restaurants.

Do you need evidence that restaurant fee schedules are enforceable?

In my opinion a menu is actually an 'invitation to treat' & as such isn't part of the contract between a diner & the restaurant.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for disregarding mod directive.

 

[Hans]

Conman: Menard "I have a success story. I have had posts deleted over on JREF"

Silly mods.

I believe they are in 'abandon all hope'

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I'm sorry, but do you really think that whether or not posts are deleted has anything to do with whether or not he might claim victory? My impression is everything is a victory, regardless of the reality.

 

[Loss Leader]

In my opinion a menu is actually an 'invitation to treat' & as such isn't part of the contract between a diner & the restaurant.

I think the phrase is "invitation to trade."

 

[ComfySlippers]

I'm sorry, but do you really think that whether or not posts are deleted has anything to do with whether or not he might claim victory? My impression is everything is a victory, regardless of the reality.

Knowing how a certain person's brain works I would say Yes, to that person it would be viewed as a victory and "a win".... "How I defeated the sheeple at JREF" would fit the bill.

Without naming names, and respecting JREF Forum and it's mods, I find it odd that if any conman becomes a member of this forum he can not be called out for what he is. Whereas, according to forum rules, if said conman is not a member of the forum we are allowed to state the obvious.

Trolls in certain other threads on JREF are regularly called out for what they are... Trolls, liars etc.

Playing host to, and entertaining by removing "offensive posts", dubious conmen is a tad silly imo.

 

[Horatius]

Playing host to, and entertaining by removing "offensive posts", dubious conmen is a tad silly imo.

But alas, it is a necessary part of the JREF Forums. How can we get conmen to post here, so that we can show exactly how they lie and distort the facts, thus proving them to be conmen, unless we provide an environment in which they feel they can, if not thrive, at least survive?

 

[Bishop]

So if a scam is under discussion on this forum, all the scammer who is being discussed has to do is join this forum, and suddenly nobody is allowed call him a scammer anymore? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I can understand the need for such a rule that straight-up flaming isn't allowed, but to forbid anyone from ever calling someone else a con artist essentially neuters this website when it comes to its ability to expose scams.

And I'll tell you something else, too. I have a lot of experience, both on the Internet and IRL, dealing with freemen, and Rob Menard in particular. In fact, that's one of the reasons I joined this website - it's one of the few websites out there that reveals the truth about freeman claims. On most other sites, the freeman gurus reign supreme, and they ban any and all skeptics the moment they argue against it. Hell, even in the Icke forum, the mods are pretty much in Menard's pocket, and while they allow people to argue against freeman claims, they routinely ban and infract anyone who suggests that Menard isn't being honest.

And now the JREF forum is going to do the exact same thing?

 

[jsfisher]

So if a scam is under discussion on this forum, all the scammer who is being discussed has to do is join this forum, and suddenly nobody is allowed call him a scammer anymore? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I can understand the need for such a rule that straight-up flaming isn't allowed, but to forbid anyone from ever calling someone else a con artist essentially neuters this website when it comes to its ability to expose scams.

Not quite true. The scam itself it always open for discussion, whether the main proponent is a member here or not. As far as calling the main proponent a scammer, well, that sort of depends on context.

It really should be no different than calling another forumite a liar. If the accusation is on-topic and explained, it will usually pass through moderation unscathed. If it becomes an empty, repetitive chant, expect to see the yellow cards come out.

And I'll tell you something else, too. I have a lot of experience, both on the Internet and IRL, dealing with freemen, and Rob Menard in particular. In fact, that's one of the reasons I joined this website - it's one of the few websites out there that reveals the truth about freeman claims. On most other sites, the freeman gurus reign supreme, and they ban any and all skeptics the moment they argue against it. Hell, even in the Icke forum, the mods are pretty much in Menard's pocket, and while they allow people to argue against freeman claims, they routinely ban and infract anyone who suggests that Menard isn't being honest.

And now the JREF forum is going to do the exact same thing?

Not even close to the exact same thing. The moderator staff here intervene when people break the Membership Agreement. The moderators don't seem to care which side of the argument you, either, when they intervene.

You are perfectly welcome to discuss the claims promoted by Menard. Got evidence of FMOTL methods failing miserably? Great! Do share. Just don't get into mindless name-calling.

 

[Bishop]

Okay, that's fair enough. I guess I just got a little bit worried when I saw the last few posts.