Jump to content

I Would Like To Know Why My Marijuana-Autism Thread Got Censored...


Recommended Posts

This will be my first "forum-bitch" thread.  I posted my commentary on a new study that linked Autism to Marijuana use this morning.  I believe it was the only new thread (other than this one) I posted today.  I put some time into writing that piece, and yes, I did use statistics and other information from research I did on this topic from a variety of sources, as well as a link to the study itself.   So, @kfools, @lucifershammer or whoever deleted the thread without notifying me or warning, I'm wondering why.  I did not cut and paste this from some other web page, except for some statistics I used to support my position.

 

If I broke a rule, tell me what rule I broke please.  Oh, one other thing, I did try to PM @lucifershammer to ask him about this (I saw he was online) and as of yet did not get a response.

 

Or, if you are trying to discourage us from writing original commentary on actual scientific studies  involving marijuana and/or autism - just say so, and I'll stop.  On the other hand, if I did not violate any rules, I'd appreciate your putting my commentary back in LOF for discussion.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skans said:

This will be my first "forum-bitch" thread.  I posted my commentary on a new study that linked Autism to Marijuana use this morning.  I believe it was the only new thread (other than this one) I posted today.  I put some time into writing that piece, and yes, I did use statistics and other information from research I did on this topic from a variety of sources, as well as a link to the study itself.   So, @kfools, @lucifershammer or whoever deleted the thread without notifying me or warning, I'm wondering why.  I did not cut and paste this from some other web page, except for some statistics I used to support my position.

 

If I broke a rule, tell me what rule I broke please.  Oh, one other thing, I did try to PM @lucifershammer to ask him about this (I saw he was online) and as of yet did not get a response.

 

Or, if you are trying to discourage us from writing original commentary on actual scientific studies  involving marijuana and/or autism - just say so, and I'll stop.

I didn't alert it, but from first glance, if I was still a Mod, I would have editted it because there was too much content above the one paragragh of the article you linked. 

That said, I only glanced at it before moving on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, calguy said:

I didn't alert it, but from first glance, if I was still a Mod, I would have editted it because there was too much content above the one paragragh of the article you linked. 

That said, I only glanced at it before moving on.

The writing was mostly my own.  The link was to the study on which I based my most of my discussion.  The information on the chemical composition of marijuana came from elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, calguy said:

I didn't alert it, but from first glance, if I was still a Mod, I would have editted it 

 

Ironically, he tells us both what he would do as a mod and why he is not a mod.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TruePatriot said:

 

Perhaps because it was so stupid and fallacious. Why do you post so much fraudulent bullshit, Skank?

I commented on a scientific study.  I provided the link to the study and the names of the researchers who conducted the study.  It sounds more like you object to the content than you do the format of how it was presented.  In other words, I'll put TruePatriot down as a True Censor if you simply don't agree with something but have no basis to support your disagreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Common said:

Ironically, he tells us both what he would do as a mod and why he is not a mod.

I have no problem with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Skans said:

broke a rule, tell me what rule I broke please.  Oh, one other thing, I did try to PM @lucifershammer to ask him about this (I saw he was online) and as of yet did not get a response.

Refer to rule 1d

spammed the whole thing. 
add a link per the rule 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Skans said:

This will be my first "forum-bitch" thread.  I posted my commentary on a new study that linked Autism to Marijuana use this morning.  I believe it was the only new thread (other than this one) I posted today.  I put some time into writing that piece, and yes, I did use statistics and other information from research I did on this topic from a variety of sources, as well as a link to the study itself.   So, @kfools, @lucifershammer or whoever deleted the thread without notifying me or warning, I'm wondering why.  I did not cut and paste this from some other web page, except for some statistics I used to support my position.

 

If I broke a rule, tell me what rule I broke please.  Oh, one other thing, I did try to PM @lucifershammer to ask him about this (I saw he was online) and as of yet did not get a response.

 

Or, if you are trying to discourage us from writing original commentary on actual scientific studies  involving marijuana and/or autism - just say so, and I'll stop.  On the other hand, if I did not violate any rules, I'd appreciate your putting my commentary back in LOF for discussion.  

I'm having internet problems today so I've been offline today. Chances are it violated kfools new 1D Rule and was spammed.  As far as points you're not the kind of poster who gets them so none were issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lucifershammer said:

I'm having internet problems today so I've been offline today. Chances are it violated kfools new 1D Rule and was spammed.  As far as points you're not the kind of poster who gets them so none were issued.

I just said that. If he adds a link he can repost it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Common said:

Ironically, he tells us both what he would do as a mod and why he is not a mod.

Not ironically, you're still full of shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lucifershammer said:

I'm having internet problems today so I've been offline today. Chances are it violated kfools new 1D Rule and was spammed.  As far as points you're not the kind of poster who gets them so none were issued.

Under "online users" it said your were online, but I realize that may not be accurate.  I wrote the piece based on a study that was done.  I do  not see how this could be "spam".  It was not cut-and-pasted from some other site, except for the part that provided information on the chemical composition of marijuana - I added a short paragraph on that.

1 minute ago, Imgreatagain said:

Refer to rule 1d

spammed the whole thing. 
add a link per the rule 

I am familiar with rule 1d.  My commentary on the study was not spam.  Further, I did add a link to the study and even mentioned the names of the researchers.

 

If I am going to be confined to writing only a couple of sentences on a topic without providing supporting information and citations - that's disheartening if that is what this site is now going to be about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Imgreatagain said:

I just said that. If he adds a link he can repost it. 

It had a link to the study.  I can't simply repost it.  I wrote it.  I did not copy it from somewhere else, and I did not keep a copy of what I wrote. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Skans said:

Under "online users" it said your were online, but I realize that may not be accurate.  I wrote the piece based on a study that was done.  I do  not see how this could be "spam".  It was not cut-and-pasted from some other site, except for the part that provided information on the chemical composition of marijuana - I added a short paragraph on that.

I am familiar with rule 1d.  My commentary on the study was not spam.  Further, I did add a link to the study and even mentioned the names of the researchers.

 

If I am going to be confined to writing only a couple of sentences on a topic without providing supporting information and citations - that's disheartening if that is what this site is now going to be about. 

Refer to @lucifershammer about this. I did not remove it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skans said:

It had a link to the study.  I can't simply repost it.  I wrote it.  I did not copy it from somewhere else, and I did not keep a copy of what I wrote. 

I only read the header. I agree that the young should not be smoking a lot of the good stuff we can get today just as I don't believe they should drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. That said if you are over 21 is should be up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Skans said:

Under "online users" it said your were online, but I realize that may not be accurate.  I wrote the piece based on a study that was done.  I do  not see how this could be "spam".  It was not cut-and-pasted from some other site, except for the part that provided information on the chemical composition of marijuana - I added a short paragraph on that.

I am familiar with rule 1d.  My commentary on the study was not spam.  Further, I did add a link to the study and even mentioned the names of the researchers.

 

If I am going to be confined to writing only a couple of sentences on a topic without providing supporting information and citations - that's disheartening if that is what this site is now going to be about. 

I believe it only pertains to others words. If a mistake was made I'll fix it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FredH said:

I only read the header. I agree that the young should not be smoking a lot of the good stuff we can get today just as I don't believe they should drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. That said if you are over 21 is should be up to you.

That is your perspective.  Not mine, but I would have been glad to debate you in my thread on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lucifershammer said:

I believe it only pertains to others words. If a mistake was made I'll fix it.

I think it should be reposted . 
my 2 cents. It started to get attention and members were engaged. 
that’s the point of the forum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lucifershammer said:

I believe it only pertains to others words. If a mistake was made I'll fix it.

Thanks.  Please check it out for yourself.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Skans said:

That is your perspective.  Not mine, but I would have been glad to debate you in my thread on this.

That perspective being at the age of 21 a free man should be allowed to drink and smoke if he chooses. There are many other more dangerous choices that are perfectly legal such as riding motorcycles or working as a machinist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FredH said:

That perspective being at the age of 21 a free man should be allowed to drink and smoke if he chooses. There are many other more dangerous choices that are perfectly legal such as riding motorcycles or working as a machinist.

I am not interested in protecting any individual from danger.  I am interested in protecting a free country from slipping into a predatory-slave based existence.  A governance where large groups of people can be masterfully manipulated and controlled by evil doers who will eventually figure out that well designed drugs are the best shackles with which to enslave an entire nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...