View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Discuss General Topics.

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 28 Apr 2012, 00:01

cecil1 wrote:I'm not sure you understand what the act actually states, it states that for the greater certainty a seperate trust exists in respect to all assets property and investments,


Ok, on the assumption you're not trolling, I'll explain. No, this Act does not establish a trust for all assets, property and investments. You're only reading half the provision:

Trust property
(3) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this Act, a separate trust exists with respect to all assets, investments or property held by a trustee under a trust instrument for the benefit of a person, group or class of persons, notwithstanding that under the same trust instrument different assets, investments or property are held for the benefit of a different person, group or class of persons.


The first part applies to the bolded. It is not setting up the fact that all assets, investments or property are automatically trusts.

The federal government has no authority to legislate in the field of property and civil rights anyway, except with regard to federally regulated companies. Rules of ownership of your car, for example, are under the purview of the provinces. Again: you are misreading this act. You do not understand what you are reading.

This act applies to individuals because the word person is used, the act clearly states an individual is a person in the definitions section... individuals can apply. geesh are you having fun disinfo guy?


Yes, the act uses the standard definition of legal person which includes an individual. Find me an instance where regulations dictate that an individual needs to be Canadian owned and the act will apply to that person. Again: the entire purpose of the act is setting out how one goes about getting a certificate that declares the person to be canadian owned and controlled.

But you haven't really made a point, all you do is sidestep the act, you keep implying the trust doesn't apply to individuals, the law states very clearly for the greater certainty it does indeed exist but doesn't restrict the application to trusts, who is right? The Law or Arouet?


See the above.

If your not a disinfo troll then go back and read the act and tell me if the trust that exists for greater certainty applies to individuals.

QUALIFIED APPLICANTS
Who may apply
4. The following are qualified to apply for a certificate:

(a) an individual other than a non-eligible person;


Right, an individual may certainly apply for the certificate. Which makes sense, since that is what the act is about.

Now answer my question: did you read the links I gave you?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 28 Apr 2012, 02:20

Arouet wrote:Ok, on the assumption you're not trolling, I'll explain. No, this Act does not establish a trust for all assets, property and investments. You're only reading half the provision:


I've read the whole provision, what you're saying is that the trust that holds all assets property and investments are held by a person for the benefit of a different person, this isn't untypical, this is how trusts operate, you have made no point here, what you are saying is redundant. A typical disinfo troll tactic you use well. well done!

Arouet wrote:The first part applies to the bolded. It is not setting up the fact that all assets, investments or property are automatically trusts.


This is absolutely illogical, nobody stated assets, property or investments ARE trusts, the first part you identify simply states a trust exists, for the greater certainty, which means I can safely assume it does and ignore your gibberish redundant misleading troll like responses. (but you are a fun troll aren't you? :}) You are not here to learn something you know little to nothing about, please do take some care and use honesty in your interactions with me.

Arouet wrote:The federal government has no authority to legislate in the field of property and civil rights anyway, except with regard to federally regulated companies.


Why? How come exactly? I'm all ears.

Arouet wrote:Rules of ownership of your car, for example, are under the purview of the provinces. Again: you are misreading this act. You do not understand what you are reading.


What i'm concerned with is the fact that your ignoring the fact that this act declares that a seperate trust exists in respect of those items. All assets, investments and property. How are you going to rebut that? How do you rebut the fact that individuals can apply? I'm thankful individuals can apply that means there is a slight chance there can be beneficial ownership of our assets property and investments.

Perhaps you're not so estatic? Earlier I asked you why don't you condone slavery? Why are you avoiding this question like the plague? Why is owning our property investments and assets bad? What is so horrible about that? What do you have against people owning their own items?

Arouet wrote:Yes, the act uses the standard definition of legal person which includes an individual. Find me an instance where regulations dictate that an individual needs to be Canadian owned and the act will apply to that person. Again: the entire purpose of the act is setting out how one goes about getting a certificate that declares the person to be canadian owned and controlled.



What you're saying is nonsensical. Control status is very clear within that act, it clearly states if you are not a non-eligible person then you are canadian controlled subject to the regulations in paragraph 20(f) or (g), I don't see where it states this is not the case, can you point it out as it would make a point in your arguement. So far you have made no relevant point. I wonder if you ever will. :roll:


Arouet wrote:See the above.


Again you've brought up nothing relevant in making your point, what is your point?

Arouet wrote:Right, an individual may certainly apply for the certificate. Which makes sense, since that is what the act is about.

Now answer my question: did you read the links I gave you


But earlier you stated this act is only relevant to federally owned companies and only applies to trusts... which one is it Arouet?

Now answer my question: did you read the act in the links displayed?
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 28 Apr 2012, 02:38

cecil1 wrote:I've read the whole provision, what you're saying is that the trust that holds all assets property and investments are held by a person for the benefit of a different person, this isn't untypical, this is how trusts operate, you have made no point here, what you are saying is redundant. A typical disinfo troll tactic you use well. well done!


No, that's not what I was saying. You keep on referring to "the trust". But there is no "the trust" - the act applies to any trust seeking the certificate and that provision applies to certain trusts that are structured in a certain way. There is no "the" trust.

This is absolutely illogical, nobody stated assets, property or investments ARE trusts, the first part you identify simply states a trust exists, for the greater certainty, which means I can safely assume it does and ignore your gibberish redundant misleading troll like responses. (but you are a fun troll aren't you? :}) You are not here to learn something you know little to nothing about, please do take some care and use honesty in your interactions with me.


Ok, this is trolling, but its clever trolling. So I like it!

Why? How come exactly? I'm all ears.


Take a look at the Constitution: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Cons ... index.html

Sections 91 and 92.

What i'm concerned with is the fact that your ignoring the fact that this act declares that a seperate trust exists in respect of those items. All assets, investments and property. How are you going to rebut that? How do you rebut the fact that individuals can apply? I'm thankful individuals can apply that means there is a slight chance there can be beneficial ownership of our assets property and investments.


Again, if you are trolling its very well done. If not, then I just don't know what more to say since you're just not understanding what it says.

Perhaps you're not so estatic? Earlier I asked you why don't you condone slavery? Why are you avoiding this question like the plague?


Haha. I don't condone slavery because I think slavery is wrong. Human beings shouldn't own each other.

There, haven't avoided it.

Why is owning our property investments and assets bad?


I don't think there is anything wrong about owning our property and investments.

What is so horrible about that? What do you have against people owning their own items?


Absolutely nothing.

What you're saying is nonsensical. Control status is very clear within that act, it clearly states if you are not a non-eligible person then you are canadian controlled subject to the regulations in paragraph 20(f) or (g), I don't see where it states this is not the case, can you point it out as it would make a point in your arguement. So far you have made no relevant point. I wonder if you ever will. :roll:


This is brilliant if trolling! A+. If not, then you've completely mangled it again. Only eligible individuals are entitled to request the certificate. The act directs you how to figure out who are non-elligible individuals.

But earlier you stated this act is only relevant to federally owned companies and only applies to trusts... which one is it Arouet?


No, yes, the Act only applies to federally regulated businesses, some of which are set up as trusts. No, I didn't say it only applies to trusts.

You didn't answer my question about whether you read my links.

Now answer my question: did you read the act in the links displayed?


The act we're talking about? yes. was there another act you thought was relevant to this discussion?

Anyhow, much improved! Keep up the good work.

(Ninja, don't ban him this time - it helps to keep me amused!)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 28 Apr 2012, 03:56

Arouet wrote:No, that's not what I was saying. You keep on referring to "the trust". But there is no "the trust" - the act applies to any trust seeking the certificate and that provision applies to certain trusts that are structured in a certain way. There is no "the" trust.


Umm no.

Trust property
(3) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this Act, a separate trust exists...
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html

You're wrong, accept it.

Arouet wrote:Ok, this is trolling, but its clever trolling. So I like it!


I know you like trolling, you've said it many times. The mods here show incredible restraint.

Arouet wrote:Take a look at the Constitution: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Cons ... index.html

Sections 91 and 92.


What exactly is in there that you feel restricts canadas ability to legislate laws? I do not comprehend your angle of attack here, when will you make a valid point? I'm not bored yet so can you somehow explain what you're on about?

