• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
So I thought I might join in the discussion. They don't seem to want me there which is a shame because they seem very misguided.
Click to expand...

Of course we want you here, Mike. Sign up and join in the discussion.
 
Would that be Venison Chili à la Kesey?
Click to expand...
Lol, had to Google that.
So I thought I might join in the discussion. They don't seem to want me there which is a shame because they seem very misguided.
Click to expand...
That reads to me hes already signed up and doesn't feel welcome.
 
Last edited:
I've moved a few posts to AAH. There is a fine line between referencing stuff posted elsewhere by a person who is banned here and "posting by proxy". Generally, it crosses the line when someone here posts the words of a banned member when the words are designed by the banned member to directly engage with/get a response from members here. So, please refrain from copying and pasting Menard's call-outs of JREF Forum members here.

Also, do not make sockpuppet accusations against other Forum members in threads. Doing so is considered a breach of the M.A. If you think someone has a sockpuppet account, just report a post and let the Moderating Team know of your suspicions.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
arayder said:
Oh, we get it, Bobby. You will be "suing" as long as the donations keep rolling in.

But the dope clock stops when I take the batteries out of it.
Click to expand...


Stacey Grove said:
I think you're going to have to consider buying a mains adaptor.
Click to expand...

Or I could wait for Menard to come through on one thing. . . like little Lizzy Anne is waiting. . . no, the adapter is a better idea.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Menard being the topic of this thread makes it difficult to not use what he is saying as discussion points. I get the idea of 'post by proxy' though.

Funny how he considers a long Facebook note to be proof with no external supporting documentation. I wonder if he considers hansel and gretel undisputed proof of an unsolved murder.
 
LordEd said:
Funny how he considers a long Facebook note to be proof with no external supporting documentation. I wonder if he considers hansel and gretel undisputed proof of an unsolved murder.
Click to expand...

Very good :) And it illustrates the Freeman mentality.
 
Keeping things vague so as to avoid the whole "proxy" thing, it's really strange how Menard keeps trying to spin this whole thing as being just this personal argument between JB and himself. He's saying things like JB is "playing" or "fooling" the rest of us, and therefore...I can't even finish this hypothetical argument, because I can't see what he's trying to get at. It's baffling.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity
Proof by intimidation (or argumentum verbosium) is a jocular phrase used mainly in mathematics to refer to a style of presenting a purported mathematical proof by giving an argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results, so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding.[1] The phrase is also used when the author is an authority in his field presenting his proof to people who respect a priori his insistence that the proof is valid or when the author claims that his statement is true because it is trivial or because he simply says so. Usage of this phrase is for the most part in good humour, though it also appears in serious criticism.[2][3] More generally, "proof by intimidation" has also been used by critics of junk science to describe cases in which scientific evidence is thrown aside in favour of a litany of tragic individual cases presented to the public by articulate advocates who pose as experts in their field.[4]
Click to expand...

The freeman theory falls apart when somebody OCD enough to follow the argument (after removing the strange punctuation, colored words, or oversized fonts) starts dissecting it and asking questions that have no logical answer.
 
Last edited:
In an open post/letter to Menard I publicly challenge him to provide, for all to see, a simple accounting of the donations, contributions made to him and freeman society fees paid to him, as a well as an update on the status of Freeman Valley, C3PO, the consumer credit effort and the legal action against Judge Rooke and Randi forum members.

One wonders how freemen and freeman-lites are going to take it if Menard can’t account for the money he has been given or provide any documentation of progress he’s made.

Absent any substantive response to the challenge freemen should ask if Menard’s little projects are nothing more than empty fund raisers!

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

It is day 54 since Fez Boy filed and I haven’t heard anything from the courts, or my internet and email providers.
 
Last edited:
In an open post/letter to Menard I publicly challenge him to provide, for all to see, a simple accounting of the donations, contributions made to him and freeman society fees paid to him,
Click to expand...

2546572418_3a103254ab_b.jpg
 
Mr. Menard, we know you are reading. We can't post a 'directed' response here by forum rules, but the moderator warning did not preclude us from 'questioning'.

You criticise for not accepting a long facebook 'note' as evidence, but the freeman mantra of 'do your own research' would tell us not to accept it at face value. My own research would lead me to believe it is either fiction or a misunderstanding of what had actually occurred in court.

If you have evidence, why not post that? If you were to post a detailed story such as that along with 3rd party evidence of the result (not a cut-off result where the fine/penalty occurs afterwards), it would be discussed

To the mods, if I am incorrect in reading the 'warning', please delete and accept my apologies.
 
jargon buster said:
Anecdotes and e-mails are all he has ever had.
This last one is no different.
Click to expand...

LOL
Again Menard fails to provide one verifiable example of a FOTL win in court.
No court location, no case number, no name of defendant, just a story about some anonymous bod with nothing to back it up:D
But isn't that exactly what we have come to expect from Menard?
Mind you, I don't doubt that his followers do believe such stories. It wouldn't occur to them to ask for proof. They so want these stories to be true they believe them :D
 
arayder said:
In an open post/letter to Menard I publicly challenge him to provide, for all to see, a simple accounting of the donations, contributions made to him and freeman society fees paid to him, as a well as an update on the status of Freeman Valley, C3PO, the consumer credit effort and the legal action against Judge Rooke and Randi forum members.
Click to expand...

LordEd said:
Mr. Menard,. . . f you have evidence, why not post that? If you were to post a detailed story such as that along with 3rd party evidence of the result (not a cut-off result where the fine/penalty occurs afterwards), it would be discussed
Click to expand...


Stacey Grove said:
Again Menard fails to provide one verifiable example of a FOTL win in court.

No court location, no case number, no name of defendant, just a story about some anonymous bod with nothing to back it up:D
Click to expand...

It’s a reckoning called for, a settlement of accounts between Menard and his followers, contributors and the general publilc.

Like that thang with yo' daddy's belt, Bobby!
 
Last edited:
Stacey Grove said:
LOL
Again Menard fails to provide one verifiable example of a FOTL win in court.
No court location, no case number, no name of defendant, just a story about some anonymous bod with nothing to back it up:D
Click to expand...

To be fair, Menard has offered an explanation for the lack of official documentation and court records before, the gist of which is that the point of freeman tactics are to avoid court, get the case quietly dismissed, or the charges dropped, not to have big official wins or acquittals. The flaw with that claim, though, is that there would still need to be a documented reason, even a historical one, for that kind of thing to happen when freeman tactics are used. Common practices don't just pop up out of nowhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom