Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can I take a second to say that fezzes and smoking pot seem to be held in disdain in this thread. They're both fine things. This 'guilt by association' will not stand!
 
BobHaulk said:
I don't like saying this about Rob, as i've said i feel sorry for him. It don't bother me in the slightest if anyone want's to bum around, sign on,believe in any old rubbish, it's up to them. Working to make money to buy crap we don't need that's killing the planet is an utter waste of your one life in this universe and i actual think to bum around like Rob don't make you any worse than some bell end with a career. Sure he sells dvd's without any useful information, so what really, it's not like he's some big supermarket selling clothes made by chinese people in sweat shops
Time to leave rob alone to his delusion cause it feels like people are enjoying tormenting a clearly unstable soul.
Click to expand...

That is a clever post! Claim the moral high ground, while labeling me as a clearly unstable soul.

What you fail to realize however is the ramifications...

Let's say I am not an unstable soul, then the actions would still be considered tormenting, would they not? I mean, didn't you just acknowledge the standard of discussion on this forum, by it's more vocal users, is to torment? To denigrate, harass, insult, and vilify? To 'pick on'?


Why did you not say, "Hey let's stop acting like this because it makes us all look like a bunch of immature gits, and we are earning a reputation on line as a place intelligent discussion goes to die!" Nope. It only became unacceptable behaviour once you labelled me as an unstable soul. If however I am a stable soul, then it is perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour, and is in fact the standard MO for dealing with anyone who does not agree with us.

Now I know why none of you wished to accept my challenge to debate on camera.
You guys would lose any real debate, because insults, derision and ad hominems don't work in real debates. But here, you pat each other on the back for them....

Unless you think you are dealing with an unstable soul, then you are nice enough to no longer 'torment' them...

Was it your intent to admit that the SOP of this forum is to torment those who do not agree with you?
 
Howdy Freeman comrade,I have been up to all-sorts since we last spoke, I now regularly walk on the grass in the park ignoring those pesky "keep off the grass" signs, the pesky park keeper cant govern me without my consent.

Dont worry about these guys Rob, they cant see inside their hearts like we can, we know the truth dont we? ;)
 
Last edited:
Now I know why none of you wished to accept my challenge to debate on camera.
Click to expand...

We dont need debate Rob, we just need to show these naysayers some evidence and its all over, lets get to it, I have been looking for almost three years now and with your 12 years we should be able to scupper these guys.

Now let me see, where did I put that evidence......
 
FreemanMenard said:
That is a clever post! Claim the moral high ground, while labeling me as a clearly unstable soul.

What you fail to realize however is the ramifications...

Let's say I am not an unstable soul, then the actions would still be considered tormenting, would they not? I mean, didn't you just acknowledge the standard of discussion on this forum, by it's more vocal users, is to torment? To denigrate, harass, insult, and vilify? To 'pick on'?


Why did you not say, "Hey let's stop acting like this because it makes us all look like a bunch of immature gits, and we are earning a reputation on line as a place intelligent discussion goes to die!" Nope. It only became unacceptable behaviour once you labelled me as an unstable soul. If however I am a stable soul, then it is perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour, and is in fact the standard MO for dealing with anyone who does not agree with us.

Now I know why none of you wished to accept my challenge to debate on camera.
You guys would lose any real debate, because insults, derision and ad hominems don't work in real debates. But here, you pat each other on the back for them....

Unless you think you are dealing with an unstable soul, then you are nice enough to no longer 'torment' them...

Was it your intent to admit that the SOP of this forum is to torment those who do not agree with you?
Click to expand...

This isn't about mere disagreement, Rob Menard.

The plain fact of the matter is you are a man of highly questionable integrity and judgment.

The truth is that none of your theories have any basis in law, history or custom.

It is a fact that every time one of your methods sees the light of day in open court it is rejected.

The plain truth is, despite your grandiose claims of out of court successes you have never produced one shred of documentation of a single freeman win. The truth is several events you have touted as freeman wins turned out to be unqualified failures.

The fact is you have attempted to falsify endorsements of your theories claiming you had written approval of freeman theory from Irish lawyers.

The fact is you shamelessly plagiarized Larken Roses’ work and tried to pass it off as a mere typo.

The fact is there is a trail of well documented freeman convictions, fines, imprisonments, institutionalizations, foreclosures, adverse court rulings and child custody rulings left in the wake of your foolish teachings. . .and some of the loses are yours, personally.

You can't even make your methods work for yourself, Rob Menard!

And the most spineless thing of all is the reality that you deny any responsibility for each of the poor gullible ruined by your snake oil.

This is not mere insult. It is the sad truth.

Shame on you, Robert Menard!
 
FreemanMenard said:
Now I know why none of you wished to accept my challenge to debate on camera.
Click to expand...


I am game.

Anyone who wants to take on Rob can PM me, or reply openly regarding the arrangements for a recorded debate here in Louisville, Kentucky.

You game, Rob?

Just to make it easy for you, freeman Rob, I will reimburse you for your plane ticket down here and put you up for a couple of nights.

I will make arrangements for the recording.

We have great Bourbon down here, Bobby boy. You swill, I pay.

Now, sonny, if we don’t get a public response, here on this forum, to this acceptance of your challenge in 48 hours it will be taken as your rejection.

You have until Tuesday at noon eastern standard time.

Tick. . .tick. . .tick. . .
 
Last edited:
Just to make it easy for you, freeman Rob, I will reimburse you for your plane ticket down here and put you up for a couple of nights.

I will make arrangements for the recording.

We have great Bourbon down here, Bobby boy. You swill, I pay.
Click to expand...

I believed you up until the part in bold.
You cant really be serious enough to pick up Robs bar tab.
 
Since it seems to be acceptable on this forum to post links and words form others, and the denigrate those people, I thought I would share with you something absolutely idiotic from that forum composed according to so many of you of fools known by you as The David Icke Forum the following for STUNDIE nomination:


http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=203461
msbpunk said:
No, because I am not against either. I just do not believe fmotlsim is a viable alternative to the present system, and its pursuit is a distraction from finding genuine solutions to the problems with the system as it is.
Again, you are tilting at a strawman.
Click to expand...

IS that stupid or what? I mean if fmotlism is a waste of time, according to her, then how much bigger of a waste of time must it be for her, someone who does not believe in it?

To stop people from wasting their time on something that does not work in finding solutions, she waste her time and does not attempt to propose any solutions at all!

How insane is that?

If I thought anything was a waste of time, I would consider trying to stop people from wasting their time on that thing to be an even bigger waste of my own time.

STUNDIE!

I also think STUNDIES should go to those who have been informed that they are in the iggy bin yet then continue to post and address me. Not that I know they are for sure, what with them being in the iggy bin, but ads I know their mentality I can easily deduce they continue to do so. WHAT A STUNDIE!
 
I also think STUNDIES should go to those who have been informed that they are in the iggy bin yet then continue to post and address me. Not that I know they are for sure, what with them being in the iggy bin, but ads I know their mentality I can easily deduce they continue to do so.
Click to expand...

or "I claim to put people in my 'iggy bin' but my ego makes me peek"
 
FreemanMenard said:
Since it seems to be acceptable on this forum to post links and words form others, and the denigrate those people, I thought I would share with you something absolutely idiotic from that forum composed according to so many of you of fools known by you as The David Icke Forum the following for STUNDIE nomination:


http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=203461
msbpunk said:


IS that stupid or what? I mean if fmotlism is a waste of time, according to her, then how much bigger of a waste of time must it be for her, someone who does not believe in it?

To stop people from wasting their time on something that does not work in finding solutions, she waste her time and does not attempt to propose any solutions at all!

How insane is that?

If I thought anything was a waste of time, I would consider trying to stop people from wasting their time on that thing to be an even bigger waste of my own time.

STUNDIE!

I also think STUNDIES should go to those who have been informed that they are in the iggy bin yet then continue to post and address me. Not that I know they are for sure, what with them being in the iggy bin, but ads I know their mentality I can easily deduce they continue to do so. WHAT A STUNDIE!
Click to expand...
Then please free to go to the forum in question and state your case there. The person who started that thread did so by positing both a strawman argument and a false dichotomy. I hardly believe it is a sign of insanity to point that out.
In fact I do not think laymen without the necessary training in psychiatry should be even attempting such a diagnosis. I have never called you insane - misguided perhaps, possibly even deliberately dishonest and certainly evasive. But I have not questioned your mental health as you have mine.
So let's leave the ad homs in the playground please.
The solutions I offer are well known - seek reliable legal help when you need it. If you want to understand law, study law. Just like in all those fmotl sites disclaimers in fact!
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
Answer this:
Click to expand...
.
You first. .I answered your last batch of questions (for which you did not even say "thank you") but you have yet to answer ine

That's what your FLoTl is: you do everything for me, but I don't have to do anything for you.
.
 
Last edited:
If I thought anything was a waste of time, I would consider trying to stop people from wasting their time on that thing to be an even bigger waste of my own time.

STUNDIE!

I also think STUNDIES should go to those who have been informed that they are in the iggy bin yet then continue to post and address me. Not that I know they are for sure, what with them being in the iggy bin, but ads I know their mentality I can easily deduce they continue to do so. WHAT A STUNDIE!
Click to expand...
Great post Rob, these guys you have on ignore must be mad, they could actually put something derogatory and insulting in their posts and even put something you may take offence to in their avatar and the jokes on them because you will never see it unless you break your word.

And who in their right mind would post on a forum where no one shared their views, it would be like going to a knitting forum and arguing that it isnt 'knit one purl one' :rolleyes:

Oh and get yourself back on Ickes, you need to contact admin there with a 'claim of right' telling them that you don't consent to the forum rules, they will have no choice but to re-instate your account.

FYI Rob, it looks like your status of "on warning" actually means "banned", I speak from experience on that forum, you have been "on warning" for a lot longer than I ever was.
 
Last edited:
arayder said:
I am game.

Anyone who wants to take on Rob can PM me, or reply openly regarding the arrangements for a recorded debate here in Louisville, Kentucky.

You game, Rob?

Just to make it easy for you, freeman Rob, I will reimburse you for your plane ticket down here and put you up for a couple of nights.

I will make arrangements for the recording.

We have great Bourbon down here, Bobby boy. You swill, I pay.

Now, sonny, if we don’t get a public response, here on this forum, to this acceptance of your challenge in 48 hours it will be taken as your rejection.

You have until Tuesday at noon eastern standard time.

Tick. . .tick. . .tick. . .
Click to expand...


Robert Menard has just been emailed this message. I also will send him a private message on this forum.

In order to assure the transparence of the effort to arrange the debate Mr. Menard has called for I have taken the liberty of posting this message publicly and will be sending copies of the email to members of the freeman community.

--------------

Mr. Menard,

Publicly, on the James Randi Forum I have recently offered to carry through on your challenge to debate a member of the Randi forum regarding the general subject of freemanary:

I am game.

Anyone who wants to take on Rob can PM me, or reply openly regarding the arrangements for a recorded debate here in Louisville, Kentucky.

You game, Rob?

Just to make it easy for you, freeman Rob, I will reimburse you for your plane ticket down here and put you up for a couple of nights.

I will make arrangements for the recording.

We have great Bourbon down here, Bobby boy. You swill, I pay.

Now, sonny, if we don’t get a public response, here on this forum, to this acceptance of your challenge in 48 hours it will be taken as your rejection.

You have until Tuesday at noon eastern standard time.

-----------------------

As you know my offer is to reimburse you for your flight to Louisville Kentucky, arrange suitable lodging for you, provide for the recording of the debate and buy you some of our fine Kentucky Bourbon.

In the spirit in which this challenge was offer you have until high noon Tuesday, March 13, 2011 to respond.

Failure on your part to respond to the offer by that time will be considered a refusal to debate and a withdrawal of your challenge.

Your response must be made publicly on the Randi forum.

Sincerely Yours,

Austin Rayder (arayder)
 
Last edited:
Failure on your part to respond to the offer by that time will be considered a refusal to debate and a withdrawal of your challenge.

Your response must be made publicly on the Randi forum.
Click to expand...

I suspect his laptop is about to be "stolen" again.
Either that or a response laiden with silly questions and childish wordplay.

I'd like to come to come to Kentucky though :)
I'd love to shoot such a debate, (I have an expensive hobby and my incredibly heavy camera is aching for action).
Bourbon is good also. :)
 
There's no debate. All there is is an endless series of FOTL claims from grubby gurus with no evidentiary support whatsoever. Claims that are easily proven to be objectively false with the most basic research and have been so proven, over and over.

Menard's FOTL claims don't rise to the level of legitimacy that would make them worthy of debate. They're not even worthy of the mocking we give them here.

ETA: They belong on the Icke forum with the Lizards and the hollow moon.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom