A NEW question :D Okay I'm ready to have some fun with these fucktards Capitaine Pete. Apparently the Ontario Registrar General knows Scott really well :)
Tell them: Scott Duncan taught me that LEGAL = SURETY AND ACCOUNTING.....and that the word LEGAL is everywhere on this form, so, is this shit's about MONEY? .....are you transforming my baby into LEGAL MONEY ? :D
Bwah ha ha ha ha! Another NEW question...should I lead with mentioning Scott Duncan or start by lobbing a softball and ask for the definition of LEGAL SURNAME :)
This is why I will ALWAYS be better than Menard, or Clifford, or any of the free-dumbers...
...NO VICTIMS, and you get PROOF when I say it.
I WIN. Every Time. Pray all you like, it will never change that reality.
Free-dumbers and Piece-of-Shit Christians have damaged the truth SO MUCH, that "No Victims" is actually something I can BRAG about. Think about that... take all the time you need.
ME, YOU, Mr, You're, joinder, Include, Exclude, person, resident, admiral, general, lastname and ME is sure tomorrow will bring some more interesting moments..
Yeah MR is a BIG one. Folks actually BELIEVE they are being polite when they use this title. Even after sharing what this title means they still can't help themselves. it seems telling folks that this "title" is offensive gets their attention for some reason. :/
Mr. = fealty to another. (fealty: a feudal tenant's or vassal's sworn loyalty to a lord : they owed fealty to the Earl rather than the King.
� formal acknowledgment of this : a property for which she did fealty.
Yes makes sense. Sorry, "Mr = fealty to another" this was mentioned in a tender for law thread, a quote I read days ago "Only those I have fealty to, may call me "Mister". the definition of fealty was taken from the macbook dictionary provided in the laptop, I also crossed reference that definition with wikipedia.
I realize that I have made mistakes and need to accept responsibility for these presumptions, however moving forward I cannot understand without questions being answered. this is my own doing, I need to ask REG GEN and CRA some questions this seems honourable to ME.
Be sure to give NOTICE that their responses will be PUBLISHED.
OH, and be sure to say "Scott Duncan says, hi" <---The Attorney general REALLY likes this.
Not to derail your thread (much), people who employ conversational "fillers" like, "at this point in time" or "moving forward", are not speaking precisely and inserting random meaningless bullshit into a conversation or correspondence. In life, as in law, precision counts.
I was about to warn you about "filler" and Tara Duncan. Those two things are neutral and benign on their own, but put them together and it's explosive. :D
I can't undue what I have learned so far and it appears that mistakes can be fixed, i will put forth a better effort being more precise..thanks for pointing that out... :)
Also - punctuation. See (from Trails magazine), "Rachel Ray finds inspiration in cooking her family and her dog". "Let's eat Grandpa" should not be interpreted in the same way as, "Let's eat, Grandpa".
Beating a dead horse, if you can't "undue" what you have learned, how are you planning on fixing it?
The people asking the right questions, don't know the definitions of the words they use, and even when they do... they misspell them.
There's a reason the bankers won, you know...
Apologies Landon Christopher. The illustration here is that you must not only know what words mean, but how to use them. To engage people who are skilled in written/verbal manipulation you should choose your words carefully. If in doubt, less is more.