Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreemanMenard said:
Yes I do believe homonyms exist.
Click to expand...
Then why do you pretend that they don't? See "order" in this very thread. See also "security" and many, many other examples. Could it be you are being deceptive when you pretend words only have one meaning regardless of context?
 
ComfySlippers said:
But let us also not forget the "Order" story, as stated as fact in Rob's videos. (Malcolm's Travels)

....Man in court is asked to remove his hat. Man asks, "is that an order?", the reply being "Yes".
Man writes a bill for $1000. Bill is shown to Judge, who quakes in fear and demands that Man be given $1000. Man is given a cheque for $1000 and walks out of Court.
Click to expand...

FreemanMenard said:
WOW... I do not remember making that claim. Nor do I remember empowering D"Rok to speak for me.


But you go ahead, ask questions about me, and accept as truth the lies that others say about me.

Yes I do believe homonyms exist.

Of course, you will prefer to believe D'Rok, or anyone else who attacks me, for expressing ideas you do not hold. Right?
Click to expand...
Do you then concede that there is a difference between an order of court, and an order for, say, supplies?
 
BobHaulk said:
Are you always right Rob?
Click to expand...

What? Accepting that one is wrong, is the key to growth and developing a deeper understanding of truth. The reason I have the perspective I now have is because I accepted I was wrong in thinking as most people here do, (which I did for the longest time) and the reason they attack this mindset is their inability to accept THEY may be wrong. Of course how can they be wrong, when so many here think the same thing, and the HERD is never wrong, and thinking contrary to the herd results in such peer pressure? ;)
 
abaddon said:
Do you then concede that there is a difference between an order of court, and an order for, say, supplies?
Click to expand...

I see they are both orders for performance or service. Made by an entity which uses contracts and is bound by the laws of commerce.
 
The answer to my question here:

D'rok said:
Then why do you pretend that they don't? See "order" in this very thread. See also "security" and many, many other examples. Could it be you are being deceptive when you pretend words only have one meaning regardless of context?
Click to expand...

Is quite plainly, YES. As seen here:

FreemanMenard said:
I see they are both orders for performance or service. Made by an entity which uses contracts and is bound by the laws of commerce.
Click to expand...
 
So, Rob. Keith (Canadian Freeman in Court - WINS BIG) is in jail awaiting trial. Did he do it wrong or were the courts corrupt?
 
FreemanMenard said:
What? Accepting that one is wrong, is the key to growth and developing a deeper understanding of truth. The reason I have the perspective I now have is because I accepted I was wrong in thinking as most people here do, (which I did for the longest time) and the reason they attack this mindset is their inability to accept THEY may be wrong. Of course how can they be wrong, when so many here think the same thing, and the HERD is never wrong, and thinking contrary to the herd results in such peer pressure? ;)
Click to expand...

Well i have looked at the freeman and in all honesty i find what you say to be utter rubbish. I respect your right to believe it but i can't find any evidence of there being any truth to your claims. It's not that i'm in a herd, i'm a star child like you, i don't blindly except everything i see. So it's not because i'm an idiot or a sheep or any of the other thing freemen call people who don't buy there stories it's just i don't see what you claim you see. You said you are wrong sometimes, maybe you are wrong with this.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I see they are both orders for performance or service. Made by an entity which uses contracts and is bound by the laws of commerce.
Click to expand...

Then the thousands of hours you have spent studying law have been wasted. Maybe if you had spent that time in a legitimate law school you may have learned something by now. Then you would be able to compare the law as it is (not the way you think it is) and the law as espoused by fmotl.
But then you would have to pay off your students loans as you would also learn the ridiculousness of your claims about writing off debts.
 
BritPunk said:
Check my OP on this #5561.it specifically states on the WFS site, not YouTube.
And your initial response was that you are not the admin of that site. So why are you now bringing YouTube into it?
More of the Sin Tzu deceit and misdirection you have recently been claiming to follow?
Click to expand...

Wow some of you guys seem intent not on discussion but merely argument and attacking. I checked the forum post, saw a link, clicked on that, saw it was up. Sorry if I did not know which of the many links you were referring to.

The video was removed not by the poster, or us, but by YouTube. That is why I brought them into it.
I do not control what they do, you know.


Does that explain it sufficiently, or merely frustrate your desire to attack and insult me further?
 
FreemanMenard said:
The video was removed not by the poster, or us, but by YouTube.
Click to expand...


"...due to a copyright claim by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation."

So we can go back to this:
BritPunk said:
So did you have a contract with CBC to use their video on your WFS site? And if so, why did you consent to them using statutory copyright law to remove it? I'm puzzled, old bean :confused::confused:
Click to expand...
 
BritPunk said:
Then the thousands of hours you have spent studying law have been wasted. Maybe if you had spent that time in a legitimate law school you may have learned something by now. Then you would be able to compare the law as it is (not the way you think it is) and the law as espoused by fmotl.
But then you would have to pay off your students loans as you would also learn the ridiculousness of your claims about writing off debts.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean compare the law as the lawyers want us to believe it is to what we know it is?

$67.5 MILLION dollars worth of Student loans discharged in 2006. Been many more since then. All successfully too.

If we are all bound by this so called law, why do only those who go to school and incur debts get to claim the ability to understand it?
 
Mojo said:
"...due to a copyright claim by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation."

So we can go back to this:
Click to expand...

My home page of WFS is not the same one the public sees when they log in. I see now the one you mean, but had to log off and reload to do so.

AGAIN, it was YOUTUBE who removed it, not us. Take your claims and questions to THEM. Incidentally, there are more videos now up. Maybe I will ask the admin to change the link to one which is active.

Hope that explains it, though I know you folks are simply desperate to portray me in a negative light, and will reject any explanation which doe snot support your hatred, anger and desire to attack.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I see they are both orders for performance or service. Made by an entity which uses contracts and is bound by the laws of commerce.
Click to expand...
So you don't understand homonyms. Glad you made that clear.

FreemanMenard said:
Wow some of you guys seem intent not on discussion but merely argument and attacking.
Click to expand...
So, if I have this straight, and questions or disagreement constitute "merely argument and attacking", i.e. no-one may disagree with you. Right.

FreemanMenard said:
I checked the forum post, saw a link, clicked on that, saw it was up. Sorry if I did not know which of the many links you were referring to.
Click to expand...
Clearly your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Seemed pretty clear to me.

FreemanMenard said:
The video was removed not by the poster, or us, but by YouTube. That is why I brought them into it.
I do not control what they do, you know.
Click to expand...
Did you withdraw consent?


FreemanMenard said:
Does that explain it sufficiently, or merely frustrate your desire to attack and insult me further?
Click to expand...
No, that does not explain it further, nor does it add any further explanation of your position. It just adds further obfuscation. But we all know you like that.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Don't you mean compare the law as the lawyers want us to believe it is to what we know it is?

$67.5 MILLION dollars worth of Student loans discharged in 2006. Been many more since then. All successfully too.

If we are all bound by this so called law, why do only those who go to school and incur debts get to claim the ability to understand it?
Click to expand...

Because you obviously do NOT understand basic concepts of law. I believe in looking at an argument from both sides. You only look at one.
And you claim you do not need to get into debt to go to school at that level.
So the question remains, why have you not taken advantage of this "fix" to get a free education?

Please be a little more consistent in your arguments.
 
FreemanMenard said:
My home page of WFS is not the same one the public sees when they log in. I see now the one you mean, but had to log off and reload to do so.

AGAIN, it was YOUTUBE who removed it, not us. Take your claims and questions to THEM. Incidentally, there are more videos now up. Maybe I will ask the admin to change the link to one which is active.

Hope that explains it, though I know you folks are simply desperate to portray me in a negative light, and will reject any explanation which doe snot support your hatred, anger and desire to attack.
Click to expand...

YouTube removed the video from the WFS homepage? Did you consent to that?
The message clearly states CBC, no mention of YT. It appears to have been embedded in your site, not a YT link.
Is there really no communication between you and your admin?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom