Re: Correction and WARNING:

[Guest guest]

Beth wrote: " I was involved in the previous conversations from the

time period looking back the only conversations I could find

pertaining to the subject, the discustions were pertaining to the

substance being used for medicinal purposes "

Beth, this particular discussion began with the posting of the story

about the Sheriff who wrote himself a ticket. It is not older than

that. Therefore, any claims that it is a long running discussion is

flawed and you are discussing outside the scope of the discussion

proper.

Beth wrote: " ... <snip> ... I guess my main problem is why bring up

an issue that is a non issue now? ... <snip> ... "

A statement of fact was made without elaboration. It is not bringing

up an issue that is a non-issue but rather was a comment on how law

abiding individuals own the responsibility to be law abiding even

when others are not around to see they are making the correct and law

abiding choices. The original poster juxtaposed this with an example

of someone not following the laws as they appear on the books at

present in his area.

Beth wrote: " ... <snip> ... Why bring up people that are no longer

members and are not here to defend themselves? ... <snip> ... "

No members, past or present, were mentioned in the original post or

in subsequent posts.

Beth wrote: " ... <snip> ... If we don't follow our own rules who

will follow them? ... <snip> ... "

The rules were not being breached by making a statement of fact. Had

the original poster gone on at length with great detail, then that

would have been a breach of the rules as they appear on the home page.

Beth wrote: " ... <snip> ... What I saw from Tom's comment was an

attack on people who are no longer here to defend themselves ...

<snip> ... "

You were pulling a " Don Quixote " in this respect. The original

poster did not attack anyone who is a member of this forum or who has

been a member of this forum in the past or who may become a member of

this forum in the future.

Beth wrote: " ... <snip> ... I don't believe it is fair or right to

talk about people that are no longer here ... <snip> ... "

Commenting about people in such a way as to reveal their identity

(online identity or real identity) and who are no longer members of

this board in a way, is unacceptable. However, you are assuming too

many things, Beth, and in those assumptions you are seeing things

that are not there.

While your reaction is understandable -- given the scope of the

discussions in the months leading up to the cessation of discussions

on illegal drugs et al -- you are nonetheless mistaken in assuming

facts that are not in evidence.

Raven

Co-Administrator