pigpot's Pot

[pigpot]

I tried to post this last night but things got in the way and I got sidetracked. It's really a response to the issues raised around Dean and what's currently happening. Moreover it really an insight into the difference between power and authority as they are most definitely NOT the same and I hope I can clarify that difference.

Cheers.

More importantly can Marc provide same, and the answer of course is NO. One of the victories he claims was for a client who got sent to jail.

Holy heck. Really. As a poster on Marc's site, I'd like you provide the details. So I can check it out myself.

So big win. Marc's previous fails are chronicled in the thread in his name.

Please list these as I really want to check them out.

He incidentally is a member here and doesn't like it here since he can't claim victory and go home,

Fair enough Marc can answer for himself. Nothing to do with me. As for that, Marc posted this (here:

http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-718 ... rooke+OPCA )

for "wserra" ("wes") I presume and at the time I couldn't pass it on as was suggested as I wasn't a member here:

"Let wes know he just has to email me to set up the account, I did that to stop the flood of spambots. The accounts that were registered in the past 5 months read the sticky about new accounts. "

That was then, I don't know how things have changed since then.

those nasty lawyers on site come back with the real results of his "wins" and he really really doesn't like that. He's another of the great gurus who can't stand not having the last word the way he does on his/their own site.

I'm not sure as to the context of this remark. It's not fluid in the way that it doesn't link with anything else. Let me know what the context is around it and I'll try and respond.

As for anyone of standing and credibility I wouldn't be going anywhere near someone who can hardly spell and whose grammar is around 3rd grade. Talking about low level stuff, man this bottom scraping alright.

Let's examine the Freeman movement, which is incidentally crap at it's most fundamental level. They "believe" in being governed but want to be free. Okay stop right there. Oxy-moronic position completed. End of. Don't think that people who think for themselves and don't take what is said at face value are being divided. The Freemen are devoid of thought. They declare stuff like I can be a sovereign and a citizen. Hahahaha. Nut jobs the lot of them.

http://freedomandtruth.yooco.org/forum/index.html Roaring success eh! Yeah well done. Oh! And the Smilie for that should read "Snigger" not "Snicker". Some people eh!

Oh! As for the paperwork. What the heck is this? Is this not something akin to proof. http://marcstevens.net/articles/dave-ge ... ersey.html

Sorry it's a hamster on stilts. My error.

[Jeffrey]

Maybe you should start your own thread because it seems like you wanna start a debate up.

[pigpot]

Maybe you should start your own thread because it seems like you wanna start a debate up.

Thank for your kind suggestion Jeremy but I'll honourably decline. I responded to some points with my own thoughts on the issues raised. I don't engage in debating. Debating involves opinion and I'd rather stick to empirical evidence and facts thanks.

Cheers.

[pigpot]

Every adult knows where assumptions lead. Same as opinions. They are worthless. Let's stick to the facts. Let's all get some "WeRE" facts first, otherwise we all sound foolish.

Not sure where you're coming from here, are you saying that the moon landings were faked so WeRe bank could be real? That's a train of logic with no tracks to run on as far as I can see.

Eh! I'll forgive you that one.

What I'm saying is that you can give me all the moon landing photos and whatever YOU like. The fact remains that photos can be very much faked. Thanks Stan. Even so, alone they are no measure of proof whilst they stand alone doctored or not. What I'm saying is where is Peter of England's proof that this has worked. Same for the C3PO stuff. It may have been noble but that just opinion. It doesn't count. So where are these facts, is what I'm saying.

The WeRe facts are in, it's not a bank, it has no legal standing in fact it is illegal, it has no money nor any source of legal acceptable currency, there is no way a WeRe cheque could be used to settle any debt except between those who will accept Re.

And you've just demonstrated what I just typed above. Due to "YiamCross" typing the above quoted tract it doesn't become a fact. The way to demonstrate a fact in this case is to join Peter's on-line clan and ask for proof. If it doesn't come then a rat is smelt. Move on from there but making such a claim as the one above is akin to making the same opposite claim that they make. Ask them for proof and if it's not forth coming then begin from there.

Since a Re can be produced by mowing your own lawn or as a by-product of doing your day job it should be obvious that it can never have any value except as an entertaining curiosity to those outside the asylum.

Of course a "Re" can be produced by any measure of the meeting of two or more minds. You mow my lawn for the price of a relatively cheap cutlery set and we have a meeting of minds. A contract. An agreement. Call them "Re's", "Spoons", "Plinks and Plonks", as it matters not what you think, it only matters to those in agreement. You fall into ad hominem when you attack people with words such as, "it can never have any value except as an entertaining curiosity to those outside the asylum."

What bothers me a little is that you come across as if it's okay to lock people up if they don't think "straight". That idea that if people aren't following the herd then it's okay to use force against them to do so. I may be wrong but I'll let you set me straight on that before I make an assumption. I'll give you first response, due process, keeping it civil and all.

What part of that sounds foolish?

I don't know. It's not my role to tell you what is and what isn't.

Cheers.

[pigpot]

I just got off the phone to a neighbour who volunteers at the local CAB. [...]

This is precisely why Peter needs to be stopped and dealt with. From what you have posted that couple might have been able to get out of the hole they were in, it wouldn't have been easy but they would have managed. Now though Peters made their lives a lot harder and a lot more difficult. They aren't out of trouble but are much deeper in the mire.

I would say that your friend needs to take this seriously and needs to try and impress on the manager that while they have passed fraudulent cheques, this is mitigated by the fact that they were taken in by a very determined con artist. I would also say that we know they aren't alone, sadly Peter has lots and lots of other victims.

From the point of view that one holds that everyone is a ward of "The State" one might argue that as you type,

This is precisely why Peter needs to be stopped and dealt with.

What if one came from the view point that ignorance is no excuse. If one is dumb enough to allow it all to happen then who sets the bench to address the issue.

For me personally I consider anyone who is knowingly fraudulent should get their comeuppance.This though is where we may (I think we will) disagree. The "State" is never elected. It is simply assumed by most BUT not all. Forget the Government for a second because it's irrelevant until we understand AND agree from whereupon it derives its AUTHORITY (not power).

Let's talk about the notion of the "Nation State" as that comes before any "Government". This (and I'd rather not cross-thread here) is where (some would say) Dean Clifford is going wrong.

One question first:

Is it morally okay to initiate force where no loss, injury, harm or fraud has taken place?

[wanglepin]

Is it morally okay to initiate force where no loss, injury, harm or fraud has taken place?

Bit of an abstract question considering the thread is about a conman (a very good one in my opinion) who has launched a con bank.

[pigpot]

Like I say, Bobby can't function in Canadian society.

Well call me a simpleton but I used to believe as a very patriotic person that I was part of a "society". Later it dawned on me that this could very well be untrue. So I did some digging and after talking with others, asking some questions and such other stuff. After a while I found out I'd been lied to. So for the purposes of my now failure to grasp the nettle anymore can somebody show me with empirical proof / plain facts that I am in a real society (not one bound by fictions / man made things etc) and that I should realize that it's okay for me to be governed.

If you like start with theft and taxation? I've talked to the next generation down from me and asked the question: If I took something from you that didn't belong to me without your consent (regardless what I done for you because there was no consent) what would you call it? The resounding answer was "theft" or "stealing".

Okay then. I pursued the idea further. If the Government does the same by taking a portion of the value of my earnings without my consent (with the threat of initiating force upon me if I refuse) is that okay? They've done nothing to earn it. So in playing no part in any gain (in whatever form) is it okay for the Government to do to me what I can't do to any one else? Well you won't be surprised as to the answer (or at least logically you shouldn't be) which was an emphatic "NO!"

So I had an idea as to stop trading in money and trading in pigs instead. People love pigs. Would the government come and take my pigs if I did so? There's a lot of trucks needed for that eh!

So I have a conundrum I can't sort out in my head. Man I used to love "my" "Country". As a young kid I'd cheer them on to BEAT other "Countries" into submission in whatever form of battle was taking place either with guns and bombs or on sports fields. Not from an anarchistic background you see. Ain't that a shame. I later wanted my share of the "Country" I was told was "mine" but later "they" said I couldn't have it. I asked why. "They" said "It" was never "mine". I didn't follow the logic. How can something belong to the "Crown" and "Me" at the same time. Stunning logic NOT . Warp Factor 8 Lieutenant Sulu. (Forgive me as Star Trek Warp Factor stuff is theoretically possible in a quantum / meta-physical universe / multiverse).

So as to that conundrum then. Can someone somewhere PROVE with FACTS that I belong to the "Nation" of XYZ. That I am something or other due to the fact that I was born in a arbitrary location with pencil line borders that were man made?

I hope you can because it's something I've struggled with for years now.

If the answer is just suck it up because that's they way that it is then so be it. At least then there's a portion of honesty around, not much but at the very least something.

(Note to Moderators: My apologies if this is not the place for this post. Please re-post under a new sub-heading if required).

Cheers.

[pigpot]

Is it morally okay to initiate force where no loss, injury, harm or fraud has taken place?

Bit of an abstract question considering the thread is about a conman (a very good one in my opinion) who has launched a con bank.

Not at all. The question was not directed at him. I mean in terms of what you have just said, in your opinion (hairs standing on back of neck cringing at the thought of opinions), I mean I wouldn't be conned in that way and I say it's their fault for being stupid. I don't see how the "State" has a mandate to regulate others stupidity. Anyway let's not digress further. Just a generalised question. Sorry for not being more specific. I'll re-type my question for all below.

Is it morally okay to initiate force where no loss, injury, harm or fraud has taken place? Nothing more than in it's most absolute form. Your turn.

[longdog]

I don't see how the "State" has a mandate to regulate others stupidity.

There are plenty of laws which regulate people's stupidity. Just take a look at The Road Traffic Act for countless examples.

Is it morally okay to initiate force where no loss, injury, harm or fraud has taken place?

Yes.

[littleFred]

Welcome to pigpot and other new members.

Quatloos isn't a philosophy forum. Nor do we discuss what we think the law should be. Or politics or religion, for that matter.

[Jeffrey]

I did tell you to make a new thread if you were looking for a debate.

[pigpot]

I did tell you to make a new thread if you were looking for a debate.

At what stage did I make the point that I wanted a "debate" with you "Jeremy". Nothing was rhetorical about this for you.

I see debates as for children, he said, she said, CHILDISH stuff, that's how people get to win on a decision. It's not based on FACTS.

Lets just go for the knock out blow. Much better, one fact brought by either side. I prefer mathematical arguments that rely on facts. 1+1=2 Is a fine mathematical argument "Jeffrey". It's not even fine... It just IS.

YOU simply cannot argue with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and FACT.

To the very best of health to all posters here... I raise a glass. Tres formidable. Can't play it but still. And no Aristocrat...

[pigpot]

Welcome to pigpot and other new members.

Quatloos isn't a philosophy forum. Nor do we discuss what we think the law should be. Or politics or religion, for that matter.

Cheers "littleFred". Superb welcome friend.

[wanglepin]

I'll re-type my question for all below.

Is it morally okay to initiate force where no loss, injury, harm or fraud has taken place? Nothing more than in it's most absolute form. Your turn.

It is the same question. But never the less my answer is yes and they should..

[pigpot]

I don't see how the "State" has a mandate to regulate others stupidity.

There are plenty of laws which regulate people's stupidity. Just take a look at The Road Traffic Act for countless examples.

Is it morally okay to initiate force where no loss, injury, harm or fraud has taken place?

Yes.

Listen, thanks for your FRANK reply, but that's as far right wing as I can imagine. Jeez... At least you've come clean. So where there is no loss, injury, harm or fraud you believe that it's OKAY to FORCE people into complying with a diktat.

Only asking. Can you please validate that for the WORLD please. Normally I would hose down on posters like this but my method has changed due to many variables.

The world is not in good shape with people like this "Wes".

I'd like to ask "Wes" if he supports this position.

Take the opposite position of "Anne Frank", would the same position be held by "longdog"?

Pretty shitty to be backing up these people.

[pigpot]

Welcome to pigpot and other new members.

Quatloos isn't a philosophy forum. Nor do we discuss what we think the law should be. Or politics or religion, for that matter.

Cheers "littleFred". Superb welcome friend.

Well at least this is better.

[pigpot]

Welcome to pigpot and other new members.

Quatloos isn't a philosophy forum. Nor do we discuss what we think the law should be. Or politics or religion, for that matter.

Cheers "littleFred". Superb welcome friend.

Well at least this is better.

Honesty... Jeez... I've banned here and there and the most I get from forum kudos / recognition is here. Still...

[pigpot]

Menard doesn't strike me as the type to participate in Engineering Week.

Not giving him a hard time. Just odd that a guy with a legitimate degree in a good field is out scrounging.

Menard never mentioned his graduation from St. Clair on his Facebook page and in fact has said he graduated form the school of hard knocks.

In his father's obituary every degree earned by the Menard sisters is mentioned. But Bobby's "degree" from St. Clair is not: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/windso ... =167300422

---------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 167 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system.

"Menard" also (allegedly) never mentioned he allegedly brushed his teeth with un-fluoridated tooth paste, he had allegedly a purple pointy hat that he wore on Wednesdays and Tuesdays taking into account the slippage of the star signs and how people would pay homage to the turtle that allegedly fasts on curried seaweed and lager that lives in his front garden pond................ REALLY!!!

Why didn't that happen... BECAUSE it was rubbish.

How's ad hominem. If it's going to be debunked, debunk it PROPERLY!

[longdog]

Listen, thanks for your FRANK reply, but that's as far right wing as I can imagine. Jeez... At least you've come clean. So where there is no loss, injury, harm or fraud you believe that it's OKAY to FORCE people into complying with a diktat.

Only asking. Can you please validate that for the WORLD please. Normally I would hose down on posters like this but my method has changed due to many variables.

The world is not in good shape with people like this "Wes".

I'd like to ask "Wes" if he supports this position.

Take the opposite position of "Anne Frank", would the same position be held by "longdog"?

Pretty shitty to be backing up these people.

You really need to grow up son.

I mentioned traffic laws earlier and I'll stick with that for the time being...

Lets say I get in my car after a bottle of gin and five bottles of Old Scrotum's Nutty Peculiar and set off down the road. Do the police have the right to use force to stop me despite the fact that I haven't... Yet... caused any "loss, injury, harm or fraud"? Too fucking right they do... Not just a legal right but a moral right.

As for your "far right wing" comments you can shove them up your arse... I would put myself way, way WAY over to the left politically but I'm not aware of any particular thread of left-wing philosophy which proposes an absolute right for individuals to do whatever the fuck they like without consideration for the people around them.

I don't have a clue what point you are trying to make about Anne Frank but if you are tip-toeing around Godwin's Law forget it. I have enough Jewish blood in me to have ensured a one-way train ride to the camps were I living in another time and place.

[arayder]

No need to get all excited, Pigpot.

Menard's tooth brushing habits or hat styles don't have anything to do with marketing the ninja goat. But his claim to have earned a mechanical technology degree does. And considering Bobby's long history of tall tales, it seems worth checking his story out "properly", as you shout.

I am one step ahead of you. Inquires are being made.