Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
But solz, it doesn't say they can't do the other things not listed, you are in the realms of menardian mentality here.

You need to abandon logic if you wish to see his point of view.
 
D'rok said:
I like the Duty to Disinfect in s. 20.
Click to expand...


I'm a little disappointed that it is a duty to disinfect the "body and clothing" rather than the "person and clothing". That would have given Rob more opportunity to provide entertainment.
 
Mojo said:
I'm a little disappointed that it is a duty to disinfect the "body and clothing" rather than the "person and clothing". That would have given Rob more opportunity to provide entertainment.
Click to expand...
I wonder how one would disinfect the "person" anyway. Spray your birth certificate with Lysol?
 
D'rok said:
I wonder how one would disinfect the "person" anyway. Spray your birth certificate with Lysol?
Click to expand...


Sounds less uncomfortable than the "wire brush and dettol" approach that might be suggested by section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and Evans v Ewels.
 
Mojo said:
Sounds less uncomfortable than the "wire brush and dettol" approach that might be suggested by section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and Evans v Ewels.
Click to expand...
Oh dear. That's enough Internet for me today.
 
FreemanMenard said:
I claim the government is composed of people and they are bound by the law.

What EXACTLY about that did you want me to prove?
Click to expand...

And that law gives the right to govern.

What EXACTLY about that did you want me to prove?
 
tsig
Robs definition of law is his own, we used to call law wangdoodle in order to try and maintain some kind of meaningful discussion.

What Rob believes is law is uniquely Menardian, its simply his own made up word and trying to establish what it is is impossible, he won't tell you what he means by "law" even if you ask him.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Rights and powers of members
18 A member enrolled and in good standing may do the following:

(a) draw instruments relating to property which are intended, permitted or required to be registered, recorded or filed in a registry or other public office, contracts, charter parties and other mercantile instruments in British Columbia;
(b) draw and supervise the execution of wills
(i) by which the testator directs the testator's estate to be distributed immediately on death,
(ii) that provide that if the beneficiaries named in the will predecease the testator, there is a gift over to alternative beneficiaries vesting immediately on the death of the testator, or
(iii) that provide for the assets of the deceased to vest in the beneficiary or beneficiaries as members of a class not later than the date when the beneficiary or beneficiaries or the youngest of the class attains majority;
(c) attest or protest all commercial or other instruments brought before the member for attestation or public protestation;
(d) draw affidavits, affirmations or statutory declarations that may or are required to be administered, sworn, affirmed or made by the law of British Columbia, another province of Canada, Canada or another country;
(e) administer oaths;
(e.1) draw instruments for the purposes of the Representation Agreement Act;
(e.2) draw instruments relating to health care for the purposes of making advance directives, as defined in the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act;
(e.3) draw instruments for the purposes of the Power of Attorney Act;
(f) perform the duties authorized by an Act.

What part of 'perform the duties authorized by an Act' do you not understand? Did you wish to add to it? You know, in order to try and limit their powers?
Click to expand...

Hate to burst your bubble here, but for pharmacists, there is the same statement. The statement referring to any act pertaining to pharmacy, not any act ever.

This concept was explained in full to me in my first year of school, what is your excuse for not understanding it?
 
Stacey Grove said:
It must be remembered that Menard's as well as our own attempts at statutory interpretation are irrelevant. It is the court's interpretation that is important.
Click to expand...

And that is what i find so eye rolling about rob. This all comes down to 2 things. The first is enforcement, if no one can enforce his "laws" they are not laws, and if people are enforcing the laws he thinks are not laws, it doesn't really matter he doesn't think they are laws, they are the ones enforced.

Sure this can lead to evil situations, look at nazi germany, but after your done doing that, look at Canada. I am willing to bet folks can see quite the difference.

Second, i can only truly explain using an RPG analogy ( i find so much of rob's stuff just reeks of rpg's, from magic spells with material, somantic and verbal components, to villians that can be taken down if one only knows the right strategy.).

The term is called " Rules Lawyering" , and it refers to when a player takes a non standard interpretation of the rules, and attempts to force the DM ( the gent running the game.) to use said interpretation.

Now there is a difference between this and just pointing out a mistake the dm may be making. A mistake, a real mistake will be corrected ( for example if the dm had someone roll the wrong kind of save for a mind effecting spell.), no harm no foul. But a rules lawyer, is always just trying to get the best thing for their character or character class.

The problem with the rules lawyer is that they do not realize they have no way of actually enforcing their interpretation of the rules, sure they can attempt to use them , but they hit the roadblock of simply not having the ability to make changes to the rules. This wouldn't be an issue if the rules lawyer was pointing out legitimate things that are having a negative effect on all, but that is never the case, just like rob they are always trying to get something for nothing , it shows, and they get shut down.
 
As far as I can tell the main 3 sites the FTOL'ers use in Britain are TPUC, FMOTL.com and, unsurprisingly, "Get Out Of Debt Free".
Click to expand...
...and not unsurprisingly I am banned from all three. :D
 
Rob, hows this going

Wow are you ever negative, and so bad at word comprehension! The four acres is the land I cleared and tilled for the garden. Likely less than 2 acres has been planted and (just to make you happy) I messed up on the first one, and likely over fertilized it. The plants are not faring well. The other side of the lane, not fertilized, I just finished planting. I have higher hopes for those.

the 17 acres is a woodlot 500M away. Is SWEET! So much wood, enough for all I want to build. It is edging crown land, and HUGE plot, so hunting is awesome. The land is not ready for gardening, but grows a lot of blueberries, and will be suitable once cleared and conditioned. I intend to try hugo culture, it involves burying logs, covering with manure and soil, and letting it mature for a year, then you plant in that. They use it for working forests. I did some clearing yesterday, will do some more tomorrow. I enjoy clearing the land, and seeing what is hidden by the brush when you look back. I find it rewarding. Ever done it?
Click to expand...

Do you still have this land?
 
I have a feeling Santa will be skipping a little house in Moncton this year, its resident has been a very naughty boy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom