Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

[nvthis]

Why was this thread closed? I understand there was a difference of opinion between 2 members, but I cannot understand why the rest of us need to suffer for it? Please note I am not being derrogatory, accusatory or otherwise condescending, but I do believe that thread was entirely relevent and with good insight being observed.. Seems we could have just expelled the offenders from thread? :doh:

I know you guys have a tough job to do, and many thanks for keeping the peace...

 

[ozzydiodude]

It's easier for the Mods to close a thread than delete the post that had nothing but belittling comments

 

[nvthis]

You are probably right Oz.. But a warning may have worked, too. No big, it was getting kind of interesting though.. Thanks man..

lol, god knows I've gotten a thread or two shut down over the years

 

[SmokinMom]

I agree with you nv. I was enjoying the discussions.

 

[Roddy]

I thought it was a good thread as well, informative and friendly.

 

[ozzydiodude]

No mod deleted the thread or a post they "CLOSED" it. You never know when Hick is on and I would say it was him, because he is normally the one to close them.
As for belittling post

You are missing something . . . as you've said, you are legal and not worried, so please stop trying to give other people legal advice, bud !!!

You oughta start reading more and posting less

I'm waiting here for you to open your yap again

Those hit the mark but are of a belittling nature


This is the internet there is no First Amendment rights on a site thats server is overseas. MarP and the Mods are Judge, Jury, and Executioner



By deleting the first post in a thread a mod or the OP(original poster) will delete the entire thread

 

[orangesunshine]

Hmmmm

 

[Amateur Grower]

Maybe MP needs a forum to discuss civil liberties and pot. They could post a warning or whatever to warn there might be differences of opinion.

This is a sensitive subject and could use some good friendly discussion. I hate to think that I was in the middle of another thread that caused controversy!

AG

 

[orangesunshine]

I hate to think that I was in the middle of another thread that caused controversy
AG

:rofl: :rofl:

 

[ozzydiodude]

Too hard to talk civil about civil liberties and not bring politicial view into the thread. Since we have members from around the world it would be hard to discuss civil liberties that we here in america concider our Rights that other in the world can not understand or enjoy

 

[ston-loc]

Whoa, last I looked at this thread was my post yesterday of laughing at stories getting pulled over with mj, and getting let go still with our mj. Was there some gnarliness drama responding to what I said? If there was, I didn't see it.....

 

[ozzydiodude]

This is another thread with the same name Ston-loc here is the first thread
http://www.marijuanapassion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61483

 

[ston-loc]

Wow, made it halfway through page 3 before stopping. Buzz kill! I'm packing a fresh bowl.....

 

[Amateur Grower]

Thanks for the link to the original thread ozzy. Wow, it did take a bad turn there.

Peace.

AG

 

[SmokinMom]

Hey y'all, I'm related to the father of the construction. Not lying. On my moms side, lol.

I'm pretty high. Good evening.

 

[SPEARCHUCKER]

Hey y'all, I'm related to the father of the construction.

The construction of what? The wheel?

 

[Roddy]

It was not a political discussion in any way, shape or form. It was a legal discussion.

Read this again:



I repeat - another example of somebody babbling incoherent baloney and confusing people on what is a very relevant and very important topic.

If the guy wants to babble about growing, fine. If he wants to misinform members and guests of this forum on matters of constitutional law and their rights, I'm gonna take exception to that. If the mods don't like it, then they can delete this thread, delete all my posts, and ban me !!

I believe the problem is your slamming posts which have nothing to do with the topic and do nothing but cause issues. My post was informative, you don't like it, don't bother reading it and don't bother posting, but stop slamming my post as if it's not informative.

 

[SmokinMom]

James Madison, 4th potus. On my moms side.

Useless bit of trivia there, lmfao.

 

[nvthis]

Well, the intent wasn't to continue the previous arguement in a new thread. I say take it elsewhere, guys. Sometimes things are best left in the school yard.

You know, as a long time poster I have seen this sight grow. While it has grown, the mod team has shrunk. TBG, Smokinmom, Mutt, Runby.. Maybe more that I just can't recall ATM.. Perhaps it's time to recruit?

 

[Hick]

Sorry, but I don't think we're getting the straight story on this . . . maybe we need a thread on the First Amendment, too

http://www.marijuanapassion.com/Site_Rules.html

2. Flaming, or open argument including, but not limited to using derogatory names toward another member, degrading comments, racial insults and sexist comments are not acceptable for use anywhere in the open forums.
15. The Marijuana Passion Forums are [u[not[/u] public domain and membership can be withdrawn by the board owner at any time for any reason. The moderators reserve the right to refuse or delete any message for any reason.

the thread was closed 'because' of the first rule quoted, the second quote should be self explanatory..
Until I see a degree in constitutional law, ones litigations are as much "babble" and "baloney" as the next guys.
We all know that over the last few decades, our Constitutional rights have deteriorated.
Politicians, judges, and lawyers have taken every word out of context, and analyzed and interpreted it to death, in order to suit their agenda, needs.
EVERYONE believes in the Constitution. Sadly enough, you all might be surprised at just how little meaning it actually has.
I am presently fighting a case in court. My attorney is useing both the fourth and the second amendments as a part of my defence. She is receiving consultation from an attorney that specialises in constitutional law. And I can tell you "first hand", with no uncertainty, none of the parties argueing in the previous thread have a "clue".
Thus, it was closed. Belittling comments and babbling opinions/advice, NONE of which come from qualified sources.
It wreaks of "jailhouse" lawyer jargon. Anyone who 'thinks' they know or understand the law, should try to represent themselves in court.