Thomas Peterson is calling us Dismissive Shills!

[Jeffrey]

Love your neighbor as yourself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Has it occurred to Belanger and Peterson that we're not actually shills but trying to prevent them and others from experiencing extremely bad punishments at the hands of CRA, IRS, or whatever Government Agency they're dealing with?

[cudgel]

You can always tell when the idiots playing crow on a post are just attempting to shoot the messenger as they never dare attempt to disprove the fact that none of their roles as actors have any authority to add to God's law or to intimidate those who stand on it as none of their false god scarecrows in black robes have any power to do that....No those Crows dressed like chicken will not tackle that topic as they in bully on the playground style attempt to attack the character of the messenger with lies cheap shots and threatened futures...You are challenged to produce even one fallacy our Church promotes aside from your snyping defamation and slanderous comments...Your seemingly ticked and quite frustrated folks get to stand in Christ and honor and you cannot fault them for that effort,All you can do is type disinformation falsehoods and innuendo as your so coward like can do no better...How bout you do a video disputing the good minister? Have you the courage? I highly doubt it. Vampires have great distain for light truth and honor and again your teeth are showing the blood stains...yup stupid foolish and the lie is still on your face....but what more can you expect from an old diseased and exposed vampire club

[arayder]

You can always tell when the idiots playing crow on a post are just attempting to shoot the messenger as they never dare attempt to disprove the fact that none of their roles as actors have any authority to add to God's law or to intimidate those who stand on it as none of their false god scarecrows in black robes have any power to do that....No those Crows dressed like chicken will not tackle that topic as they in bully on the playground style attempt to attack the character of the messenger with lies cheap shots and threatened futures...You are challenged to produce even one fallacy our Church promotes aside from your snyping defamation and slanderous comments...Your seemingly ticked and quite frustrated folks get to stand in Christ and honor and you cannot fault them for that effort,All you can do is type disinformation falsehoods and innuendo as your so coward like can do no better...How bout you do a video disputing the good minister? Have you the courage? I highly doubt it. Vampires have great distain for light truth and honor and again your teeth are showing the blood stains...yup stupid foolish and the lie is still on your face....but what more can you expect from an old diseased and exposed vampire club

The failings of Mr. Belanger's phony church are legend. It is not bullying to point this out and I would entertain the opportunity to tell the charlatan, Ed, as much to his face. At that time I would also ask the simple question of Mr. Ed as to whether he receives public assistance from the same government he claims has no authority over him.

Before you opine I have not produced a fallacy of Mr. Belanger's phony church let me point out the central such one by noting that this band of self-righteous and self-serving pseudo-intellectuals has clearly and wrongly denied the certainty of the Supremacy Clauses of the Canadian and United States Constitutions.

Do you need to have this last point further explained to you?

[wserra]

those Crows dressed like chicken will not tackle that topic

If you were actually to state a proposition in English (or French, for that matter), I'm sure you would find plenty of folks here ready and willing to tackle it. Which is quite likely why you don't.

[Pottapaug1938]

You can always tell when people like "cudgel" have no facts to back up their fantasies when their posts are nothing more than pseudo-religious rants saying that we're all a bunch of meanies.

We need much more than that here, cudgel. In the case of Peterson and friends, we need verifiable proof that his positions have any validity.

[AndyK]

Requesting that cudgel post anything other than unformatted, unpunctuated, grammarless word salad is on the order or relievieng oneself towards the sorce of a strong breeze.

First, cudgel is a true believer. Thus, ANYTHING we post is, by definition, wrong, defamatory or heretical.

Second, cudgel places too much reliance on his particular version of a sky daddy and thereby can not comprehend that HIS particular version of a theocracy is not universally accepted.

Finally, cudgel has yet (and I will extend 'yet' well into the future) to post anything factual or even sufficiently opinionated to allow a rational response. It's hard to understand how someone in a recumbent position with his fingers in his ears, his eyes firmly closed, and kicking his heels on the ground while chanting 'nyah, nyah, nyah, can't hear you' is still able to use a keyboard.

[arayder]

In a nutshell Belanger's argument is that his version of God's law reigns supreme and (here's the hook) since he's God's agent here on earth, no law, no cop and no court can touch him.

