No, he's not selling anything, he's not like Robert Menard, he's so much better and honest.Jeffrey wrote:Is Daoust selling or giving away his tax forms?
![Sarcasm :sarcasmon:](./images/smilies/SarcasmOn.gif)
Moderator: Burnaby49
No, he's not selling anything, he's not like Robert Menard, he's so much better and honest.Jeffrey wrote:Is Daoust selling or giving away his tax forms?
Daoust is, or was, an acolyte of Duncan. No this probably won't get him into trouble if you mean legal trouble. His followers don't seem to be hiding anything, just sending in silly forms. Daoust is so insignificant he barely registers and the individuals using his forms probably have insignificant taxes owing anyhow. They will eventually end up being looked at by the CRA but at a very low level. The CRA has a large workload and this will be a low priority review so Daoust probably has a long spell coming where he can brag that the scheme is working.Jeffrey wrote:Refresh my memory, what's the link between Daoust and Duncan? And Burnaby, could this get Daoust in trouble?
I guess this whole affair had stretched out for some time, so to get the relevant paper work and schedule a new court date would have put it over the 18 month Jordan limit so DeChambly walked, not because of some supposed "surety of the person" but laziness on the Crown's part who was expecting a simple guilty plea.JUGE: Bon ! Vous êtes chanceux M. DeChambly. Il manque le PPO au dossier. Ce dossier est abandonné/rejeté dû à la lenteur qu'il sera occasionné par ce manque. Je ne peux même pas vous accuser sans ce PPO.
MOI : La lenteur en lien au procès Jordan M. Le Juge ?
JUGE (penche la tête en signe d'acquiescement). Ce n'est pas pour votre "Sûreté", aucun rapport. Et ce n'est pas une passe droite non plus. Me comprenez-vous bien ?
All this talk about vessels... I'm confused, So that's the pellet with the poison’s in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!coffeekitten wrote:Ah! The subtleties of the freemen! And then, if you write DUNCAN: jOHn, Scott, what is it?
I guess that must feel good to be a crown registered organization, right? It makes someone feel important. And everyone is somewhat an agent too. It is how the world goes round in Duncan delusional universe.
All I can say is that I got by just fine without one for the first 25 years of my life. When I was in my last year of law school, though, I learned how to do a legal name change; and remembering all those years of seeing my name as, say, Pottapaug (NMI) Mountain or Pottapaug (NMN) Mountain, or having people react to "I don't have a middle name" the same way they would react to "I'm actually an alien from the planet Gusta (third star from the left, and straight on until morning)", I went into Suffolk County Probate Court and got it legally changed.grixit wrote:What is the status of someone without a middle name?
Racism and narcissism are common among freemen gurus. Whether it's Clifford's white supremacy, Nazi Bob's holocaust denial or Eldon Warman's anti-semitism it's all pretty much disgusting.coffeekitten wrote:Here's another one of Scott Duncan being racist. He's obviously according too much credit to himself: most people don't give a shit about Duncan and his "teachings". Comparing himself to Obama could suggest he probably suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. Trying so hard to prove he's relevant.
Factually not true. Psychology has not determined a cause for narcissism in individuals. I am not sure what you are relying on to make this claim. However, I do note that you have tried to inject your theories about parents being the cause for Menard's behavior before. You have been warned about this several times before and you really need to stop doing it.arayder wrote:As we have learned narcism [sic] often arrises in individuals who have been raised in a cold unapproving manner. Unable to please a parent or possibly older siblings the narcissist, despite his bluster, grows up with a tragically low sense of worth.
My reading on the subject indicates that the cold parent hypothesis is one of predominant theories as to the causes of narcissism.The Observer wrote:Factually not true. Psychology has not determined a cause for narcissism in individuals. I am not sure what you are relying on to make this claim. However, I do note that you have tried to inject your theories about parents being the cause for Menard's behavior before. You have been warned about this several times before and you really need to stop doing it.arayder wrote:As we have learned narcissism often arrises in individuals who have been raised in a cold unapproving manner. Unable to please a parent or possibly older siblings the narcissist, despite his bluster, grows up with a tragically low sense of worth.
It's a theory, among many. But there is no consensus for this and too many exceptions exist that point against this as being the simple explanation that you make out to be.arayder wrote:My reading on the subject indicates that the cold parent hypothesis is one of predominant theories as to the causes of narcissism.
They probably do so because they are (1) aware that there is no pat answers as to what causes narcissism and (2) they are not going to go into sensitive areas where there is no proof or fact that exists in support of a pet theory and (3) are not willing to drag innocent 3rd parties into the conversation.arayder wrote:I find it interesting that so many folks palaver about narcissistic freemen gurus and the havoc they cause yet shy away from any discussion of what drives these phonies to do what they do.
But you need to get there with facts, not unsubstantiated opinions or theories.arayder wrote: Rather than chase that pea around the plate with a knife I prefer to get to the point.
But that does not justify dragging innocent 3rd parties into the picture and blaming them for creating a narcissist.arayder wrote:It is helpful to realize that narcissists are interested in boosting their fragile egos and manipulating others for their own gain.
Not when you have no facts to substantiate what you are claiming - especially at the expense of other people who may not be to blame.arayder wrote:And I think it would be helpful wannabe freemen to realize that they are often being manipulated by individuals who are in no way interested in anything other than getting over on them.
And stop being manipulative. This is not an issue of me being bothered; this is an issue of you ignoring prior directives from the board management to stop indulging in the blame game against parents.arayder wrote:I apologize if this bothers you.
With all due respect, friend, if we had it your way months and years from now we’ll still be talking about how wrong freemen gurus are without realizing that the problem isn’t about phony legal arguments, but rather about a subculture (freemanism) run in large part by self-proclaimed leaders with personality disorders.Burnaby49 wrote:Time to cut it out. Apart from this being about Scott I see no value in amateur psychological theorizing on why people turn out the way they do. We can do that endlessly but so what? Duncan does what he does, Belanger does what he does, Menard does what he does, and we report on that. Frankly I don't care at all about theoretical guesswork into the root causes of their behaviour based on anecdotal stories about events in their past and I doubt anyone else does either.
I vote for dissecting legal arguments and watching current activity. I don't really care if they got hugs at bedtime. The mental illness side is sad, not for ridicule.arayder wrote: if we had it your way months and years from now we’ll still be talking about how wrong freemen gurus are without realizing that the problem isn’t about phony legal arguments, but rather about a subculture (freemanism) run in large part by self-proclaimed leaders with personality disorders.
Or endless, endless repetition.LordEd wrote:I vote for dissecting legal arguments and watching current activity. I don't really care if they got hugs at bedtime. The mental illness side is sad, not for ridicule.arayder wrote: if we had it your way months and years from now we’ll still be talking about how wrong freemen gurus are without realizing that the problem isn’t about phony legal arguments, but rather about a subculture (freemanism) run in large part by self-proclaimed leaders with personality disorders.