Arouet wrote:Again, if you are trolling its very well done. If not, then I just don't know what more to say since you're just not understanding what it says.


I'm confident you understand the act in question, but you are determined to stonewall the topic to death with obfuscation, a documented stonewalling technique. It's really quite easy, you simply don't want others to know this information because it affects your law societies image. I understand. Slavery is immoral, it makes you look bad.

Arouet wrote:Haha. I don't condone slavery because I think slavery is wrong. Human beings shouldn't own each other.

There, haven't avoided it.


So this act that states for the greater certainty a trust exists in respect to all assets and investments and property is a part of the legal slavery, why do you condone this slave act? How can you condone a legislated rule of society given the force of law that enforces slavery yet turn around and say you do not condone slavery? Your lieing, you do condone slavery. That is bad moral ethics Arouet. A double whammy as it were.

Arouet wrote:I don't think there is anything wrong about owning our property and investments.


Then why do you condone an act that places everyone into a corporate trust that strips away the persons rights to beneficial interest and places them on the board of directors for the corporate trust that for greater certainty exists regardless of you crying it doesn't?

Arouet wrote:Absolutely nothing.


Then why would you blatently misconstrue the control test section of the act to mean wether a federally regulated company needed to be canadian controlled instead of what determines if a person is canadian controlled like the act declares?

Arouet wrote:This is brilliant if trolling! A+. If not, then you've completely mangled it again. Only eligible individuals are entitled to request the certificate. The act directs you how to figure out who are non-elligible individuals.


Wouldn't it suck if no individual was eligible to apply for ownership of there assets property and investments held in the corporate trust that for greater certainty exists? Somehow you seem to think this wins you a point, it does not.

Arouet wrote:No, yes, the Act only applies to federally regulated businesses, some of which are set up as trusts. No, I didn't say it only applies to trusts.

You didn't answer my question about whether you read my links.


Actually this is what the act is respecting once again seeing as you are determined to obfuscate this topic, here it is again;

Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-20
An Act respecting Canadian ownership and control determination

Arouet can you please point where the act states it respects only federally regulated businesses or applies only to them?
It looks like the act proves you incorrect, why is that? Where are you getting you're theory from? Please do share I would love to see how you come to the conclusion this act respects only federally regulated companies and applies only to them when the act clearly states what it respects. Heck even Canadas library and archive website proves you wrong, did you read the link provided earlier regarding this?

You are being intentionally obtuse.

The Petroleum Incentives Administration (PIA) was responsible for the administration of both the Petroleum Incentives Program Act and the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act, acts that were proclaimed in June and September, 1982, respectively. Under the terms of the Acts, the administration was broadly responsible for the collection, analysis and study of information pertaining to the determination of companies' and individuals' Canadian ownership rate and control status, and their eligibility for reimbursement of certain approved expenditures, as well as the development of policy and regulations.
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_ ... nbr=190485


Arouet wrote:The act we're talking about? yes. was there another act you thought was relevant to this discussion?

Anyhow, much improved! Keep up the good work.

(Ninja, don't ban him this time - it helps to keep me amused!)


I am not this other person you fear, but thanks for the compliment?

To answer your question in order to prevent you from foaming at the mouth and to keep this debate tolerable for the lurkers who don't have the patience I do with disinfo agents such as yourself, yes I have read your links, they do not raise an arguement in your favor. The act itself and the archives of the government of canada prove you wrong, but don't take my word for it, go verify for yourself :mrgreen:
Last edited by cecil1 on 12 May 2012, 08:38, edited 1 time in total.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 28 Apr 2012, 04:18

cecil1 wrote:Trust property
(3) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this Act, a separate trust exists...
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... lText.html

You're wrong, accept it.



I just can't tell if you are joking or not here. But I can't explain it any better. You can't crop the sentence where you did and expect to retain the meaning.

What exactly is in there that you feel restricts canadas ability to legislate laws? I do not comprehend your angle of attack here, when will you make a valid point? I'm not bored yet so can you somehow explain what you're on about?


Did you read the sections? if sets out which laws which level of government can legislate in. S 91 sets out the jurisdiction of the federal government, s.92 sets out the jurisdiction of the provinces. Property and Civil rights belongs to the provinces.

I'm confident you understand the act in question, but you are determined to stonewall the topic to death with obfuscation, a documented stonewalling technique. It's really quite easy, you simply don't want others to know this information because it affects your law societies image. I understand. Slavery is immoral, it makes you look bad.


ok

So this act that states for the greater certainty a trust exists in respect to all assets and investments and property is a part of the legal slavery, why do you condone this slave act? How can you condone a legislated rule of society given the force of law that enforces slavery yet turn around and say you do not condone slavery? Your lieing, you do condone slavery. That is bad moral ethics Arouet. A double whammy as it were.


I guess you got me!

Then why do you condone an act that places everyone into a corporate trust that strips away the persons rights to beneficial interest and places them on the board of directors for the corporate trust that for greater certainty exists regardless of you crying it doesn't?


I think we've taken this one as far as we can go now....

Then why would you blatently misconstrue the control test section of the act to mean wether a federally regulated company needed to be canadian controlled instead of what determines if a person is canadian controlled like the act declares?


You dropped character for a second and at least I know now that you do actually understand what the act is about!


Actually this is what the act is respecting once again seeing as you are determined to obfuscate this topic, here it is again;

Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-20
An Act respecting Canadian ownership and control determination

Arouet can you please point where the act states it respects only federally regulated businesses or applies only to them?


We know this because the federal government cannot legislate in this area except with regard to federally regulated businesses.

It looks like the act proves you incorrect, why is that? Where are you getting you're theory from? Please do share I would love to see how you come to the conclusion this act respects only federally regulated companies and applies only to them when the act clearly states what it respects.


it's all in that constitution I linked you to!

The Petroleum Incentives Administration (PIA) was responsible for the administration of both the Petroleum Incentives Program Act and the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act, acts that were proclaimed in June and September, 1982, respectively. Under the terms of the Acts, the administration was broadly responsible for the collection, analysis and study of information pertaining to the determination of companies' and individuals' Canadian ownership rate and control status, and their eligibility for reimbursement of certain approved expenditures, as well as the development of policy and regulations.
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_ ... nbr=190485


And?

I am not this other person you fear, but thanks for the compliment?


Oh, I don't fear him. I didn't want him banned in the first place. But you and he would certainly get along!

To answer your question in order to prevent you from foaming at the mouth and to keep this debate tolerable for the lurkers who don't have the patience I do with disinfo agents such as yourself, yes I have read your links, they do not raise an arguement in your favor. The act itself and the archives of the government of canada prove you wrong, but don't take my word for it, go verify for yourself :mrgreen:


Well, if you are not a troll, then unfortunately you are just not understanding what you are reading. But I'm not sure I can make it much clearer without really going into a rather lengthy lesson about a pretty dry subject - and I'm just not interested in that.

So I don't know what else I can say about this topic. I certainly never would have predicted I'd be discussing a dry statute involving Canadian protectionist legislation on this forum!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 28 Apr 2012, 04:58

Arouet wrote:I just can't tell if you are joking or not here. But I can't explain it any better. You can't crop the sentence where you did and expect to retain the meaning.


It's annoying not being able to obfuscate the topic isn't it Arouet? Since you can't explain your position any better i'll safely assume you do not have all the relevant information available to continue the debate, simply admit you're wrong, show some honesty, you do realize honesty is an integral part of good moral ethics yes?

Arouet wrote:Did you read the sections? if sets out which laws which level of government can legislate in. S 91 sets out the jurisdiction of the federal government, s.92 sets out the jurisdiction of the provinces. Property and Civil rights belongs to the provinces.


Certainly I did, the federal government is within it's lawful authority to regulate interest.

Presumptions
(3) For the purpose of determining whether a partnership or trust is a non-eligible person, the partnership or trust shall be deemed to be a corporation incorporated in Canada or elsewhere, and
(b) with respect to a trust, the beneficial interests in the property of the trust shall be deemed to be shares of the corporation, the owners of those beneficial interests shall be deemed to be shareholders of the corporation and the trustees shall be deemed to be members of the board of directors of the corporation.

Certainly canada knows what is within canadas authority to legislate on, but Arouet seems to disagree with canada, why is that?

Arouet wrote:ok


I'll assume you agree with my previous statement.. thank you for showing honesty no matter how immoral it is for condoning slavery.

Arouet wrote:I guess you got me!


I am not interested in your personal speculations, I am more of an objective truth person.


Arouet wrote:I think we've taken this one as far as we can go now....


You did well however, you should not feel discouraged, plenty more people to work your disinfo on!
This planet is not short of gullible suckers ready to accept your words blindy!

Arouet wrote:We know this because the federal government cannot legislate in this area except with regard to federally regulated businesses.


Once again you disagree with the government of canada, they can and do regulate trusts, interest etc. The constitution sections you provided declare it so.
Where is the restriction in this regard? You only helped prove my point.

Arouet wrote:it's all in that constitution I linked you to!


So you do agree! You're wrong! excellent form!

Arouet wrote:And?


And.. you're wrong. The archives back up the governments position not yours.

Arouet wrote:Oh, I don't fear him. I didn't want him banned in the first place. But you and he would certainly get along!


Speculation.

Arouet wrote:Well, if you are not a troll, then unfortunately you are just not understanding what you are reading. But I'm not sure I can make it much clearer without really going into a rather lengthy lesson about a pretty dry subject - and I'm just not interested in that.


The government of canada proves you wrong, you simply don't want good people finding this information... you agreed earlier it makes your law society look bad. I agree you are not interested in helping the good people of canada at all.

Arouet wrote:So I don't know what else I can say about this topic. I certainly never would have predicted I'd be discussing a dry statute involving Canadian protectionist legislation on this forum!


The last thing I expect was for a disinfo troll to back down from defending slavery, is this a first?
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 28 Apr 2012, 06:45

cecil1 wrote:It's annoying not being able to obfuscate the topic isn't it Arouet? Since you can't explain your position any better i'll safely assume you do not have all the relevant information available to continue the debate, simply admit you're wrong, show some honesty, you do realize honesty is an integral part of good moral ethics yes?


If it makes you feel better to believe that, you can. But you actually haven't really responded to a single thing I've said so where is the debate. You just keep on repeating the same flawed thinking.

Certainly I did, the federal government is within it's lawful authority to regulate interest.
ir itiit
Presumptions
(3) For the purpose of determining whether a partnership or trust is a non-eligible person, the partnership or trust shall be deemed to be a corporation incorporated in Canada or elsewhere, and
(b) with respect to a trust, the beneficial interests in the property of the trust shall be deemed to be shares of the corporation, the owners of those beneficial interests shall be deemed to be shareholders of the corporation and the trustees shall be deemed to be members of the board of directors of the corporation.

Certainly canada knows what is within canadas authority to legislate on, but Arouet seems to disagree with canada, why is that?


Actually, I was thinking about this on the way home, and I suppose there could be provincial companies that also require Canadian owned and controlled certificates. So yes, the corporation could be incorporated elsewhere. I suspect most of the ones who use this act will be federal ones dealing with interprovincial/national trade however - and the focus was on gas companies, telecommunications, etc.

course - none of that changes the point - which you continue to miss. I'm not trying to be insulting, but if you're not a troll then you're really just not understanding what you are reading.

I'll assume you agree with my previous statement.. thank you for showing honesty no matter how immoral it is for condoning slavery.


yes, we're in agreement that slavery is immoral!

You did well however, you should not feel discouraged, plenty more people to work your disinfo on!
This planet is not short of gullible suckers ready to accept your words blindy!


I'm not asking anyone to accept my words blindly. You should consult other sources. Let me know if you find anyone knowledgeable in legal matters who agrees with you!

By the way - given that it's in an area of the law I am unfamiliar with, I'm sure I got some minor things wrong -but nothing that would change any conclusion vis-a-vis how you are pretending to read the act.


Once again you disagree with the government of canada, they can and do regulate trusts, interest etc. The constitution sections you provided declare it so.
Where is the restriction in this regard? You only helped prove my point.


But they are not regulating trusts there, they are stating how they will interpret certain trusts for the purpose of the act.

Speculation.


Yeah, maybe you wouldn't. If you're not the same person your similar styles would probably put you in competition with each other.

The government of canada proves you wrong, you simply don't want good people finding this information... you agreed earlier it makes your law society look bad.


I agreed it made my law society look bad? Which law society is that? Where did I saw that?

I agree you are not interested in helping the good people of canada at all.


ok

The last thing I expect was for a disinfo troll to back down from defending slavery, is this a first?


ok- I think this pretty well exhausts this topic . What have you got next? I'm rather enjoying this!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 01 May 2012, 02:27

You were not very convincing at all, horrible job.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 01 May 2012, 03:05

No one said the constitution regulates trusts except that you imply I said it, it does not, thats the jurisdiction it allows lawfully, regulating federal trusts/etc is what the trust and loans companies act is for.

There must be a better disinfo troll about than you.
One that at least makes convincing arguements.

cecil1 wrote:I'm confident you understand the act in question, but you are determined to stonewall the topic to death with obfuscation, a documented stonewalling technique. It's really quite easy, you simply don't want others to know this information because it affects your law societies image. I understand. Slavery is immoral, it makes you look bad.


Arouet wrote:ok


Excellent so you've agreed!



Arouet wrote:I agreed it made my law society look bad? Which law society is that? Where did I saw that?


Arouet wrote:I'm a lawyer, and while I don't practice in an area that deals with trusts, I do have a basic understanding of what they are. So feel free to go ahead with your argument for how we are legal slaves in Canada.


Which one is it?

--------> http://www.flsc.ca/en/canadas-law-societies/

pick which one you belong to.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 01 May 2012, 04:49

cecil1 wrote:No one said the constitution regulates trusts except that you imply I said it, it does not, thats the jurisdiction it allows lawfully, regulating federal trusts/etc is what the trust and loans companies act is for.


yes, the federal government can regulated federal trusts.

There must be a better disinfo troll about than you.
One that at least makes convincing arguements.


Probably. They've almost kicked me out of the disinfo troll union a couple times, but so far I'm hangin in there!

Which one is it?

--------> http://www.flsc.ca/en/canadas-law-societies/

pick which one you belong to.


Well, I'm a member of the law society of upper canada. But they don't write any laws you know...
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 01 May 2012, 05:15

Arouet wrote:yes, the federal government can regulated federal trusts.


And the canadian ownership and control determination act is a federal act. I'm very glad we are aggreeing now Arouet, isn't this nicer? Pleasant almost isn't it?

C'mon admit it you want to like me. I am pretty darn likeable after all :)


Arouet wrote:Probably. They've almost kicked me out of the disinfo troll union a couple times, but so far I'm hangin in there!


Lol you are being far too enjoyable here, I like it.

Arouet wrote:Well, I'm a member of the law society of upper canada. But they don't write any laws you know...


What is that NWT or something? You up by Tuktoyaktuk? If so you are a very hardy man! Maybe you do some work for diavik or De Beers abit south?
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 01 May 2012, 07:23

cecil1 wrote:And the canadian ownership and control determination act is a federal act. I'm very glad we are aggreeing now Arouet, isn't this nicer? Pleasant almost isn't it?


It certainly isn't pleasant! Course I never said otherwise!

C'mon admit it you want to like me. I am pretty darn likeable after all :)


Oh, I'm quite glad you're here!

What is that NWT or something? You up by Tuktoyaktuk? If so you are a very hardy man! Maybe you do some work for diavik or De Beers abit south?


Upper Canada: AKA Ontario!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 01 May 2012, 07:53

Arouet wrote:it certainly isn't pleasant! Course I never said otherwise!


But you just did! Just like an oxymoron... or a lie... both look foolish! =D

Arouet wrote:Oh, I'm quite glad you're here!


That is not an admission of your fondness for me :( Ouch my feelings!

Arouet wrote:Upper Canada: AKA Ontario!


Thanks for the education!!!
You taught me something! Now wasn't that easy?

Why isn't everything this easy with you?
You just don't try =(
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby Arouet » 01 May 2012, 08:13

So now that that's resolved- what do you have next for us?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

Postby cecil1 » 01 May 2012, 08:55

You mean you are done defending an act that provides legal enforcement for slavery?
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest