That's an odd question. Why do you ask?

oh alright.. do tell Scott Duncan?

There is a question standing.

does that prove i am odd? i think you did somthing, and are suffering a punishment. like the kind of things they make movies about.

was somthing you did long ago, that you cant say, put into a movie or somehow a subject matter?

is it bigger than a bread box... ;-)

[whats my line: with scott duncan]

I still do not have a satisfactory answer. I'll ask again; Why are you asking?

I think you're talking about the original 'Superman,' David. Except where Superman wasnt able to see through 'lead,' Scott is unable to answer questions regarding the Receiver's Certificate ;)

..and somehow an ADR- American Depository Receipt is rather important for you guys down there in the states

just querious if you were one of the character in hackers or some other movie.

i'm trying to be more creative with the asking questions. sort of like I ROBOT when he asked the right question...

I have sold rights in the past. Yes. I will not say, because a writer got credit for it, just like the contract said. I've been paid, so I will not say which ones they are. Sorry.

now I'm intrigued. because I want to read what you had wrote

This is a dead-end path. My contracts are my currency.

I HONOUR ALL CONTRACTS when the other party does the same. These guys DID. So I will HONOUR them back. That is the CORE of honesty. So, yes. As I said; Dead-end path.

yah, no, i was thinking you were young and got caught at or exposed somthing, and the punishment included a clause that you couldnt ever tell anyone what you figured out. but if somone were to ask the right question...

Tara Duncan watched me flush 27 Million down the crapper once. :D

Rumour has it, that Scott was the 'ghost-writer' behind Larry David's 'Prognosis Negative'... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07vrD8PXMyU

I wish I would have met you when I was 9

larry david is not funny.

..there is no ACCOUNTING(get it)for taste HAR! ;)

27 Million what? molecules, sperm, ergot fungi?

you had to plunge the bowl?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBRI3iHmLys

She loves me with every fibre of her being, don't get me wrong... But these days she is sure noticing how little money we have, and thinks that 27 Million would be handy these days. It's hard not to give me "that look", and I can't blame her. I do it to myself these days...but that's what it cost to change the conditions of the test back then... ...I think I would like 27 Million. I think I'd like you to give it to Tara. Oh, didn't I mention? You are going to give it to me. You will do it gladly, and when you have given her all that you have, you will get all that your friends have, and they will hand it over gladly! Ask yourself why I should believe such an odd thing. ;)

I say "believe" because in your mind, that's all it COULD be. ;)

that is if under the condition i accept your word without an affadavit!

More spoilers? :D Ten "Likes" gets them! Dance for Scott Duncan! :D

I'm such a whore. :D

So im talking to a classmate during the bathroom break tonight. She wants me to explain to her again what a By-Law is. I start to tell her- "Well, Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 says.." She cuts me off. "Oh, no-no-no..." I ask her what she means. "Oh that doesnt count". . ."What do you mean- 'that doesnt count?'". . ."That one's too OLD. The definitions have CHANGED since then" I try not to be rude, so i say- "The definition of a By-Law has CHANGED since then? Bouviers Law is one of THE most respected Law Dictionaries, you HAVE heard of it before - right?". . . ."No," she answers - and she wants to be a PARALEGAL! LOL

But she's right. Anything before 1982 (UK Canada Act) doesn't matter.

..and somewhere Lege Unum weeps- wait a second, UK Canada Act - are those CLUBHOUSE RULES you are talkin' about?? ;)

Yes, and so are you.

time to smoke a bowl of weed

..touche'

GOOD Idea.

But a By-Law is a By-Law is a By-Law is a By-Law is a rule of a corporation for its OWN internal governance...

Which was "reset" in 1982, to remove ambiguity.

I'm still trying to figure out what I do with my two baby cat Captain Jack Mr Wiggles

The 1960 Bill Of Rights has every LEGAL protection for your Sovereignty and is still in effect today. Dean Clifford likes to "Stump the Stooges" with this ugly reality, often. The Wikipedia entry for it is worded... Interestingly. ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights

City of Toronto Act, 2006. . .as an example �by-law� includes a resolution for the purpose of a local board; ..just so happens the City is made-up of about 65 LOCAL BOARDS, and i dont work for any of them :)

Date I think they did that around blacks 4th and 5th edition The reset Am I correct Scott?

You might be. I don't know. I don't read that unless I need it.

"The Canadian Bill of Rights remains in effect, but its widely acknowledged ineffectiveness[citation needed (Because there is none to be had!)]was the main reason that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982." - Crap. By "ineffectiveness", they mean that they couldn't create joinder on you by presumption.

yeah I was pretty sure but I just wanted to make sure

[citation needed] = something someone writing that pulled-out-of-their-ass? :/

I read too much that shit rot my brain but then I found this thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_justice

Does anyone actually KNOW what the term SECURITY means around here...? ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_of_the_person

There has been discussion within the Supreme Court and among academics as to whether security of the person also guarantees some economic rights. Theoretically, security of the person would be breached if the government limits a person's ability to make an income, by denying welfare, taking away property essential to one's profession, or denying licenses. However, section 7 is primarily concerned with legal rights, so this reading of economic rights is questionable. Many economic issues could also be political questions.[4]

WHY is it NO ONE wants to talk about the SURETY/SECURITY of the PERSON ?....ffuuucccckkkkkk!!!!!!!! I asked so many public servants, *sigh*

Pierre, they were probably told by their insurer not to.

Scott Duncan: The 1960 Bill Of Rights has every LEGAL protection for your Sovereignty and is still in effect today. Dean Clifford likes to "Stump the Stooges" with this ugly reality, often. The Wikipedia entry for it is worded... Interestingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights Scott Duncan: "The Canadian Bill of Rights remains in effect, but its widely acknowledged ineffectiveness[citation needed (Because there is none to be had!)]was the main reason that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982." - Crap. By "ineffectiveness", they mean that they couldn't create joinder on you by presumption.

The comments in this thread are "gold".

...and I fucking hate Derek Moran.

...and now we're up to date.