This specious argument ignores that according to the Christian theology Belanger has highjacked God gave us free will, intelligence, the ability to organize communities and make binding law.

In the end Belanger tries to avoid the certainty of just law by wrapping himself in a Godly cloak.

I will leave it to others to decide if this is a sort of blasphemy.

[rogfulton]

In a nutshell Belanger's argument is that his version of God's law reigns supreme and (here's the hook) since he's God's agent here on earth, no law, no cop and no court can touch him.

This specious argument ignores that according to the Christian theology Belanger has highjacked God gave us free will, intelligence, the ability to organize communities and make binding law.

In the end Belanger tries to avoid the certainty of just law by wrapping himself in a Godly cloak.

I will leave it to others to decide if this is a sort of blasphemy.

I would say a 'spot on' description.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Why, hello again minster Belanger, I hope you are well. I had an opportunity to view the video you posted and I have to say, that’s some rather colorful language! (at 11:00: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg)

Anybody that acts like a group of men and women that act like a gang of thugs to conspire to take away your ability to practice your faith, like your crew does, obviously doesn’t have the good motive of their fellow brothers and sisters in mind. They have the good motive in expanding their own pocket book and feeding off the other men and women like the greedy vampires they are.

That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there, or you’re trying to smear our efforts at destroying the assumptions of a fraud.

I'm going to add a bit of that to my message signatures - I hope you don't mind.

I believe you are asking persons on this forum to refute your ideas that you have been teaching to Mr. Peterson. I will do my best to be direct on that. First, I think it is important to stress to Mr. Peterson (as I suspect you are observing this discussion) that if minister Belanger has told you that there are no Canadian published judgments that dissect and reject his schemes then that is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. Belanger and CERI appear to be frequently in the courts, this is discussed in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq) at paras 134-139, 183-188. This judgment very strongly suggests that CERI’s techniques have been ineffective in court but, that said, I cannot point at a single judgment where minister Belanger’s current approach to income tax has been evaluated and rejected. So there’s that.

However, the individual ‘bits’ of minister Belanger’s concepts have been addressed and rejected by Canadian courts. So I am going to go through some items I identified in minister Belanger’s video directed to the Quatloos community, and on occasion, me. Please note I am not saying “this is what I believe the law is”, I am going straight to the courts’ own judgments, because after all, it is their opinions that matter, not mine.

The Canadian Bill of Rights is somehow relevant in a tax context is rejected in Friesen v. Canada, 2007 TCC 287 at para. 3 (http://canlii.ca/t/1rktr)

... the Income Tax Act is a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms under the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960. (This argument is not valid.)

You do not need a notwithstanding clause for the Canadian Bill of Rights to authorize the Income Tax Act: Canada (Minister of National Revenue - M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99 at paras. 29-30 (http://canlii.ca/t/22g7x)

The preamble of the Charter that mentions god has no legal relevance: O’Sullivan v. Canada (No. 2), (1991), 45 F.T.R. 284, 84 D.L.R. (4th) 124 (F.C.T.D.), where he concludes:

The preamble to the Charter provides an important element in defining Canada, but recognition of the supremacy of God, emplaced in the supreme law of Canada, goes no further than this: it prevents the Canadian state from becoming officially atheistic. It does not make Canada a theocracy because of the enormous variety of beliefs of how God (apparently the very same deity for Jews, Christians and Muslims) wants people to behave generally and to worship in particular. The preamble's recognition of the supremacy of God, then, does not prevent Canada from being a secular state.

See also Mercedes Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 at para 42 (http://canlii.ca/t/22p3l)

Mr. Kovacevic couched his independence from the authority of Canadian law in terms of exclusive obedience to his creator, and his Claim-of-Right recited seven verses from Biblical scripture in support. Canadian law draws on a rich heritage of recognizing the seminal role religion plays in the lives of many people. We enjoy a robust jurisprudence that protects freedom of religion. Indeed the opening recital of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms affirms that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” While the spheres of the temporal and the spiritual have co-existed throughout our legal history, adherence to transcendent precepts does not relieve a person of temporal obligations. In this regard I observe that Mr. Kovacevic’s Claim-of-Right, which recited verses from the Bible, omitted the most significant scriptural reference upon which Christian political thought has rested over the centuries: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”: Matthew 22:21. The Mercedes Benz, and Mr. Kovacevic’s obligation to return it, belong to the realm of Caesar.

See also Pappas v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 692 at paras 9-10 (http://canlii.ca/t/1q75q):

... His allegations that the legislation is contrary to the Charter stem from a conviction that the Charter, by its preamble that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God, is subject to certain biblical strictures. In this regard, he argues that it is sinful in the eyes of God to be a tax collector; therefore, any legislation forcing citizens to be such is contrary to the Charter. I do not accept Mr. Pappas' argument. An introductory statement in the Charter recognizing Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God is not an invitation to superimpose passages from the Bible onto the country's legislation. This would create at best, confusion, and at worst, chaos. Mr. Pappas is attempting to elevate the Charter preamble to the status of an overriding statement of law akin to a specific section of the legislation. He is in effect arguing there is a higher law, the law of God, which is being breached by provisions of the Excise Tax Act. That law, he suggests, is incorporated into our Charter. With respect, it is not.

While it may be a fascinating philosophical exercise to consider exactly what the Charter drafters had in mind by "principles that recognize the supremacy of God", it is not an exercise I find necessary to pursue in this judgment. I simply conclude the preamble does not have the effect Mr. Pappas suggests it has.

You argue that the Queen’s coronation ceremony has some special significance. This was rejected in R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 at paras 31-32, 302 (http://canlii.ca/t/2g1sx), leave refused to the Supreme Court of Canada. The same goes for the idea the King James Bible is the sole source of law:

He contends the oath sworn in 1953 by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II bound her constitutionally and contractually to uphold and enforce the laws of God as they are set out in the King James Version of the Holy Bible, which are the supreme source of law as opposed to Parliament, the Crown, and the rule of law itself. He submits, as well, that by virtue of the judges’ oath of allegiance to the Queen, the judges too are bound to enforce Biblical principles. He says further that Verhoeven J. erred in finding the issues arising out of her Coronation Oath to be non-justiciable. In his submission, the Coronation Oath is a contract and Verhoeven J. erred in failing to recognize and act on his private right to rely on the Queen’s promises. As an adjunct of this submission, he argues that the Crown is estopped from prosecuting him for offences that are contrary to the contract. Further, he argues compulsory taxation amounts to theft of his property contrary to his constitutional right to property and as such is “a breach of contract and of no force and effect”. As well, he contends, taxation amounts to “extortion, slavery, trespass and other violations of God’s laws” and that he has chosen not to be bound by secular legislation, as is his right as “a free will full liability, flesh and blood living man created by God”. This summary, I think, captures the gist of Mr. Lindsay’s position.

And the court rejects that entirely. I believe you may know Mr. Lindsay personally, minister Belanger. Incidentally, the R v JAH judgment appears to have been brought up but then rejected in a recent Ontario decision: Claeys v. Her Majesty et al, 2013 MBQB 313 at paras 10-11 (http://canlii.ca/t/g2gf8).

Generally Canadian courts have rejected the idea that religion is in any way relevant to paying or not paying income tax. See Pappas v. The Queen above, also Dirks (Re), 2007 SKQB 124 (http://canlii.ca/t/1rc3m) where the taxpayers argued “we are bound and washed of debt by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ who has redeemed us of all debt.” The Court’s response was “I need add nothing further to this brief recitation of the bankrupts’ misguided beliefs. It is pure unadulterated rubbish!” (para. 7).

minister Belanger argues an all-capitals letter name is different from an upper and lower case letter name. There is no such distinction: R. v. Linehan, 2000 ABQB 815 at para. 13; R. v. Loosdrecht, 2008 BCPC 400 at para. 36; R. v. Lemieux, 2007 SKPC 135 at paras. 45-46.

So, the keystone of minister Belanger’s theory is that one can send out documents to people in government, and if those people do not respond and reject those documents then they are bound. In Meads v Meads an example of that kind of document from minister Belanger is quoted in part at para 153. That decision classifies documents of that kind as “foisted unilateral agreements”, and those are dissected and rejected in detail at paras. 458-472. In brief, they don’t work. Silence does not mean agreement:

An objective person knows that he or she cannot usually be held bound in contract by simple receipt of an offer. Many OPCA foisted unilateral agreements feature language that demands its recipient respond or rebut an obligation by a certain deadline. If not, then the agreement proclaims the recipient is bound by its terms. A moment’s consideration shows it is absurd that the law would respect that requirement. What if a document was received, but not read within the deadline? What if the document was received by an illiterate person, or one who did not understand the document’s meaning? Could they have a ‘meeting of the minds’? Of course not, no more than handing a document to a sheep and saying “By not repudiating this agreement, I may eat you.” establishes a mutual and common intent.

If you search on Quatloos for the phrase “foisted unilateral agreement” you will find a large number of other Canadian cases that apply that same rule.

I hope that’s helpful, minister Belanger, Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson, a small suggestion. Read Meads v. Meads. It might save you some trouble. At the worst, you will know more about what arguments will be used against you if you reject income tax obligation on an OPCA basis.

But enough on that, and on to some more general comments. minister Belanger, you seem to misunderstand my interest in yourself, CERI, and CERI’s members. I approach the entire OPCA milieu from what might be called an academic/analytic perspective. Because I dislike being ‘sneaky’, it is only fair to explain that I view the beliefs you espouse and attempt to transmit to others as a kind of social disease. I explained that to Bernard Yankson here (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9597&start=20#p162565).

I do not know the basis for why you attempt to promote ideas you do. Frankly, there is a lot I don’t know about CERI and yourself. That is a reason why I have previously asked that minister Catherine and you comment on a number of points (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9261&start=20#p164221) (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9530&p=165037&hilit=cudgel#p164947). The questions I ask are honest ones. I am very interested in knowing more about your ideas and beliefs, and what you have observed. If you and I were to sit across a table (and split a pitcher of beer – I’m not certain if your beliefs permit you to consume such) I suspect we would not agree on a great many things. That said, you have been to places I have not, and know people in person who I only know as online cyphers. That makes your perspective interesting and potentially valuable. Thus, my inquiries.

I will not lie to you. I strongly suspect that the ideas you promote are legally and factually incorrect. I also do not understand your motivation in promoting those ideas. I should not be seen as a friend. That said, I am not disinterested in yourself, your history, or your activities.

I’ll steal a passage from one of my favorite motion pictures, “Kafka”, directed by Stephen Soderberg:

Inspector Grubach: Anyways, I’d like you to reflect that in me you have – I won’t say a friend, because we’re complete fencers, of course – from distinctly incompatible social classes – but to some extent, shall we say, an interested third party.

That is also true of me. I am very curious about what you can teach me. As part of my investigation into the OPCA phenomenon I have come to realize you are a ‘grognard’: you’ve been at this a long, long time. I would like to know what you have seen. You can ignore me, if you like, and I won’t hold that against you. That said, if you wish to be remembered here is an opportunity.

Were I a lawyer (eeeehhh, who knows – I might just as likely be a gravedigger, in which case call me Bizzelbek) I would frame this in an undertaking. What you choose to share with me I will, to the best of my ability, portray and recount in an accurate manner. That means if you say X, I will attempt to recount that accurately. If I think X is a incorrect, I will state X, and state why I think X is false. But, I will do my damnest not to distort X.

Incidentally, if a CERI argument is successful at trial I will not hide that fact. I will poke at the analysis, but my chief objective is that the activities of persons such as yourself be recorded in an accurate manner, in a format accessible to the general public.

There is an important reason. You have data that I think ought to be preserved. To date, I have seen no hint you yourself are interested in doing that. So, I will step into the breach. You, of course, have no obligation to answer, other than to history.

So, I restate some questions, in certain instances with elaboration:

1. You have in the past mentioned an action in Federal Court, launched in the last year or so. I've looked for that, but could not find that action on the Federal Courts' website. Is this document (http://www.scribd.com/doc/97602634/Robi ... -of-Motion) related to that action? Can you tell me about the action and what you are trying to do?

2. You and minister Catherine have mentioned a civil action directed against Alberta Court of Queen's Bench judge, Associate Chief Justice John Rooke – “a man named Rooke” - can you tell me more about that? In what court is that lawsuit being heard? Have you filed that lawsuit? What are your claims? Any other details would be interesting. Have you served "a man named Rooke" with one of your private agreements? If so, did he respond?

3. You have in the past claimed that Robert Arthur Menard, a.k.a. Robert-Arthur: Menard, a.k.a. "Freddie Freepickle" is a Canada Revenue Agency agent, and you have said you have seen paperwork that establishes that fact. I'm afraid the video recording where you made that statement appears to have been deleted, so I can't offer any more commentary. Subsequent to that however you attempted to collaborate with Menard. Your holidays and travels together are described in a number of your videos. I'm confused about this. Is Menard a CRA agent? Or an agent for some other government entity? If so, why did you try to cooperate with him in the summer of 2013? Do you think he is an evil man? Misguided? Simply stupid?

4. How about Dean Clifford? Is he another government agent? I am confused about his complaint that you recorded him exposing himself at some kind of meeting/gathering? Can you elaborate on that?

5. Who is kisikawpimootewin? I have investigated this person and his (or her) litigation at some length, and come to the conclusion that the Federal Court decision that struck out his (or her) action is incorrect (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9526) . I understand you may know this person. This is a point of personal curiosity, as I think kisikawpimootewin's argument is very interesting.

6. Do you know the current status of “Marcus” of “servantking.info”? Between you and I, we both know his real identity is “W.E.”, and that he is not a former lawyer. The last time he posted online of which I am aware (November, 2013) he indicated he was evading a criminal trial. That was the last activity I have seen online from him. Do you know if “Marcus” has been detained, of if his trial is underway?

7. Is Nanya Shaabu El / Sean Henry insane? It seems that way to me, but unlike you, I don’t know him. Do you two still work together?

8. Do you know anything about a land purchase scheme promoted by Andreas Pirelli/Mario Antonacci - the Senior Chief Justice of the Tacit Surpreme In Law Court - who now is awaiting trial in Montreal? I believe his co-schemer in Edmonton was a Larry Zachow, who also apparently heads a Christian church. Do you know if Robert Menard was involved in that scheme? He met with Antonacci during the period the scam was running, and also was in Edmonton at the time I believe Zachow was involved. This would have been after you and Menard traveled together to Edmonton from the west coast.

Last, I hope you are enjoying your time in British Columbia, and if you would be so kind, next time you speak to minister Catherine do send my best wishes and hopes that her dog is feeling much better.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A few general points to my fellow Quatoosians.

I believe minister Belanger has on at least one occasion in his videos indicated he received payments from the Alberta government under the "Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped" ["AISH"] program. I cannot comment on the basis for those payments nor narrow down where in the range of videos that occurred. Apologies.

Also, I think it is only fair to observe that we should not be too offended by minister Belanger's strident responses, blood dripping, and all. He has a good thing under risk. If you view his Youtube video page (http://www.youtube.com/user/Owlmon) you will see his last three videos are being recorded from a comfortable and tasteful home on the ocean beach front in British Columbia. If, however, you look one video further back you will that minister Belanger had been residing in a homeless shelter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwyZfaNCgnw) called the Urban Manor. I suspect the minister is currently staying with Mr. Peterson, and so he has something of a motivation to respond to what may be viewed as criticism that has occurred on this forum.

SMS Möwe

[wserra]

I believe minister Belanger has on at least one occasion in his videos indicated he received payments from the Alberta government under the "Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped" ["AISH"] program. I cannot comment on the basis for those payments

It seems fair to conclude that, if Belanger in fact receives payments from a govt program entitled "Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped", some agency at some point concluded that he was, well, severely handicapped. It seems equally fair to conclude that he - to mix a metaphor - bites the tit he sucks on.

Also, I think it is only fair to observe that we should not be too offended by minister Belanger's strident responses, blood dripping, and all.

I'm not offended at all. I'm amused.

[cudgel]

wiggle wiggle on a hook like a worm who tried to look like Rook he whined and warbled and took his shot but missed the mark his souls been bought those dripping lips and fetid pride reveals the missing heart inside it tells all of a vampires tale and soon to end the fraud will fail the fangs will break the shell will shrivel to finally end the sniveling drivel of liars thieves and moral scorn my duty here? but of course to warn...

If any of you puffed up ego sodden Braniacs ever stopped looking in the mirror you might grasp that none of your heroes your revered stuffed suit pork belly parliaments ever had any authority to add to God's law KJV nor to intimidate men and women in Christ to register with and submit to them. Your defacto professions devolved ethics have caused folks to distrust your corrupted business practices dependant on assumptions and discrediting folks by slander innunedo and false defamatory stories. This seems to be your motive in your deliberate bloodlusting of invoking pain anxiety and frustration...minister Belanger is not on AISH nor ever has been....

[Dr. Caligari]

More content-free drivel from "cudgel."

[arayder]

Why, hello again minster Belanger, I hope you are well. I had an opportunity to view the video you posted and I have to say, that’s some rather colorful language! (at 11:00: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg)

SMS Möwe

This is one angry guy. If there was a prize to using the word "vampire" in one YouTube this crank would take the gold. He reminds me of Eldon Warman just before he lost the last bit of his whits.

If Mr. Victim, Ed Belanger, would stop and take a deep breath he'd see that he isn't being taken to task to being a Christian, but rather for making a mishmash of Christian theology and western law.

The juices must have really been rolling in RageBoy when, after saying it's unChristian to make any law beyond the King James Bible, he cites the Bill of Rights as substance for his theories.

[arayder]

wiggle wiggle on a hook like a worm who tried to look like Rook he whined and warbled and took his shot but missed the mark his souls been bought those dripping lips and fetid pride reveals the missing heart inside it tells all of a vampires t. . .

Sorry to cut you off, but the question I ask is whether or not you, Ed Belanger, receive payments from the government under the program, Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped?

Yes, or no.

[AndyK]

none of your heroes your revered stuffed suit pork belly parliaments ever had any authority to add to God's law KJV nor to intimidate men and women in Christ

The cudgel has finally revealed its true colors.

The cudgel is a theocrat proposing a government based on the King James Version (it forgot to specify which edition) of the Bible.

The cudgel seems to have conveniently overlooked a provision of the Constitution which forbids either a theocracy or a state-sponsored religion. The cudgel also conveniently overlooks the fact that this nation includes a vast number of people who do not accept any version of the KJV as the unerring word of God.

There are Jews, Catholics, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, Hundus, etc who make up a vast portion of this counrty.

The cudgel, if it desires to force the government to adhere to the KJV, needs to accept that the government will then, also, have to adhere to every other religious text including the recipe book of the Flying Spagetti Monster "Pasta Be Its Name". Any contradictions between the unerring word of God -- as stated in these various texts -- will require resolution by some impartial body.

It is long past time to pull the cudgel's plug. It isn't adding anything here other than a degree of humor regarding posts by morons.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... It is long past time to pull the cudgel's plug. It isn't adding anything here other than a degree of humor regarding posts by morons.

I am normally quite hesitant to suggest a unilateral termination to any dialogue, but I have made what I think is a fair effort to communicate with minister Belanger/”Cudgel”. That gesture was not reciprocated.

I remain very curious about CERI and the beliefs of its membership, but I can’t really say there is a realistic prospect that this discussion will have any benefit or meaning. I certainly remain open to communication from minister Belanger and his followers, but as others have commented, I seem to be a sucker for punishment.

In brief, I have no objections to steps to restrict minister Belanger’s participation in this forum. Not that I am claiming any authority one way or another - I just want to make my perspective clear.

SMS Möwe

[webhick]

The guy's only made 5 posts and the only real infraction he's made is some references to his religion, which is a gray area since this scam relies on a warping of religious teachings. It should also be pointed out that other forum members have also ventured into that same gray area, so if he gets reprimanded for it the others should as well.

[arayder]

... It is long past time to pull the cudgel's plug. It isn't adding anything here other than a degree of humor regarding posts by morons.

I am normally quite hesitant to suggest a unilateral termination to any dialogue, but I have made what I think is a fair effort to communicate with minister Belanger/”Cudgel”. That gesture was not reciprocated.

The guy's only made 5 posts and the only real infraction he's made is some references to his religion, which is a gray area since this scam relies on a warping of religious teachings. It should also be pointed out that other forum members have also ventured into that same gray area, so if he gets reprimanded for it the others should as well.

I say we let the ole boy rant. If he makes sense he will make sense. If he continues like he's going he'll tromp over enough rules to justify banding him.

Besides, I still want to know if he's on the dole!

[Pottapaug1938]

He'll never let himself be pinned down. He's cut from the same frayed bolt of cloth as our favorite lawful money redeemers.