jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Also to be any type of threat they would have to be tough and ruthless, unfortunately for them they are usually just rough and toothless.
Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims
- Thread starter jargon buster
- Start date
- Status
ComfySlippers
Banned
30 thousand indeed. His skill with numbers is almost as bad as his English comprehension.
"30" I would believe.
And he expects people to buy into his ACCP pretend-bank scam?
The guy can't count!
Imagine this scenario:
When Menard is finally arrested and locked up he has to share a cell with Roger Hayes.
How circular would their discussions be?
Hayes: Menard, I am not bankrupt.
Menard: Roger, can you prove that I am the fiction known as Menard?
Hayes: You need to ask ROGER.
Menard: Can you prove that I am "You"?
Hayes: I am not bankrupt and am a free human being.
Menard: The police will never arrest me.
Hayes: I arrested a Judge
Menard: In an admiralty court?
Hayes: I am not bankrupt
Menard: How is your pretend bank doing?
Hayes: Better than yours. But that is because I am not bankrupt.
Menard: I have deconstructed the laws of bankruptcy and found them to be unlawful. Do you have a pretend police force yet?
Hayes: I am not bankrupt nor am I in prison. The fiction in prison is ROGER HAYES. I, Roger Hayes, am still free and not paying Council Tax.
Menard: So you think rape is lawful? Let me ask you this... If I bought an apple and didn't have any custard would the war in Afghanistan be justified simply because I haven't got a yellow pogo-stick? If I invited you to my knitting class would it not be wrong for me to then stroke your kitten?
Hayes: I am a free man and the citizens of Wirral will see this for the victory it is.
Menard: I have a Freeman Valley.
Hayes: Awesome. I'll see you in the showers.
Menard: Cool. I'll bring my camera. I'ts been a while since I've posted a video to YouTube of me trying to shaft some gullible prat
Stacey Grove
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,041
That's the most sense those two have made in a long while.
ComfySlippers
Banned
Well over at The Wirral Globe, a very popular newspaper amongst Canadians, he did have this to say:
What is true is it must suck to be you!”
So as we can see, thanks to Menard's massive I.Q., he stumped everyone yet again.
Hi Rob
ComfySlippers
Banned
Conmen who are stupid enough to try to set up pretend banks in order to scam the gullible must stick together.
HI. I came here because of a comment made by Jargon Buster on a youtube video and I am hoping you guys can help me win an argument with a co-worker concerning the whole Freeman thing. (Hi JB! Thanks for bringing You are my new hero!) I tried telling him that Menard is a conman, but he wants proof. I pointed out Lance Thatcher, so he befriended Lance on FB and asked him directly if Menard scammed him, and Lance said no. So pointing to that is a no-go.
I asked what sort of evidence he would accept, and he said he would only accept the same level of proof that the people here and on the Icke forum demand of the Freemen. He wants to see a verifiable court record of Menard being charged and convicted of being a conman. He says that since the people who call Menard a conman reject the FMOTL position for lack of court proof, court proof should be required to support their claim that Menard is a conman, or else they have double standards and are hypocrites.
He kinda stumped me there, afterall it seems fair that if court records is the only thing that will be accepted as proof of FMOTL being true, then court records should be required if those same people want to claim Menard is a conman, unless they are hypocrites. Since I can’t believe any of you are hypocrites, and so many here seem so sure he is a conman, there must be a court record proving he is a conman, right? I looked everywhere but can’t find any proof he is a conman, and the only things that point to him being one are the personal opinions presented on this forum and on the Icke forum. And I think we would all agree that personal opinions, regardless of how often repeated and widely shared, are not proof.
So can any of you help me and point to a verifiable court record of Menard being a conman? The only proof my coworker will accept is the same proof you all demand of the FMOTL nuts. Does that seem fair to you guys, or is the claim that Menard is a conman something that we can’t question here? Is it ok to ask for proof of the claims made here that Menard is a conman? Is it ok to want the same type of proof you guys demand of the FMOTL cult? If not can you help me explain to him why it is okay to have double standards of required proof when it comes to calling Menard a conman?
He also said that if I posted this here, that you would all attack me because you lot are irrational and paranoid, and you would react harshly to your double standard being pointed out, and would claim that I am Menard or a ‘minion’ of his. For the record, I am neither. I hope you can help me prove him wrong. Thanks and sorry for the long post!
I asked what sort of evidence he would accept, and he said he would only accept the same level of proof that the people here and on the Icke forum demand of the Freemen. He wants to see a verifiable court record of Menard being charged and convicted of being a conman. He says that since the people who call Menard a conman reject the FMOTL position for lack of court proof, court proof should be required to support their claim that Menard is a conman, or else they have double standards and are hypocrites.
He kinda stumped me there, afterall it seems fair that if court records is the only thing that will be accepted as proof of FMOTL being true, then court records should be required if those same people want to claim Menard is a conman, unless they are hypocrites. Since I can’t believe any of you are hypocrites, and so many here seem so sure he is a conman, there must be a court record proving he is a conman, right? I looked everywhere but can’t find any proof he is a conman, and the only things that point to him being one are the personal opinions presented on this forum and on the Icke forum. And I think we would all agree that personal opinions, regardless of how often repeated and widely shared, are not proof.
So can any of you help me and point to a verifiable court record of Menard being a conman? The only proof my coworker will accept is the same proof you all demand of the FMOTL nuts. Does that seem fair to you guys, or is the claim that Menard is a conman something that we can’t question here? Is it ok to ask for proof of the claims made here that Menard is a conman? Is it ok to want the same type of proof you guys demand of the FMOTL cult? If not can you help me explain to him why it is okay to have double standards of required proof when it comes to calling Menard a conman?
He also said that if I posted this here, that you would all attack me because you lot are irrational and paranoid, and you would react harshly to your double standard being pointed out, and would claim that I am Menard or a ‘minion’ of his. For the record, I am neither. I hope you can help me prove him wrong. Thanks and sorry for the long post!
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Welcome back Rob.
BNRT
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2009
- Messages
- 713
Well, I am not too versed in FMOTL 'literature' and court records, but I may have a possible answer.
Menard says his playing with words and magical spells will keep you out of jail and a free man. Now, every time a FMOTLer goes to court and uses Menard's techniques, they lose. They probably often lose more than if they hadn't bothered with FMOTL in the first place. Seeing as he sells stuff that doesn't work (and that he should be aware that they don't work), Menard pretty much looks like a conman.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
So, you seem to think I befriended Lance on Facebook and he said
I am not Rob, JB. If someone in Canada PM's me their number I can call them and speak to them. I can't think of any other way to prove I am not him.
So back to my question... is there proof he is a conman or not?
I agree. But that is not proof. I need proof for my coworker. If he is a conman, and as bad of one as people here say he is, certainly the authorities would have charged him, right?
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Of course youre not him.
The fact is no one cares about trying to restore Rob Menards credibility except Rob Menard, thats why its obvious its you.
Oh and all the little key words and questions are there as well.
Dont mess it up this time by giving your details away and we might get a few more laughs out of you.
None that would satisfy you.
Last edited:
Hi JB, sure hope I can convince you I am not Rob. Any idea how I could do that? Or am I going to be labelled with that because I question and ask for proof? I thought you were more honourable than that...
And I do not think you befriended him, I said my coworker did. And I read the messages, and unless Menard was hacking Lances FB account, then Lance said that Menard did not con him at all.
So any proof? Or is this something we do not apply our critical skeptical thinking skills too? And isn't belief without proof why we laugh at the FMOTL?
TSR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,783
Depends on one's definition of "conman" -- what is yours / your associate's?
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Nope, its you all right "sure hope" gives it away there.
In fact I can actually see your stupid face when I read your posts (PS thats not an insult if it isnt you
so no reporting posts)Well done Rob, stealing catweasels "honour" methodology.
Whats your Facebook account, I could drop you a line on there couldnt I?
mmm.. see Rob its those questions again, wayyyy.. to many.
Of course youre not him.
The fact is no one cares about trying to restore Rob Menards credibility except Rob Menard, thats why its obvious its you.
Oh and all the little key words and questions are there as well.
Dont mess it up this time by giving your details away and we might get a few more laughs out of you.
None that would satisfy you.
I am not trying to restore his credibility, but prove he has none and is a conman. Don't we have the same goal there? And if there is no proof, then how can his credibility be destroyed if it was only based on repeated opinions which are not supported by proof?
You have been calling him one more than anyone. Surely someone as honourable as you would not do that without proof right?
Whatever proof would satisfy you that FMOTL works is what is being asked for in relation to your claim that Menard is a conman. I do not see anything wrong with that, do you? I mean that is fair right? Don't get me wrong, I really want to prove to my coworker that FMOTL is bunk and Menard is a conman.
Can you also please stop calling me Rob unless you have proof that I am? (Something you can't do because I'm not) Insulting new members doesn't seem to be right. It kinda harms the reputation of the entire forum. Or was my co-worker right? You are not some paranoid conspiracy nut are you?
Last edited:
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Contact him here
mrmitee@hotmail.com
You can send him $250 for some DVDs to help you overturn a parking ticket.
See how it works out for you then make up your own mind.
Stacey Grove
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,041
catweasel wrote:
Why did you tell your co-worker Menard is a conman?
What was it that led you to believe it to be true?
Why did you tell your co-worker Menard is a conman?
What was it that led you to believe it to be true?
- Status