Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/
I've lived in the southeast and midwest, and Vermont maple syrup isn't too hard to find. I remember bringing some home from Vermont in a small metal can with a handle and a screw-on cap, like those used to store gasoline.Pottapaug1938 wrote:A lot of the real maple syrup we get in stores is Canadian; but in Massachusetts it's very easy to find syrup made in New England.
Could be. For some strange reason the more insipid and bland maple syrup is the more expensive it is. The dark is much more flavourful than the light and is also cheaper so that's what I buy. Light amber is at the top of the price list. It's possible, for PR purposes, that the dark has been reclassified from grade B to an alternate Grade A to get rid of the poorer quality connotations. However it's not a matter of quality, both are chemically equivalent, but of perception.Arthur Rubin wrote:You need to go to Canada to get Maple Syrup. (You can get some Canadian Maple Syrup in US specialty stores, but you have to look.)littleFred wrote:I like Maple Syrup. The real stuff, not the Maple-ish Syrup we get in the UK.
Burnaby, please check me on this, but I've been told the (US? Canadian?) Grade B syrup (generally more flavorful than Grade A) has become Grade A dark, with the previous Grade A becoming Grade A amber.
As in my earlier post, the lighter and lighter-flavored stuff was called "fancy" because it could be used in things, such as tea or coffee, where you don't necessarily want a stronger maple taste. It comes from the first run of the season. As the season progresses, the syrup becomes darker and has a stronger flavor. Burnaby is correct in that the reclassifications were done partly because "Grade B" syrup was perceived as being of lesser quality. I like to buy the new Very Dark/Strong Grade A because, among other things, I can transport it more easily when I go camping, since I need less of it.Burnaby49 wrote:Could be. For some strange reason the more insipid and bland maple syrup is the more expensive it is. The dark is much more flavourful than the light and is also cheaper so that's what I buy. Light amber is at the top of the price list. It's possible, for PR purposes, that the dark has been reclassified from grade B to an alternate Grade A to get rid of the poorer quality connotations. However it's not a matter of quality, both are chemically equivalent, but of perception.littleFred wrote: Burnaby, please check me on this, but I've been told the (US? Canadian?) Grade B syrup (generally more flavorful than Grade A) has become Grade A dark, with the previous Grade A becoming Grade A amber.
You'd think Robin Hood of all people would know how to how to hold a bow at full draw. I can't even begin to work out what's going on with his right hand.Bones wrote:
and to show he spelled 'SssPanKerC' wrong.notorial dissent wrote: it's all about the attention
Six days to go and the system looks just as strong as it always has. Looks like Ceylon is the April Fool. No surprises there.getoutofdebtfools wrote:We may mock but he states at 7m 05s that we're very nears the end of this now and he doesn't give it more than 6 months before the whole system comes crashing down.
Mark your diaries my friends, the end of life as we know it cometh sometime before 08/04/2017.
Who will be the April fool though I wonder....
Actually it isn't good law, at least for you UK types, since it is Canadian jurisprudence. However it's been the most-cited case in Canada since it was released in 2012.For those of you who don't follow my Canadian forum posts I just wrote-up a very recent decision where the Plaintiff went to Queen's Bench in Alberta, the home of Meads v Meads and told them it fraudulent and null and void. Not the most tactful thing to do at QB.rumpelstilzchen wrote:These dickheads fail to realise that no matter how convincing an argument they present on youtube rebutting Meads it does not make any difference, Meads remains to be good law.
A. Preliminary Issue - Status of Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII)
[48] Mr. Pomerleau in his written filings at various points criticizes the Meads v Meads decision of Associate Chief Justice Rooke of this Court. For example, in his April 18, 2016 filings Mr. Pomerleau says this decision is irrelevant to his litigation. He “object and REBUT” the Meads v Meads judgment. Mr. Pomerleau’s arguments and evidence are valid. He states that relying on Meads v Meads is “frivolous, improper, irrelevant and would constitute an abuse of process”, and is “PRIMA FACIE evidence that there is NO MERIT” to the CRA’s defence.
[49] More drastically, Mr. Pomerleau’s March 23, 2016 Application in Pomerleau v CRA #1 states that the Meads v Meads judgment is invalid. It is a fraud designed to deceive and injure humanity:
The FACT that a court Judgment (i.e Meads v. Meads) and/or Court cases (i.e. Meads v. Meads) and/or any/every documents/CONTRACTS (i.e Meads v. Meads) which are/is/was/were INTENTIONALLY made with the INTENT to DECEIVE/ AID and ABET humanity into FRAUD via ignorance of these CONTRACT FACTS are NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tune, ad infinitum. Any/all FRAUDS by virtue of its INTENT and CREATION remain as such, any/all FRAUDS exposed, all CONTRACTS are NULL and VOID upon its discovery where a FRAUD revealed is, in FACT, NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tune, ad infinitum.
[50] As a decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Meads v Meads judgment is a binding authority for a Master of this Court. I inquired during the hearing on Mr. Pomerleau’s position concerning that decision. He confirmed he had read it. Mr. Pomerleau was at this point more circumspect. He restated his respect for the Court and its decisions, but nevertheless indicated he believed the Meads v Meads judgment was engineered with the intent of concealing from Canadians their true rights, particularly when they did not use the exact correct terminology and/or language.
[51] Meads v Meads is binding case law on a Master and relates to many elements of Mr. Pomerleau’s litigation. In Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 703 (CanLII) at paras 32-46 I reviewed how the Meads v Meads decision is not merely a binding authority in this Court, but has been broadly endorsed by courts in Canada and the Commonwealth. I therefore reject Mr. Pomerleau’s argument that I cannot rely on this decision, or that it is “in FACT, NULL and VOID, ab initio, nunc pro tunc, ad infinitum.” Meads v Meads is instead a correct statement of Canadian law on this subject.
Is anything he posts his own work? Sometimes I don't think he's even read the material.rumpelstilzchen wrote:I know Ceylon uploaded the video and Ceylon is in the UK but it is not his work
Fair comment. In fact I believe it would be correct to say there is a general rule of grammar that states the only time the words "ceylon" and "work" can appear in the same sentence is when "work" is preceeded by "does not".aesmith wrote:Is anything he posts his own work? Sometimes I don't think he's even read the material.rumpelstilzchen wrote:I know Ceylon uploaded the video and Ceylon is in the UK but it is not his work
Good guess, It's Frank O'Collins of UCADIA. Look at the first comment:rumpelstilzchen wrote:It is definitely not Ceylon's. He is incapable of such a task. If it is not Menard's maybe it is the work of that nutjob connected to UCADIA? But, no matter who wrote it, it has no effect on the decision.
It is nonetheless well known here, and influential.Burnaby49 wrote:Actually it isn't good law, at least for you UK types, since it is Canadian jurisprudence.
