Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's an even better example, chosen at random:

“micro-organism” means a microscopic organism that is
(a) classified in the Bacteria, the Archaea, the Protista, which includes protozoa and algae, or the Fungi, which includes yeasts;
(b) a virus, virus-like particle or sub-viral particle;
(c) a cultured cell of an organism not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), other than a cell used to propagate the organism; or
(d) any culture other than a pure culture. (micro-organisme)

What do you think "includes" means here?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Looks to me (and the lawyers and judges I spoke with), that the word 'includes' limits the definition of peace officer to only those things specifically mentioned, and excludes anything not specifically mentioned.

But you need to laugh as a way of avoiding the truth, right?
Click to expand...

O crikey that one is hysterical! Lawyers and judges told you that, yes?! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Which lawyers and judges?

If it was a restictive definition there would be no need for the word "includes" unless perhaps the statute said something to the effect of "includes and is limited to only...."

Priceless. Nice one, you've given me a good laugh with that crackpot explanation!

:D
 
So they provide a service and when you secure that service it is through a transaction.
Click to expand...

Your getting obsessed over the meanings of words again.

You yourself have participated in a transaction by communicating, in your own silly way, with other posters on this and every other forum where you have repeated your nonsense.

Transaction:

1. The act of transacting or the fact of being transacted.
2. Something transacted, especially a business agreement or exchange.
3. Communication involving two or more people that affects all those involved; personal interaction: "a rich sense of the transaction between writer and reader" (William Zinsser).
4. transactions A record of business conducted at a meeting; proceedings.T
Click to expand...

Linkage
 
jargon buster said:
No it simply blew your consent theory out of the water.
Firstly you had to consent to the copyright act and secondly me ignoring the copyright act and doing exactly as i pleased didn't help me one bit.
It proved you consent to the acts and my non consent was totally ignored.

Yup, you came out of that looking great.
Click to expand...
I am not surprised you would see it ass backwards.

You had consented to it, when you entered the agreement. And it was used by me, even though not applicable to me, against you, because you had consented to it, and then breached agreement you had entered into.

Simple law.
 
ComfySlippers said:
Your getting obsessed over the meanings of words again.

You yourself have participated in a transaction by communicating, in your own silly way, with other posters on this and every other forum where you have repeated your nonsense.



Linkage
Click to expand...

Obsessed with the meanings of words?

Let's use words then without any meanings. Or use them without knowing what they mean. Choose ignorance and be happy, right Comfy?

Discussions are not transactions. But ignorant people who do not know what a transaction is, may label them as one.
 
Last edited:
jargon buster said:
Wow, a lot of legal sounding terms there Rob, it would appear that it was all done legally then via statutory legislation passed by a responsible government.

Thanks for that.

This is like shooting fish in a kitchen sink.
Click to expand...

More like dynamiting fish in a barrel.
 
D'rok said:
So much for C3PO then, eh?

Actually, you're not far wrong on this one, so I'll retract my laughing dog. It's true that you can't claim to be a peace officer if you aren't on that list. But that list is an open one and does not foreclose on the possibility of other persons being added to the list. If it was a truly exclusive list it would say "peace officer" means.

In other statutory contexts, "includes" or similar words are really wide open and is used to illustrate examples of a category rather than limits of a category.


ETA: Here's a really important example. I hope you will agree with me on this:

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Click to expand...


Do you agree the word 'includes' is simply not the word 'including'? Do you see two separate words or are the exactly identical?
 
D'rok said:
So much for C3PO then, eh?

Actually, you're not far wrong on this one, so I'll retract my laughing dog. It's true that you can't claim to be a peace officer if you aren't on that list. But that list is an open one and does not foreclose on the possibility of other persons being added to the list. If it was a truly exclusive list it would say "peace officer" means.

In other statutory contexts, "includes" or similar words are really wide open and is used to illustrate examples of a category rather than limits of a category.


ETA: Here's a really important example. I hope you will agree with me on this:

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Click to expand...

C3PO is composed of people hired to preserve and maintain the public peace.
We are on that list.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I am not surprised you would see it ass backwards.

You had consented to it, when you entered the agreement. And it was used by me, even though not applicable to me, against you, because you had consented to it, and then breached agreement you had entered into.

Simple law.
Click to expand...
Well that's a pretty clear and unambiguous admission (again) that you claim the laws of Canada don't apply to you. Or one law at any rate.

So, once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.
 
cocana said:
O crikey that one is hysterical! Lawyers and judges told you that, yes?! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Which lawyers and judges?

If it was a restictive definition there would be no need for the word "includes" unless perhaps the statute said something to the effect of "includes and is limited to only...."

Priceless. Nice one, you've given me a good laugh with that crackpot explanation!

:D
Click to expand...

So tell me O Laughing Expert in the Law, what is not on that list, which will also be deemed to be a peace officer?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Do you agree the word 'includes' is simply not the word 'including'? Do you see two separate words or are the exactly identical?
Click to expand...
See my next post for a better example. What does "includes" mean to you there? What does "means" mean to you there?

ETA:

“micro-organism” means a microscopic organism that is
(a) classified in the Bacteria, the Archaea, the Protista, which includes protozoa and algae, or the Fungi, which includes yeasts;
(b) a virus, virus-like particle or sub-viral particle;
(c) a cultured cell of an organism not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), other than a cell used to propagate the organism; or
(d) any culture other than a pure culture. (micro-organisme)
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
So tell me O Laughing Expert in the Law, what is not on that list, which will also be deemed to be a peace officer?
Click to expand...

My sides are hurting now, stop it!

You said -

Looks to me (and the lawyers and judges I spoke with), that the word 'includes' limits the definition of peace officer to only those things specifically mentioned, and excludes anything not specifically mentioned.
Click to expand...

YOU claimed that "includes" limits a definition, not me.

Congratulations, you're sitting in the barrel shooting yourself!

Once again, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.

A gentle reminder of my earlier post to help you - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7533235&postcount=2082
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
No. You are not.
Click to expand...

“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,


You sure? Looks to me like we are. We hire each other to preserve and maintain the public peace. And it is all completely lawful.

Pretty wide open definition isn't it?

:D:D:D

But thats okay, you are someone who thinks that the term 'consent of the governed' actually says 'consent of the people'.

:D
 
FreemanMenard said:
“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,


You sure? Looks to me like we are. We hire each other to preserve and maintain the public peace. And it is all completely lawful.

Pretty wide open definition isn't it?

:D:D:D

But thats okay, you are someone who thinks that the term 'consent of the governed' actually says 'consent of the people'.

:D
Click to expand...
I thought you weren't a person?

I suggest you prove this claim by attempting to arrest someone. Arresting a police officer would be excellent evidence that you really are a peace officer.

Now, back to reality, you claim to be above the laws of Canada. Prove it.
 
Obsessed with the meanings of words?

Let's use words then without any meanings. Or use them without knowing what they mean. Choose ignorance and be happy, right Comfy?
Click to expand...

OK. I'll rephrase. Stop pretending you have scuppered the evil government's plans by proclaiming that you know the "true" meanings of words. You do not. You simply misinterpret everything you read, take everything out of context and apply silly "Rob-World" definitions to easily understandable words and phrases.

You are the person who makes false claims about "Birth Bonds".... "Revenue Received" etc.

You are the person who, despite claiming to be more intelligent than the majority of people, is incapable of understanding very simple words and concepts.

C3PO is composed of people hired to preserve and maintain the public peace.
We are on that list.
Click to expand...

No. It's your pretend police force that polices Rob-World.
As Rob-World exists nowhere other than in your head it is irrelevant, (yet still quite amusing).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom