Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are not special.
Click to expand...
Thats one of Robs main problems, he actually thinks he is someone special, he has probably been Googling all these stupid "self help" You are the centre of your own Universe type sites and actually now believes it.
 
Allow me to digress for a moment.
One of the main things people have a problem with in relation to me and my actions is expressed on another site, frequented by many here.

I am all for individuals having more personal freedom but not at the expense of everyone else. Which seems to be the main idea of "freemanism" and as for certain "freemen" charging for this infomation well....
Click to expand...

This raises a question.
I am frequently lambasted for 'selling false information'.
By people who never paid for it.
So if you are competent to comment on the information I present, you must have that information.
But if I am selling it, and you did not buy it, then you do not have it to begin with.
But if you have it, and did not buy it, you can't claim I am selling it.
The fact that you feel you can comment on the validity of the information and you did not pay for it, is pretty much evidence that it is available without payment and that I am not selling it.

The fact is, if I was guilty of what you claim, that I am selling false information, the only people who would be qualified to comment on its validity are those who bought it.

Imagine a theatre show. How can you critique the show if you never saw it?

Those who speak of this information, and dislike it, have received it without paying. So how do they claim I sell it, if they got it without paying for it? Disagree with it all you want, but if you do so, and bitch about me selling it, then you either bought it, or you have no right to claim that I am a bad guy for selling it. You can't claim to have the information, and that I sell it, if you did not buy it. Has to be one or the other.

You either have the information and can comment on it, or do not have it and cannot comment on it.
If you have it and did not pay for it, you cannot also claim that I am a bad guy for selling it, as you got it without buying it.
 
One of the main things people have a problem with in relation to me and my actions is expressed on another site, frequented by many here.
Click to expand...
Why dont you post this on the forum in question?

I am frequently lambasted for 'selling false information'.
Click to expand...
Are you telling us your information isnt false?

But if I am selling it, and you did not buy it, then you do not have it to begin with.
But if you have it, and did not buy it, you can't claim I am selling it.
The fact that you feel you can comment on the validity of the information and you did not pay for it, is pretty much evidence that it is available without payment and that I am not selling it.

The fact is, if I was guilty of what you claim, that I am selling false information, the only people who would be qualified to comment on its validity are those who bought it.
Click to expand...
:confused:
My mate bought a dvd and told me it was crap, he gave it to me and I watched it for free and agreed with him.
Really Rob, what on earth are you trying to do?

Imagine a theatre show. How can you critique the show if you never saw it?
Click to expand...
What difference does that make when we have all seen it?
Unless you have some thats only available for sale and not available freely, is that the case?

Rob, put the bong away, clear your head and try and post something that makes sense.
 
Stacey Grove said:
Now, that is funny.:D

So what would that make Rob's words on this matter?
Click to expand...

I have never claimed my words were anything but my opinion. One which many happen to share after doing their own due diligence.

As for providing proof, many here hate on me for 'getting people in trouble'. (like they are not responsible for their own actions or something). Most of this comes when they act without being able to prove it themselves. For this to work, they must be able to prove their position when dealing with government agents. If I provide proof and convince them, they act without the ability to defend their own position, and that is when they get in trouble. That is why I have always told people to do their own due diligence and develop their own arguments and proofs.
 
Mojo said:
Imagine a system that is alleged to resolve legal disputes. How can you assess its usefullness without using it yourself?
Click to expand...

Now imagine a system that is alleged to resolve legal disputes which is operated by people who get paid to do so, who then hire others to go out and manufacture disputes, to create business for them.

That is what many see the present system as doing.
 
As for providing proof, many here hate on me for 'getting people in trouble'.
Click to expand...
You "school" vulnerable people and brainwash them into believing you are giving them factual legal information.
Thats why you are not fondly thought of here.

If I provide proof and convince them, they act without the ability to defend their own position, and that is when they get in trouble. That is why I have always told people to do their own due diligence and develop their own arguments and proofs.
Click to expand...
The next time will be the first.
 
Now imagine a system that is alleged to resolve legal disputes which is operated by people who get paid to do so, who then hire others to go out and manufacture disputes, to create business for them.

That is what many see the present system as doing.
Click to expand...

Wow Rob that swerve caused you to go on two wheels. :rolleyes:
 
FreemanMenard said:
I have never claimed my words were anything but my opinion.
Click to expand...
Except almost every time you say anything.


One which many happen to share after doing their own due diligence.
Click to expand...
Curiously, these many people also happen to be the ones who never try it in court.


If I provide proof and convince them, they act without the ability to defend their own position, and that is when they get in trouble.
Click to expand...
I see, the system only works because there is no proof that it works...


That is why I have always told people to do their own due diligence and develop their own arguments and proofs.
Click to expand...
No, you do that because you refuse to stand behind your own products or accept nay responsibility for the advice you sell to desperate vulnerable people.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Now imagine a system that is alleged to resolve legal disputes which is operated by people who get paid to do so, who then hire others to go out and manufacture disputes, to create business for them.

That is what many see the present system as doing.
Click to expand...


There is now no need to imagine someone desperately trying to change the subject.
 
I remember when Rob used to be able to last at least three posts before he folded.

Hes now "all in" with a crap hand every time, and we all know hes bluffing.
 
Just like the child who rebels at his daddy ‘s punishments, our adult subject seeks to avoid responsibility for the wannabe freemen his teachings have directly and indirectly adversely effected.

For this narcissist it isn’t about us all being equal. That’s just a ruse. For our subject it is about escaping all accountability and responsibility.

After decades, the poor boy is still a little child standing in front of his hypercritical daddy trying to explain away his soiled pants
 
Taking money for snake oil is a-ok if you also make that snake oil available for free :hypnotize

Somebody actually had that thought go through his head, and not only didn't see any problem with it but actually wrote it down as thought it was clever, let alone made any sense at all

Mindboggling.
 
Boot2TheHead said:
Taking money for snake oil is a-ok if you also make that snake oil available for free :hypnotize

Somebody actually had that thought go through his head, and not only didn't see any problem with it but actually wrote it down as thought it was clever, let alone made any sense at all

Mindboggling.
Click to expand...

And that somebody was YOU, not I. What is even more mind boggling is how you try to claim you know what I think.
 
Replace "snake oil" with "information" (quotation marks count double in that last case) and it was exactly what you said.
 
FreemanMenard said:
What restrictions would that be? I am one of the freest men I know. Unlike so many others I have no SIN or obligation to the CRA. I keep all my earnings.
Click to expand...

I mean restrictions like not being able to have a normal job, having to get paid under the table, not having RRSPs, being looked upon as a deadbeat freeloader, etc. Now you obviously have chosen to live this way so you obviously aren't bothered by these restrictions. I just point out that they are the same restrictions faced by non-freemen who need to live under the radar for a variety of other reasons.

The benefit is no need to HIDE. Not having to hide is in my mind a plus to me.
Click to expand...

People avoiding child support or avoiding a big tax bill do not literally need to hide. It isn't as if CRA sends people out to track down anyone who isn't paying taxes. If you are willing to live that sort of lifestyle and fly under the radar you can go your whole life without paying any taxes. There's a chance that for some reason CRA comes after you I guess, but it normally doesn't happen and it has nothing to do with people hiding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom