Cannabis found in loft of Southend home.

POLICE raided a house in Southchurch to find cannabis growing in the loft.

A 63-year-old man was arrested at the house in Park Lane at about 10.30am today.

FOR FULL STORY SEE MONDAY'S ECHO.

Comments (263)

1:55pm Fri 28 Sep 12

DEBT*COLLECTOR says...

What a stupid headline. Policeman do not just find things, they dont drive down a road and say "lets look in the loft of that house over there " They were given the info by a grass. Does the person who writes these headlines think everyone is a fool. Some coppers are good but ! Oh come on Echo say it how it is on Monday.
What a stupid headline. Policeman do not just find things, they dont drive down a road and say "lets look in the loft of that house over there " They were given the info by a grass. Does the person who writes these headlines think everyone is a fool. Some coppers are good but ! Oh come on Echo say it how it is on Monday. DEBT*COLLECTOR

2:11pm Fri 28 Sep 12

naffeville says...

Unless it stank, or the old fool was being a grade A mug, boasting and flashing off, when he has no job or any useful skills to get one
Unless it stank, or the old fool was being a grade A mug, boasting and flashing off, when he has no job or any useful skills to get one naffeville

2:20pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Nebs says...

Well done the police. Keep up the good work.
Well done the police. Keep up the good work. Nebs

2:29pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Complete waste of time, prohibition does not work.
Complete waste of time, prohibition does not work. Truth Will Prevail

2:39pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust. Truth Will Prevail

3:33pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Babs Stanley says...

We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal cannabis farms, instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over the THC and CBD content.

Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an illegal monopoly on cannabis so they make millions out of a medicine that you can grow in your greenhouse for virtually nothing.

If we introduced a legally regulated system we would solve nearly all the problems around cannabis. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, prescription medicines and all other recreational drugs. If anyone does have a problem with it they could get help without having to confess to a crime.

CLEAR published independent, expert research last year which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum.

It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us about cannabis. Find out the truth for yourself and wake up to the lies you have been told.
We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal cannabis farms, instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over the THC and CBD content. Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an illegal monopoly on cannabis so they make millions out of a medicine that you can grow in your greenhouse for virtually nothing. If we introduced a legally regulated system we would solve nearly all the problems around cannabis. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, prescription medicines and all other recreational drugs. If anyone does have a problem with it they could get help without having to confess to a crime. CLEAR published independent, expert research last year which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum. It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us about cannabis. Find out the truth for yourself and wake up to the lies you have been told. Babs Stanley

4:27pm Fri 28 Sep 12

jayman says...

well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police.. jayman

4:48pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Babs Stanley wrote:
We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal cannabis farms, instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over the THC and CBD content. Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an illegal monopoly on cannabis so they make millions out of a medicine that you can grow in your greenhouse for virtually nothing. If we introduced a legally regulated system we would solve nearly all the problems around cannabis. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, prescription medicines and all other recreational drugs. If anyone does have a problem with it they could get help without having to confess to a crime. CLEAR published independent, expert research last year which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum. It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us about cannabis. Find out the truth for yourself and wake up to the lies you have been told.
Well said sir, no point trying to convince the old trolls though, they're all completely brainwashed by the media lies.
[quote][p][bold]Babs Stanley[/bold] wrote: We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal cannabis farms, instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over the THC and CBD content. Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an illegal monopoly on cannabis so they make millions out of a medicine that you can grow in your greenhouse for virtually nothing. If we introduced a legally regulated system we would solve nearly all the problems around cannabis. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, prescription medicines and all other recreational drugs. If anyone does have a problem with it they could get help without having to confess to a crime. CLEAR published independent, expert research last year which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum. It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us about cannabis. Find out the truth for yourself and wake up to the lies you have been told.[/p][/quote]Well said sir, no point trying to convince the old trolls though, they're all completely brainwashed by the media lies. Truth Will Prevail

4:58pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
Yes lets waste police time for a bad smell, distracting them from real crimes like Rape, Assault and Theft, for a plant proven to be safer than alcohol and aspirin. Well done.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]Yes lets waste police time for a bad smell, distracting them from real crimes like Rape, Assault and Theft, for a plant proven to be safer than alcohol and aspirin. Well done. SuperSilverSourDiesel

5:02pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Cannabis truth says...

Another police crime to add to the long list of injustices brought upon the good citizens of the UK.

While the Government claims :Cannabis has no medicinal value whatsoever, this same UK Gov issues licence to GW Pharmaceutical to grow cannabis skunk...

Double-standards from the UK Gov - not at all surprising.... The UK is rotten from the top down - fact.

The Royals and their peers can do as they please... the bankers can do as they please... the politicians can do as they please, while the UK Police arrest cannabis users/growers at an hourly rate!

The UK is truly rotten, we all know it!

The cannabis laws are false laws.
Disregard the false authority.
They are bullies not an authority, cops are paid thugs.

Cannabis is harmless and very beneficial to human health. Fact.
Another police crime to add to the long list of injustices brought upon the good citizens of the UK. While the Government claims :Cannabis has no medicinal value whatsoever, this same UK Gov issues licence to GW Pharmaceutical to grow cannabis skunk... Double-standards from the UK Gov - not at all surprising.... The UK is rotten from the top down - fact. The Royals and their peers can do as they please... the bankers can do as they please... the politicians can do as they please, while the UK Police arrest cannabis users/growers at an hourly rate! The UK is truly rotten, we all know it! The cannabis laws are false laws. Disregard the false authority. They are bullies not an authority, cops are paid thugs. Cannabis is harmless and very beneficial to human health. Fact. Cannabis truth

5:10pm Fri 28 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

i see we have the graduates from the peter reynolds' correctional facility guesting again. our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. high five me biffo the monkey
i see we have the graduates from the peter reynolds' correctional facility guesting again. our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. high five me biffo the monkey beyond the valley of the asbos

5:23pm Fri 28 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week.

BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".


You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.[/p][/quote]Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week. BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go? E -Type

5:24pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Eric Whim says...

it'll be a more shocking headline when we read that they didn't find cannabis in a loft......
it'll be a more shocking headline when we read that they didn't find cannabis in a loft...... Eric Whim

5:33pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week.

BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".


You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?
When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.[/p][/quote]Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week. BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?[/p][/quote]When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime. SuperSilverSourDiesel

5:47pm Fri 28 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week.

BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".


You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?
When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.
well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.[/p][/quote]Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week. BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?[/p][/quote]When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.[/p][/quote]well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law beyond the valley of the asbos

5:59pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week.

BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".


You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?
When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.
well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law
You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation?
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.[/p][/quote]Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week. BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?[/p][/quote]When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.[/p][/quote]well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law[/p][/quote]You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation? SuperSilverSourDiesel

6:04pm Fri 28 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese


l
wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week.

BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".


You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?
When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.
well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law
You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation?
no i don't remember segregation. show me someone growing dope for personal use with MS who has been prosecuted recently.
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.[/p][/quote]Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week. BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?[/p][/quote]When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.[/p][/quote]well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law[/p][/quote]You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation?[/p][/quote]no i don't remember segregation. show me someone growing dope for personal use with MS who has been prosecuted recently. beyond the valley of the asbos

6:05pm Fri 28 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote: i see we have the graduates from the peter reynolds' correctional facility guesting again. our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. high five me biffo the monkey
Are you a troll? You never have anything real to say, apart from having ago at others for having their say getting involved in a debate.
Yes of course he is a sad old troll, should be popping off soon to join his shift down the mines, ha ha!
.
Thanks for the laugh Asbo, your accusations that others are "polluting message boards with propaganda" is pure comedy as the only one doing that is YOU! Have fun down the mines.
might want to wipe that foam from your mouth truthy
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: i see we have the graduates from the peter reynolds' correctional facility guesting again. our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. high five me biffo the monkey[/p][/quote]Are you a troll? You never have anything real to say, apart from having ago at others for having their say getting involved in a debate.[/p][/quote]Yes of course he is a sad old troll, should be popping off soon to join his shift down the mines, ha ha! . Thanks for the laugh Asbo, your accusations that others are "polluting message boards with propaganda" is pure comedy as the only one doing that is YOU! Have fun down the mines.[/p][/quote]might want to wipe that foam from your mouth truthy beyond the valley of the asbos

6:06pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust. Truth Will Prevail

6:17pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese



l
wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week.

BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".


You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?
When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.
well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law
You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation?
no i don't remember segregation. show me someone growing dope for personal use with MS who has been prosecuted recently.
How could i show you lol? You ask me to do something you know i cant. The police dont keep information about the condition of the people they prosecute, whether they have MS or a panic disorder, not unless i request FOI. You seem to think the law is softer on medicinal cannabis users, than recreational, but this is not true. Why dont you prove me wrong?
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.[/p][/quote]Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week. BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?[/p][/quote]When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.[/p][/quote]well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law[/p][/quote]You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation?[/p][/quote]no i don't remember segregation. show me someone growing dope for personal use with MS who has been prosecuted recently.[/p][/quote]How could i show you lol? You ask me to do something you know i cant. The police dont keep information about the condition of the people they prosecute, whether they have MS or a panic disorder, not unless i request FOI. You seem to think the law is softer on medicinal cannabis users, than recreational, but this is not true. Why dont you prove me wrong? SuperSilverSourDiesel

6:23pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese


l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese




l
wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week.

BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".


You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?
When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.
well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law
You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation?
no i don't remember segregation. show me someone growing dope for personal use with MS who has been prosecuted recently.
How could i show you lol? You ask me to do something you know i cant. The police dont keep information about the condition of the people they prosecute, whether they have MS or a panic disorder, not unless i request FOI. You seem to think the law is softer on medicinal cannabis users, than recreational, but this is not true. Why dont you prove me wrong?
Your telling me you dont know about the history of racial segregation? Hmm, well even though cannabis isnt the same, what is similar is the unjust law which has nothing to do with protecting the public or anyone else apart from big fish. What is the same, is that the law on cannabis is causing MUCH more harm than the cannabis itself. Wake up and question authority
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.[/p][/quote]Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week. BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?[/p][/quote]When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.[/p][/quote]well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law[/p][/quote]You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation?[/p][/quote]no i don't remember segregation. show me someone growing dope for personal use with MS who has been prosecuted recently.[/p][/quote]How could i show you lol? You ask me to do something you know i cant. The police dont keep information about the condition of the people they prosecute, whether they have MS or a panic disorder, not unless i request FOI. You seem to think the law is softer on medicinal cannabis users, than recreational, but this is not true. Why dont you prove me wrong?[/p][/quote]Your telling me you dont know about the history of racial segregation? Hmm, well even though cannabis isnt the same, what is similar is the unjust law which has nothing to do with protecting the public or anyone else apart from big fish. What is the same, is that the law on cannabis is causing MUCH more harm than the cannabis itself. Wake up and question authority SuperSilverSourDiesel

6:24pm Fri 28 Sep 12

J Arthur Rank says...

For info of E-Types. and Eric Whim as both are commenting here:

Following my meeting with the senior editorial staff at the Echo yesterday a number of people will find that their accounts have been suspended. Some of these will be multiple registrations. All of those suspended will have allegedly been in breach of the website’s T&Cs. Please don’t shoot the messenger, I have merely passed on the concerns raised by some people in posts earlier in the week. It was those responsible for the administration of the site who have invoked these sanctions.
I did mention the concerns over journalistic standards as they relate to spelling and basic use of grammar. Whilst no guarantees were forthcoming it was acknowledged that on occasions the reports do fall short of the standard the publication aim for. My comments were well received and I believe efforts will be made to improve the presentation of stories.
The point was made to me that the comments section is a forum for readers of the on-line version of the newspaper to “have their say” and it serves no real commercial purpose for the company. Readers are at liberty to use the section providing their comments do not breach the rules and nobody should take what are often ‘tongue in cheek’ comments too seriously.
Comments considered inappropriate and/or in breach of the T&Cs will be removed and the contributor’s continued registration reviewed. However, it is not viable to permanently monitor the site so there may be some delay in the removal of offending comments.
For info of E-Types. and Eric Whim as both are commenting here: Following my meeting with the senior editorial staff at the Echo yesterday a number of people will find that their accounts have been suspended. Some of these will be multiple registrations. All of those suspended will have allegedly been in breach of the website’s T&Cs. Please don’t shoot the messenger, I have merely passed on the concerns raised by some people in posts earlier in the week. It was those responsible for the administration of the site who have invoked these sanctions. I did mention the concerns over journalistic standards as they relate to spelling and basic use of grammar. Whilst no guarantees were forthcoming it was acknowledged that on occasions the reports do fall short of the standard the publication aim for. My comments were well received and I believe efforts will be made to improve the presentation of stories. The point was made to me that the comments section is a forum for readers of the on-line version of the newspaper to “have their say” and it serves no real commercial purpose for the company. Readers are at liberty to use the section providing their comments do not breach the rules and nobody should take what are often ‘tongue in cheek’ comments too seriously. Comments considered inappropriate and/or in breach of the T&Cs will be removed and the contributor’s continued registration reviewed. However, it is not viable to permanently monitor the site so there may be some delay in the removal of offending comments. J Arthur Rank

6:28pm Fri 28 Sep 12

DEBT*COLLECTOR says...

jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up DEBT*COLLECTOR

6:31pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Eric Whim says...

thanks J Arthur.

Been a few howlers recently on the spelling/proofreadin
g front which because have 'no life' apparently, I've tied to ring to the attention of the staff by pointing themm out in the cmments section of the offending articles.

Well a bloke's got to have a hobby hasn't he?
thanks J Arthur. Been a few howlers recently on the spelling/proofreadin g front which because have 'no life' apparently, I've tied to ring to the attention of the staff by pointing themm out in the cmments section of the offending articles. Well a bloke's got to have a hobby hasn't he? Eric Whim

6:32pm Fri 28 Sep 12

jayman says...

DEBT*COLLECTOR wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up
yep..
[quote][p][bold]DEBT*COLLECTOR[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up[/p][/quote]yep.. jayman

6:38pm Fri 28 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

hilarious i can only guess a foaming at the mouth hop head complained about the term hop head
hilarious i can only guess a foaming at the mouth hop head complained about the term hop head beyond the valley of the asbos

6:38pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Eric Whim says...

Eric Whim wrote:
thanks J Arthur. Been a few howlers recently on the spelling/proofreadin g front which because have 'no life' apparently, I've tied to ring to the attention of the staff by pointing themm out in the cmments section of the offending articles. Well a bloke's got to have a hobby hasn't he?'tried to bring' rather than tied to ring

and 'them' and 'comments' rather than

themm andcmments

cough, cough - 'oist by my own petard and all that.....

Then again I have the excuse that I'm not doing this for a living like they are....
[quote][p][bold]Eric Whim[/bold] wrote: thanks J Arthur. Been a few howlers recently on the spelling/proofreadin g front which because have 'no life' apparently, I've tied to ring to the attention of the staff by pointing themm out in the cmments section of the offending articles. Well a bloke's got to have a hobby hasn't he?[/p][/quote]'tried to bring' rather than [quote]tied to ring [/quote] and 'them' and 'comments' rather than [quote]themm[quote] and[quote]cmments[/quote] cough, cough - 'oist by my own petard and all that..... Then again I have the excuse that I'm not doing this for a living like they are.... Eric Whim

6:43pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

jayman wrote:
DEBT*COLLECTOR wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up
yep..
Scum
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DEBT*COLLECTOR[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up[/p][/quote]yep..[/p][/quote]Scum SuperSilverSourDiesel

6:43pm Fri 28 Sep 12

stevea62 says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese


l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese




l
wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week.

BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".


You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?
When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.
well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law
You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation?
no i don't remember segregation. show me someone growing dope for personal use with MS who has been prosecuted recently.
How could i show you lol? You ask me to do something you know i cant. The police dont keep information about the condition of the people they prosecute, whether they have MS or a panic disorder, not unless i request FOI. You seem to think the law is softer on medicinal cannabis users, than recreational, but this is not true. Why dont you prove me wrong?
He doesn't have to prove you wrong, the law does it for him.

The latest set of government rules about sentencing make specific reference to the fact that defendants claiming medical use for moderate (non dealer?) quantities of cannabis should be treated more leniently.

Anything else you need clarification about?
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.[/p][/quote]Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week. BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?[/p][/quote]When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.[/p][/quote]well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law[/p][/quote]You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation?[/p][/quote]no i don't remember segregation. show me someone growing dope for personal use with MS who has been prosecuted recently.[/p][/quote]How could i show you lol? You ask me to do something you know i cant. The police dont keep information about the condition of the people they prosecute, whether they have MS or a panic disorder, not unless i request FOI. You seem to think the law is softer on medicinal cannabis users, than recreational, but this is not true. Why dont you prove me wrong?[/p][/quote]He doesn't have to prove you wrong, the law does it for him. The latest set of government rules about sentencing make specific reference to the fact that defendants claiming medical use for moderate (non dealer?) quantities of cannabis should be treated more leniently. Anything else you need clarification about? stevea62

6:53pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

stevea62 wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese



l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese





l
wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week.

BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".


You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?
When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.
well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law
You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation?
no i don't remember segregation. show me someone growing dope for personal use with MS who has been prosecuted recently.
How could i show you lol? You ask me to do something you know i cant. The police dont keep information about the condition of the people they prosecute, whether they have MS or a panic disorder, not unless i request FOI. You seem to think the law is softer on medicinal cannabis users, than recreational, but this is not true. Why dont you prove me wrong?
He doesn't have to prove you wrong, the law does it for him.

The latest set of government rules about sentencing make specific reference to the fact that defendants claiming medical use for moderate (non dealer?) quantities of cannabis should be treated more leniently.

Anything else you need clarification about?
Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms. Police didnt care, 'drugs are bad' So i dont care what copy and paste you show me, in reality whether its for personal, or for medicinal, it is still taken very seriously without leniency. Anything else you need clarification about?
[quote][p][bold]stevea62[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.[/p][/quote]Im sure more than just Socrates and Martin Luther King said that, in fact you have said it also...I often say it, at least once of five times a week. BTW i agree re: "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". You of course mean like resisting being evicted from your land onto the road when you have nowhere to go?[/p][/quote]When people get arrested and or thrown in jail for growing a plant safer than aspirin, because they want to relax or safely self medicate, that is unjust. Especially when they allow GW pharma to grow the exact same plants, as medicine. Especially when the reasons why cannabis remains illegal have nothing to do with harm reduction, expert advice or scientific evidence. If i had MS or a condition cannabis could help me with, when nothing else could, I would disobey such an unjust law with my heart in it. Especially when i know growing a few medicinal plants for myself is a victimless crime.[/p][/quote]well when you contract MS i'm sure the powers that be will turn a blind eye but until then you will be prosecuted with the full force of the law[/p][/quote]You cant contract MS, and no, the law will not turn a blind eye so get your facts straight. The full force of the law....Do you blindly support any law? The law is not always there to protect us, in fact it can do the opposite, Remember segregation?[/p][/quote]no i don't remember segregation. show me someone growing dope for personal use with MS who has been prosecuted recently.[/p][/quote]How could i show you lol? You ask me to do something you know i cant. The police dont keep information about the condition of the people they prosecute, whether they have MS or a panic disorder, not unless i request FOI. You seem to think the law is softer on medicinal cannabis users, than recreational, but this is not true. Why dont you prove me wrong?[/p][/quote]He doesn't have to prove you wrong, the law does it for him. The latest set of government rules about sentencing make specific reference to the fact that defendants claiming medical use for moderate (non dealer?) quantities of cannabis should be treated more leniently. Anything else you need clarification about?[/p][/quote]Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms. Police didnt care, 'drugs are bad' So i dont care what copy and paste you show me, in reality whether its for personal, or for medicinal, it is still taken very seriously without leniency. Anything else you need clarification about? SuperSilverSourDiesel

7:22pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Gina the weaner says...

Interesting to read the comment of J A Rank at 6.24pm.

I see that the idiot formerly posting as 'E-Types..' is now 'E-Type' (or is that another impostor?...LOL).

Maybe E-Types.. would have done well to remember the saying "Be careful what you wish for".
Interesting to read the comment of J A Rank at 6.24pm. I see that the idiot formerly posting as 'E-Types..' is now 'E-Type' (or is that another impostor?...LOL). Maybe E-Types.. would have done well to remember the saying "Be careful what you wish for". Gina the weaner

7:27pm Fri 28 Sep 12

naffeville says...

I've heard somewhere that it is pleasant to smoke, but being a pot nerd is a waste of time, bit like commenting on the echo, oh hang on, wheres the razor blade?
I've heard somewhere that it is pleasant to smoke, but being a pot nerd is a waste of time, bit like commenting on the echo, oh hang on, wheres the razor blade? naffeville

7:31pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Druggie Scumbag says...

naffeville wrote:
I've heard somewhere that it is pleasant to smoke, but being a pot nerd is a waste of time, bit like commenting on the echo, oh hang on, wheres the razor blade?
Shuffling between the lines probably- get a grip man!
[quote][p][bold]naffeville[/bold] wrote: I've heard somewhere that it is pleasant to smoke, but being a pot nerd is a waste of time, bit like commenting on the echo, oh hang on, wheres the razor blade?[/p][/quote]Shuffling between the lines probably- get a grip man! Druggie Scumbag

8:06pm Fri 28 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

"Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms"

you might want to let your friend know there's a strong link between substance abuse and panic disorders.
"Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms" you might want to let your friend know there's a strong link between substance abuse and panic disorders. beyond the valley of the asbos

8:17pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
"Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms"

you might want to let your friend know there's a strong link between substance abuse and panic disorders.
There is a difference between a user and abuser.

In countries that regulate cannabis, the flower buds are prescribed to people with psychological disorders as the CBD in cannabis is an anti psychotic. You may want to do some research. After all anti depressants made him suicidal. He finds after using cannabis indica he feels no panic or anxiety and is able to eat and sleep. Why are you in support of the state depriving him of such a medicine?
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: "Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms" you might want to let your friend know there's a strong link between substance abuse and panic disorders.[/p][/quote]There is a difference between a user and abuser. In countries that regulate cannabis, the flower buds are prescribed to people with psychological disorders as the CBD in cannabis is an anti psychotic. You may want to do some research. After all anti depressants made him suicidal. He finds after using cannabis indica he feels no panic or anxiety and is able to eat and sleep. Why are you in support of the state depriving him of such a medicine? SuperSilverSourDiesel

8:20pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
"Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms"

you might want to let your friend know there's a strong link between substance abuse and panic disorders.
oh, i forgot to mention

“I’m fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains.” - Professor Terrie Moffitt, Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, 2012

Cannabis is less toxic and much safer than aspirin, anti depressants and prozac.
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: "Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms" you might want to let your friend know there's a strong link between substance abuse and panic disorders.[/p][/quote]oh, i forgot to mention “I’m fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains.” - Professor Terrie Moffitt, Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, 2012 Cannabis is less toxic and much safer than aspirin, anti depressants and prozac. SuperSilverSourDiesel

8:26pm Fri 28 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
"Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms"

you might want to let your friend know there's a strong link between substance abuse and panic disorders.
There is a difference between a user and abuser.

In countries that regulate cannabis, the flower buds are prescribed to people with psychological disorders as the CBD in cannabis is an anti psychotic. You may want to do some research. After all anti depressants made him suicidal. He finds after using cannabis indica he feels no panic or anxiety and is able to eat and sleep. Why are you in support of the state depriving him of such a medicine?
was he an (ab)user before the panic disorder started...if i were a betting man (which i am) i would guess he was?
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: "Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms" you might want to let your friend know there's a strong link between substance abuse and panic disorders.[/p][/quote]There is a difference between a user and abuser. In countries that regulate cannabis, the flower buds are prescribed to people with psychological disorders as the CBD in cannabis is an anti psychotic. You may want to do some research. After all anti depressants made him suicidal. He finds after using cannabis indica he feels no panic or anxiety and is able to eat and sleep. Why are you in support of the state depriving him of such a medicine?[/p][/quote]was he an (ab)user before the panic disorder started...if i were a betting man (which i am) i would guess he was? beyond the valley of the asbos

8:34pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
"Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms"

you might want to let your friend know there's a strong link between substance abuse and panic disorders.
There is a difference between a user and abuser.

In countries that regulate cannabis, the flower buds are prescribed to people with psychological disorders as the CBD in cannabis is an anti psychotic. You may want to do some research. After all anti depressants made him suicidal. He finds after using cannabis indica he feels no panic or anxiety and is able to eat and sleep. Why are you in support of the state depriving him of such a medicine?
was he an (ab)user before the panic disorder started...if i were a betting man (which i am) i would guess he was?
He has suffered from anxiety since he was a child. In all honesty he used cannabis but very rarely.. Once in a blue moon at parties, or at Christmas, and didnt consider himself a stoner. He used very rarely, but acknowledged a positive change in his mood when he did, but didnt think nothing of it. Years later, after much research and after visiting dispensaries that sell cannabis in Israel, he understood the medicinal value in cannabis and that the CBD is a safe anti psychotic. Now he uses a specific cannabis strain everyday and he is able to combat the panic, yet he is a criminal for doing so. He didnt abuse it, just like when i have a cuppa T everyday, it doesnt make me a caffeine abuser. You seem to be firmly against cannabis, but without it he would still experience severe anxiety. Like i said, Cannabis is less toxic and much safer than aspirin, anti depressants and prozac.

“I’m fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains.” - Professor Terrie Moffitt, Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, 2012
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: "Anecdotally, my friend who suffers from a panic disorder had his door kicked in by heavy handed policemen. Suspicion of growing, when he just had a few bags. He was using cannabis to reduce symptoms" you might want to let your friend know there's a strong link between substance abuse and panic disorders.[/p][/quote]There is a difference between a user and abuser. In countries that regulate cannabis, the flower buds are prescribed to people with psychological disorders as the CBD in cannabis is an anti psychotic. You may want to do some research. After all anti depressants made him suicidal. He finds after using cannabis indica he feels no panic or anxiety and is able to eat and sleep. Why are you in support of the state depriving him of such a medicine?[/p][/quote]was he an (ab)user before the panic disorder started...if i were a betting man (which i am) i would guess he was?[/p][/quote]He has suffered from anxiety since he was a child. In all honesty he used cannabis but very rarely.. Once in a blue moon at parties, or at Christmas, and didnt consider himself a stoner. He used very rarely, but acknowledged a positive change in his mood when he did, but didnt think nothing of it. Years later, after much research and after visiting dispensaries that sell cannabis in Israel, he understood the medicinal value in cannabis and that the CBD is a safe anti psychotic. Now he uses a specific cannabis strain everyday and he is able to combat the panic, yet he is a criminal for doing so. He didnt abuse it, just like when i have a cuppa T everyday, it doesnt make me a caffeine abuser. You seem to be firmly against cannabis, but without it he would still experience severe anxiety. Like i said, Cannabis is less toxic and much safer than aspirin, anti depressants and prozac. “I’m fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains.” - Professor Terrie Moffitt, Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, 2012 SuperSilverSourDiesel

8:48pm Fri 28 Sep 12

jayman says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
jayman wrote:
DEBT*COLLECTOR wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up
yep..
Scum
oh im a scum bag?

i have contributed to this society in ways you couldn't fathom,

oh, and I now work in mental health rehabilitation.

I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs.

I suppose you think that its some sort of scum bag honour code by not talking to the police that is universally accepted. however there is not much that scares an ex soldier, especially a track suit wearing man-child with the life experiences of a toad and the world view of a toilet gobbing off on a micro news site about his misguided principles regarding a smelly mind altering drug that endows users with the charm and charisma of a limpet..

good night..
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DEBT*COLLECTOR[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up[/p][/quote]yep..[/p][/quote]Scum[/p][/quote]oh im a scum bag? i have contributed to this society in ways you couldn't fathom, oh, and I now work in mental health rehabilitation. I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs. I suppose you think that its some sort of scum bag honour code by not talking to the police that is universally accepted. however there is not much that scares an ex soldier, especially a track suit wearing man-child with the life experiences of a toad and the world view of a toilet gobbing off on a micro news site about his misguided principles regarding a smelly mind altering drug that endows users with the charm and charisma of a limpet.. good night.. jayman

8:50pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

jayman wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
jayman wrote:
DEBT*COLLECTOR wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up
yep..
Scum
oh im a scum bag?

i have contributed to this society in ways you couldn't fathom,

oh, and I now work in mental health rehabilitation.

I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs.

I suppose you think that its some sort of scum bag honour code by not talking to the police that is universally accepted. however there is not much that scares an ex soldier, especially a track suit wearing man-child with the life experiences of a toad and the world view of a toilet gobbing off on a micro news site about his misguided principles regarding a smelly mind altering drug that endows users with the charm and charisma of a limpet..

good night..
Didnt use the term scumbag, just scum.
For waste police time for a bad smell, distracting them from real crimes like Rape, Assault and Theft, for a plant proven to be safer than alcohol and aspirin. Well done. Real credit to your community.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DEBT*COLLECTOR[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up[/p][/quote]yep..[/p][/quote]Scum[/p][/quote]oh im a scum bag? i have contributed to this society in ways you couldn't fathom, oh, and I now work in mental health rehabilitation. I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs. I suppose you think that its some sort of scum bag honour code by not talking to the police that is universally accepted. however there is not much that scares an ex soldier, especially a track suit wearing man-child with the life experiences of a toad and the world view of a toilet gobbing off on a micro news site about his misguided principles regarding a smelly mind altering drug that endows users with the charm and charisma of a limpet.. good night..[/p][/quote]Didnt use the term scumbag, just scum. For waste police time for a bad smell, distracting them from real crimes like Rape, Assault and Theft, for a plant proven to be safer than alcohol and aspirin. Well done. Real credit to your community. SuperSilverSourDiesel

9:02pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Nebs says...

jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory. Nebs

9:19pm Fri 28 Sep 12

jayman says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
jayman wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese


l
wrote:
jayman wrote:
DEBT*COLLECTOR wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up
yep..
Scum
oh im a scum bag?

i have contributed to this society in ways you couldn't fathom,

oh, and I now work in mental health rehabilitation.

I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs.

I suppose you think that its some sort of scum bag honour code by not talking to the police that is universally accepted. however there is not much that scares an ex soldier, especially a track suit wearing man-child with the life experiences of a toad and the world view of a toilet gobbing off on a micro news site about his misguided principles regarding a smelly mind altering drug that endows users with the charm and charisma of a limpet..

good night..
Didnt use the term scumbag, just scum.
For waste police time for a bad smell, distracting them from real crimes like Rape, Assault and Theft, for a plant proven to be safer than alcohol and aspirin. Well done. Real credit to your community.
'scum bag' was a paraphrase,

I did however phrase you correctly in the post.

"I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs."
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DEBT*COLLECTOR[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up[/p][/quote]yep..[/p][/quote]Scum[/p][/quote]oh im a scum bag? i have contributed to this society in ways you couldn't fathom, oh, and I now work in mental health rehabilitation. I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs. I suppose you think that its some sort of scum bag honour code by not talking to the police that is universally accepted. however there is not much that scares an ex soldier, especially a track suit wearing man-child with the life experiences of a toad and the world view of a toilet gobbing off on a micro news site about his misguided principles regarding a smelly mind altering drug that endows users with the charm and charisma of a limpet.. good night..[/p][/quote]Didnt use the term scumbag, just scum. For waste police time for a bad smell, distracting them from real crimes like Rape, Assault and Theft, for a plant proven to be safer than alcohol and aspirin. Well done. Real credit to your community.[/p][/quote]'scum bag' was a paraphrase, I did however phrase you correctly in the post. "I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs." jayman

9:55pm Fri 28 Sep 12

naffeville says...

I tried and failed, sanity is **** tedious, but who knows what tommorow brings, now whats everyones preference, lovely bit of cheddar cheese or something more fruity to the palet?
I tried and failed, sanity is **** tedious, but who knows what tommorow brings, now whats everyones preference, lovely bit of cheddar cheese or something more fruity to the palet? naffeville

10:42pm Fri 28 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
Congratulations! You've seen the light at last!
.
Lesson for you there Naffeville, mines a blueberry Danish thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]Congratulations! You've seen the light at last! . Lesson for you there Naffeville, mines a blueberry Danish thanks. Truth Will Prevail

10:44pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

jayman wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
jayman wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese



l
wrote:
jayman wrote:
DEBT*COLLECTOR wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up
yep..
Scum
oh im a scum bag?

i have contributed to this society in ways you couldn't fathom,

oh, and I now work in mental health rehabilitation.

I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs.

I suppose you think that its some sort of scum bag honour code by not talking to the police that is universally accepted. however there is not much that scares an ex soldier, especially a track suit wearing man-child with the life experiences of a toad and the world view of a toilet gobbing off on a micro news site about his misguided principles regarding a smelly mind altering drug that endows users with the charm and charisma of a limpet..

good night..
Didnt use the term scumbag, just scum.
For waste police time for a bad smell, distracting them from real crimes like Rape, Assault and Theft, for a plant proven to be safer than alcohol and aspirin. Well done. Real credit to your community.
'scum bag' was a paraphrase,

I did however phrase you correctly in the post.

"I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs."
I dont take illegal drugs, only the legal ones known to cause much more pain and misery than cannabis. Your the type to waste police time because there is a 10,000 year old smell in the air you dislike, wasting their time when they could focus on REAL crime, not herbs known to be safer than aspirin! THATS WHY I CALLED YOU SCUM
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DEBT*COLLECTOR[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]What are we grasses over a plant smoking person. Grow up[/p][/quote]yep..[/p][/quote]Scum[/p][/quote]oh im a scum bag? i have contributed to this society in ways you couldn't fathom, oh, and I now work in mental health rehabilitation. I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs. I suppose you think that its some sort of scum bag honour code by not talking to the police that is universally accepted. however there is not much that scares an ex soldier, especially a track suit wearing man-child with the life experiences of a toad and the world view of a toilet gobbing off on a micro news site about his misguided principles regarding a smelly mind altering drug that endows users with the charm and charisma of a limpet.. good night..[/p][/quote]Didnt use the term scumbag, just scum. For waste police time for a bad smell, distracting them from real crimes like Rape, Assault and Theft, for a plant proven to be safer than alcohol and aspirin. Well done. Real credit to your community.[/p][/quote]'scum bag' was a paraphrase, I did however phrase you correctly in the post. "I accept the intended insult of 'scum' as a compliment from anyone who takes illegal drugs."[/p][/quote]I dont take illegal drugs, only the legal ones known to cause much more pain and misery than cannabis. Your the type to waste police time because there is a 10,000 year old smell in the air you dislike, wasting their time when they could focus on REAL crime, not herbs known to be safer than aspirin! THATS WHY I CALLED YOU SCUM SuperSilverSourDiesel

10:46pm Fri 28 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal -

Vested Interest
The pressure from alcohol lobby
GW Pharma
Cowardly Politicians
Personal Prejudices
Greed
Money made from prohibition
Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place

Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers.
Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with -

Harm reduction
Science
Evidence
Expert Advice
Public opinion
To see drug dealers out of business long term
Or to prevent under age use

Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited -

Racism
Control
Money
Personal prejudices
The financial threat of Hemp Production
And more...


Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time. SuperSilverSourDiesel

11:34pm Fri 28 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.
"Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis and evicts them from their land while they do so is unjust."

Now your talking!
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: As Socrates and Martin Luther King said "there is a moral obligation to obey just laws but people also have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws". This is why prohibition does not and will never work. Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis is unjust.[/p][/quote]"Any law that prohibits people from having the odd glass of wine or the odd smoke of cannabis and evicts them from their land while they do so is unjust." Now your talking! E -Type

11:45pm Fri 28 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Gina the weaner wrote:
Interesting to read the comment of J A Rank at 6.24pm.

I see that the idiot formerly posting as 'E-Types..' is now 'E-Type' (or is that another impostor?...LOL).

Maybe E-Types.. would have done well to remember the saying "Be careful what you wish for".
I see you are back pretending to be a girl! All your other user names gone? LOL

It was you with the multiple accounts that had them erased..no more posting some rubbish and then using another account to support that rubbish and then another account to support that support etc...things are on the slide for you ole son of a...stropmag. LOL...Oh how could they get worse?
[quote][p][bold]Gina the weaner[/bold] wrote: Interesting to read the comment of J A Rank at 6.24pm. I see that the idiot formerly posting as 'E-Types..' is now 'E-Type' (or is that another impostor?...LOL). Maybe E-Types.. would have done well to remember the saying "Be careful what you wish for".[/p][/quote]I see you are back pretending to be a girl! All your other user names gone? LOL It was you with the multiple accounts that had them erased..no more posting some rubbish and then using another account to support that rubbish and then another account to support that support etc...things are on the slide for you ole son of a...stropmag. LOL...Oh how could they get worse? E -Type

11:58pm Fri 28 Sep 12

E -Type says...

J Arthur Rank wrote:
For info of E-Types. and Eric Whim as both are commenting here:

Following my meeting with the senior editorial staff at the Echo yesterday a number of people will find that their accounts have been suspended. Some of these will be multiple registrations. All of those suspended will have allegedly been in breach of the website’s T&Cs. Please don’t shoot the messenger, I have merely passed on the concerns raised by some people in posts earlier in the week. It was those responsible for the administration of the site who have invoked these sanctions.
I did mention the concerns over journalistic standards as they relate to spelling and basic use of grammar. Whilst no guarantees were forthcoming it was acknowledged that on occasions the reports do fall short of the standard the publication aim for. My comments were well received and I believe efforts will be made to improve the presentation of stories.
The point was made to me that the comments section is a forum for readers of the on-line version of the newspaper to “have their say” and it serves no real commercial purpose for the company. Readers are at liberty to use the section providing their comments do not breach the rules and nobody should take what are often ‘tongue in cheek’ comments too seriously.
Comments considered inappropriate and/or in breach of the T&Cs will be removed and the contributor’s continued registration reviewed. However, it is not viable to permanently monitor the site so there may be some delay in the removal of offending comments.
Multiple accounts held at one time and used by rather disturbed posters is something the forum can do without.

The rather strange and warped son of a...stropmag had over 8!

He is still on here now as 'Gena the weaner'..but his teeth have been pulled and now he has no false support to back his vile posts up.

Sic exsisto is per totus idiots
[quote][p][bold]J Arthur Rank[/bold] wrote: For info of E-Types. and Eric Whim as both are commenting here: Following my meeting with the senior editorial staff at the Echo yesterday a number of people will find that their accounts have been suspended. Some of these will be multiple registrations. All of those suspended will have allegedly been in breach of the website’s T&Cs. Please don’t shoot the messenger, I have merely passed on the concerns raised by some people in posts earlier in the week. It was those responsible for the administration of the site who have invoked these sanctions. I did mention the concerns over journalistic standards as they relate to spelling and basic use of grammar. Whilst no guarantees were forthcoming it was acknowledged that on occasions the reports do fall short of the standard the publication aim for. My comments were well received and I believe efforts will be made to improve the presentation of stories. The point was made to me that the comments section is a forum for readers of the on-line version of the newspaper to “have their say” and it serves no real commercial purpose for the company. Readers are at liberty to use the section providing their comments do not breach the rules and nobody should take what are often ‘tongue in cheek’ comments too seriously. Comments considered inappropriate and/or in breach of the T&Cs will be removed and the contributor’s continued registration reviewed. However, it is not viable to permanently monitor the site so there may be some delay in the removal of offending comments.[/p][/quote]Multiple accounts held at one time and used by rather disturbed posters is something the forum can do without. The rather strange and warped son of a...stropmag had over 8! He is still on here now as 'Gena the weaner'..but his teeth have been pulled and now he has no false support to back his vile posts up. Sic exsisto is per totus idiots E -Type

12:54am Sat 29 Sep 12

Nebs says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal -

Vested Interest
The pressure from alcohol lobby
GW Pharma
Cowardly Politicians
Personal Prejudices
Greed
Money made from prohibition
Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place

Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers.
Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with -

Harm reduction
Science
Evidence
Expert Advice
Public opinion
To see drug dealers out of business long term
Or to prevent under age use

Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited -

Racism
Control
Money
Personal prejudices
The financial threat of Hemp Production
And more...


Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless. Nebs

7:20am Sat 29 Sep 12

The Soldier in White says...

J Arthur Rank wrote:
For info of E-Types. and Eric Whim as both are commenting here:

Following my meeting with the senior editorial staff at the Echo yesterday a number of people will find that their accounts have been suspended. Some of these will be multiple registrations. All of those suspended will have allegedly been in breach of the website’s T&Cs. Please don’t shoot the messenger, I have merely passed on the concerns raised by some people in posts earlier in the week. It was those responsible for the administration of the site who have invoked these sanctions.
I did mention the concerns over journalistic standards as they relate to spelling and basic use of grammar. Whilst no guarantees were forthcoming it was acknowledged that on occasions the reports do fall short of the standard the publication aim for. My comments were well received and I believe efforts will be made to improve the presentation of stories.
The point was made to me that the comments section is a forum for readers of the on-line version of the newspaper to “have their say” and it serves no real commercial purpose for the company. Readers are at liberty to use the section providing their comments do not breach the rules and nobody should take what are often ‘tongue in cheek’ comments too seriously.
Comments considered inappropriate and/or in breach of the T&Cs will be removed and the contributor’s continued registration reviewed. However, it is not viable to permanently monitor the site so there may be some delay in the removal of offending comments.
Well done J.Arthur, you have certainly lived up to your name. I notice that at least one of those whos account was closed has simply reregistered and is now using these columns to practice his witchcraft (Sic exsisto is per totus idiots) under the name of E -Type. Goodness knows what his priest will have to say about that !
Perhaps we shall also see the return of our beloved master of repartee ,Stropmag , When he has tired of soaking up the Carribean sun.
[quote][p][bold]J Arthur Rank[/bold] wrote: For info of E-Types. and Eric Whim as both are commenting here: Following my meeting with the senior editorial staff at the Echo yesterday a number of people will find that their accounts have been suspended. Some of these will be multiple registrations. All of those suspended will have allegedly been in breach of the website’s T&Cs. Please don’t shoot the messenger, I have merely passed on the concerns raised by some people in posts earlier in the week. It was those responsible for the administration of the site who have invoked these sanctions. I did mention the concerns over journalistic standards as they relate to spelling and basic use of grammar. Whilst no guarantees were forthcoming it was acknowledged that on occasions the reports do fall short of the standard the publication aim for. My comments were well received and I believe efforts will be made to improve the presentation of stories. The point was made to me that the comments section is a forum for readers of the on-line version of the newspaper to “have their say” and it serves no real commercial purpose for the company. Readers are at liberty to use the section providing their comments do not breach the rules and nobody should take what are often ‘tongue in cheek’ comments too seriously. Comments considered inappropriate and/or in breach of the T&Cs will be removed and the contributor’s continued registration reviewed. However, it is not viable to permanently monitor the site so there may be some delay in the removal of offending comments.[/p][/quote]Well done J.Arthur, you have certainly lived up to your name. I notice that at least one of those whos account was closed has simply reregistered and is now using these columns to practice his witchcraft (Sic exsisto is per totus idiots) under the name of E -Type. Goodness knows what his priest will have to say about that ! Perhaps we shall also see the return of our beloved master of repartee ,Stropmag , When he has tired of soaking up the Carribean sun. The Soldier in White

4:24pm Sat 29 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Nebs wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal -

Vested Interest
The pressure from alcohol lobby
GW Pharma
Cowardly Politicians
Personal Prejudices
Greed
Money made from prohibition
Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place

Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers.
Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with -

Harm reduction
Science
Evidence
Expert Advice
Public opinion
To see drug dealers out of business long term
Or to prevent under age use

Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited -

Racism
Control
Money
Personal prejudices
The financial threat of Hemp Production
And more...


Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
there is no injustice and there is no prohibition. put down the peter reynolds' lexicon. it has been illegal all of your puff. it was illegal when you first tried it and nothing's changed.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.[/p][/quote]there is no injustice and there is no prohibition. put down the peter reynolds' lexicon. it has been illegal all of your puff. it was illegal when you first tried it and nothing's changed. beyond the valley of the asbos

5:35pm Sat 29 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.
Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him. Truth Will Prevail

5:43pm Sat 29 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.
our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.[/p][/quote]our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy? beyond the valley of the asbos

6:04pm Sat 29 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.
our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?
Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days.
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.[/p][/quote]our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?[/p][/quote]Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days. Truth Will Prevail

6:22pm Sat 29 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

lol...thought it was you doing the escaping here?
lol...thought it was you doing the escaping here? beyond the valley of the asbos

7:36pm Sat 29 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
lol...thought it was you doing the escaping here?
What have I got to escape from? You are almost as crazy as ET, you're not his brother are you?
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: lol...thought it was you doing the escaping here?[/p][/quote]What have I got to escape from? You are almost as crazy as ET, you're not his brother are you? Truth Will Prevail

8:06pm Sat 29 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Nebs wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese


l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal -

Vested Interest
The pressure from alcohol lobby
GW Pharma
Cowardly Politicians
Personal Prejudices
Greed
Money made from prohibition
Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place

Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers.
Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with -

Harm reduction
Science
Evidence
Expert Advice
Public opinion
To see drug dealers out of business long term
Or to prevent under age use

Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited -

Racism
Control
Money
Personal prejudices
The financial threat of Hemp Production
And more...


Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
there is no injustice and there is no prohibition. put down the peter reynolds' lexicon. it has been illegal all of your puff. it was illegal when you first tried it and nothing's changed.
Dont lie to yourself, for most of human history cannabis has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long standing law. Cannabis has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7000 B.C.

If you think cannabis is illegal because it has a potential for harm then your fooling yourself to be honest.

In fact the reason it became illegal in the first place wasnt anything to do with its effects. It was all about hemp production. Then Anslinger gave birth to reefermadness and from then on the propaganda hasnt stopped.
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.[/p][/quote]there is no injustice and there is no prohibition. put down the peter reynolds' lexicon. it has been illegal all of your puff. it was illegal when you first tried it and nothing's changed.[/p][/quote]Dont lie to yourself, for most of human history cannabis has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long standing law. Cannabis has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7000 B.C. If you think cannabis is illegal because it has a potential for harm then your fooling yourself to be honest. In fact the reason it became illegal in the first place wasnt anything to do with its effects. It was all about hemp production. Then Anslinger gave birth to reefermadness and from then on the propaganda hasnt stopped. SuperSilverSourDiesel

8:16pm Sat 29 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

Nebs wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal -

Vested Interest
The pressure from alcohol lobby
GW Pharma
Cowardly Politicians
Personal Prejudices
Greed
Money made from prohibition
Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place

Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers.
Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with -

Harm reduction
Science
Evidence
Expert Advice
Public opinion
To see drug dealers out of business long term
Or to prevent under age use

Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited -

Racism
Control
Money
Personal prejudices
The financial threat of Hemp Production
And more...


Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.[/p][/quote]Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal. SuperSilverSourDiesel

9:04pm Sat 29 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

What the people want the people get.
What the people want the people get. Truth Will Prevail

9:49pm Sat 29 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Nebs wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese



l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal -

Vested Interest
The pressure from alcohol lobby
GW Pharma
Cowardly Politicians
Personal Prejudices
Greed
Money made from prohibition
Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place

Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers.
Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with -

Harm reduction
Science
Evidence
Expert Advice
Public opinion
To see drug dealers out of business long term
Or to prevent under age use

Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited -

Racism
Control
Money
Personal prejudices
The financial threat of Hemp Production
And more...


Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
there is no injustice and there is no prohibition. put down the peter reynolds' lexicon. it has been illegal all of your puff. it was illegal when you first tried it and nothing's changed.
Dont lie to yourself, for most of human history cannabis has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long standing law. Cannabis has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7000 B.C.

If you think cannabis is illegal because it has a potential for harm then your fooling yourself to be honest.

In fact the reason it became illegal in the first place wasnt anything to do with its effects. It was all about hemp production. Then Anslinger gave birth to reefermadness and from then on the propaganda hasnt stopped.
in your lifetime....forget the rest of time...you didn't exist. you know nothing else....! capito? it has never been legal in your lifetime... how have you been wronged...answer take that log off your shoulder?
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.[/p][/quote]there is no injustice and there is no prohibition. put down the peter reynolds' lexicon. it has been illegal all of your puff. it was illegal when you first tried it and nothing's changed.[/p][/quote]Dont lie to yourself, for most of human history cannabis has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a long standing law. Cannabis has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7000 B.C. If you think cannabis is illegal because it has a potential for harm then your fooling yourself to be honest. In fact the reason it became illegal in the first place wasnt anything to do with its effects. It was all about hemp production. Then Anslinger gave birth to reefermadness and from then on the propaganda hasnt stopped.[/p][/quote]in your lifetime....forget the rest of time...you didn't exist. you know nothing else....! capito? it has never been legal in your lifetime... how have you been wronged...answer take that log off your shoulder? beyond the valley of the asbos

9:52pm Sat 29 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese


l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal -

Vested Interest
The pressure from alcohol lobby
GW Pharma
Cowardly Politicians
Personal Prejudices
Greed
Money made from prohibition
Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place

Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers.
Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with -

Harm reduction
Science
Evidence
Expert Advice
Public opinion
To see drug dealers out of business long term
Or to prevent under age use

Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited -

Racism
Control
Money
Personal prejudices
The financial threat of Hemp Production
And more...


Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.
i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.[/p][/quote]Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.[/p][/quote]i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea beyond the valley of the asbos

9:56pm Sat 29 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
What the people want the people get.
i beg to differ... only the weak, pot dependent invertebrates want it...need i go on?
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: What the people want the people get.[/p][/quote]i beg to differ... only the weak, pot dependent invertebrates want it...need i go on? beyond the valley of the asbos

10:01pm Sat 29 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.
Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it. Truth Will Prevail

10:03pm Sat 29 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.
ok so you never took any prescribed medicine in your life....ok hadleigh redundant
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.[/p][/quote]ok so you never took any prescribed medicine in your life....ok hadleigh redundant beyond the valley of the asbos

10:10pm Sat 29 Sep 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.
can we swap you for a spambot? the bots have more personality
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.[/p][/quote]can we swap you for a spambot? the bots have more personality beyond the valley of the asbos

11:22pm Sat 29 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese



l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal -

Vested Interest
The pressure from alcohol lobby
GW Pharma
Cowardly Politicians
Personal Prejudices
Greed
Money made from prohibition
Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place

Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers.
Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with -

Harm reduction
Science
Evidence
Expert Advice
Public opinion
To see drug dealers out of business long term
Or to prevent under age use

Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited -

Racism
Control
Money
Personal prejudices
The financial threat of Hemp Production
And more...


Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.
i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea
Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable.
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.[/p][/quote]Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.[/p][/quote]i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea[/p][/quote]Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable. SuperSilverSourDiesel

11:26pm Sat 29 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.
I will give it up, some people are open minded and will try to look beyond what they are taught in school or what the government tell them. Some people cannot see the light and cannot be saved. I feel nothing but sorry for people like asbo, then again they think prohibition doesnt effect them because they dont use cannabis, so in their mind they can comfortably try and poke holes in other peoples arguments without really adding anything of substance to the debate. Yes, lets carry on with another 40 years of pointless dangerous prohibition and blindly follow anything our leaders tell us, because thats not robotic at all is it asbo
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.[/p][/quote]I will give it up, some people are open minded and will try to look beyond what they are taught in school or what the government tell them. Some people cannot see the light and cannot be saved. I feel nothing but sorry for people like asbo, then again they think prohibition doesnt effect them because they dont use cannabis, so in their mind they can comfortably try and poke holes in other peoples arguments without really adding anything of substance to the debate. Yes, lets carry on with another 40 years of pointless dangerous prohibition and blindly follow anything our leaders tell us, because thats not robotic at all is it asbo SuperSilverSourDiesel

11:28pm Sat 29 Sep 12

E -Type says...

The Soldier in White wrote:
J Arthur Rank wrote:
For info of E-Types. and Eric Whim as both are commenting here:

Following my meeting with the senior editorial staff at the Echo yesterday a number of people will find that their accounts have been suspended. Some of these will be multiple registrations. All of those suspended will have allegedly been in breach of the website’s T&Cs. Please don’t shoot the messenger, I have merely passed on the concerns raised by some people in posts earlier in the week. It was those responsible for the administration of the site who have invoked these sanctions.
I did mention the concerns over journalistic standards as they relate to spelling and basic use of grammar. Whilst no guarantees were forthcoming it was acknowledged that on occasions the reports do fall short of the standard the publication aim for. My comments were well received and I believe efforts will be made to improve the presentation of stories.
The point was made to me that the comments section is a forum for readers of the on-line version of the newspaper to “have their say” and it serves no real commercial purpose for the company. Readers are at liberty to use the section providing their comments do not breach the rules and nobody should take what are often ‘tongue in cheek’ comments too seriously.
Comments considered inappropriate and/or in breach of the T&Cs will be removed and the contributor’s continued registration reviewed. However, it is not viable to permanently monitor the site so there may be some delay in the removal of offending comments.
Well done J.Arthur, you have certainly lived up to your name. I notice that at least one of those whos account was closed has simply reregistered and is now using these columns to practice his witchcraft (Sic exsisto is per totus idiots) under the name of E -Type. Goodness knows what his priest will have to say about that !
Perhaps we shall also see the return of our beloved master of repartee ,Stropmag , When he has tired of soaking up the Carribean sun.
Priest? No sorry i dont bow down to another man because of who he is..but you on the other hand "see the return of our beloved master"

Is Dada on the way back? Bring him on... he is easier than you and your few remaining multiple accounts.
[quote][p][bold]The Soldier in White[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Arthur Rank[/bold] wrote: For info of E-Types. and Eric Whim as both are commenting here: Following my meeting with the senior editorial staff at the Echo yesterday a number of people will find that their accounts have been suspended. Some of these will be multiple registrations. All of those suspended will have allegedly been in breach of the website’s T&Cs. Please don’t shoot the messenger, I have merely passed on the concerns raised by some people in posts earlier in the week. It was those responsible for the administration of the site who have invoked these sanctions. I did mention the concerns over journalistic standards as they relate to spelling and basic use of grammar. Whilst no guarantees were forthcoming it was acknowledged that on occasions the reports do fall short of the standard the publication aim for. My comments were well received and I believe efforts will be made to improve the presentation of stories. The point was made to me that the comments section is a forum for readers of the on-line version of the newspaper to “have their say” and it serves no real commercial purpose for the company. Readers are at liberty to use the section providing their comments do not breach the rules and nobody should take what are often ‘tongue in cheek’ comments too seriously. Comments considered inappropriate and/or in breach of the T&Cs will be removed and the contributor’s continued registration reviewed. However, it is not viable to permanently monitor the site so there may be some delay in the removal of offending comments.[/p][/quote]Well done J.Arthur, you have certainly lived up to your name. I notice that at least one of those whos account was closed has simply reregistered and is now using these columns to practice his witchcraft (Sic exsisto is per totus idiots) under the name of E -Type. Goodness knows what his priest will have to say about that ! Perhaps we shall also see the return of our beloved master of repartee ,Stropmag , When he has tired of soaking up the Carribean sun.[/p][/quote]Priest? No sorry i dont bow down to another man because of who he is..but you on the other hand "see the return of our beloved master" Is Dada on the way back? Bring him on... he is easier than you and your few remaining multiple accounts. E -Type

11:30pm Sat 29 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.
our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?
Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days.
Self-abuse is no boasting matter...
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.[/p][/quote]our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?[/p][/quote]Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days.[/p][/quote]Self-abuse is no boasting matter... E -Type

11:33pm Sat 29 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
lol...thought it was you doing the escaping here?
What have I got to escape from? You are almost as crazy as ET, you're not his brother are you?
He is here trying escape off another thread where his " undeniable fact" has been proven to be like all his facts, full of holes like his baggy high waisted underpants...
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: lol...thought it was you doing the escaping here?[/p][/quote]What have I got to escape from? You are almost as crazy as ET, you're not his brother are you?[/p][/quote]He is here trying escape off another thread where his " undeniable fact" has been proven to be like all his facts, full of holes like his baggy high waisted underpants... E -Type

11:38pm Sat 29 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
What the people want the people get.
Yeah right...people wanted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop and marched to say so..did they get what they wanted?

" to much the herb weed up your brain"
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: What the people want the people get.[/p][/quote]Yeah right...people wanted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop and marched to say so..did they get what they wanted? " to much the herb weed up your brain" E -Type

11:41pm Sat 29 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.
Boredom kills... the thread and you have murdered many with your sniffling boring chat about not being able to get off your head and escape your humdrum life...
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.[/p][/quote]Boredom kills... the thread and you have murdered many with your sniffling boring chat about not being able to get off your head and escape your humdrum life... E -Type

11:46pm Sat 29 Sep 12

SuperSilverSourDiesel says...

E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.
Boredom kills... the thread and you have murdered many with your sniffling boring chat about not being able to get off your head and escape your humdrum life...
Another brainwashed prohibitionist?
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.[/p][/quote]Boredom kills... the thread and you have murdered many with your sniffling boring chat about not being able to get off your head and escape your humdrum life...[/p][/quote]Another brainwashed prohibitionist? SuperSilverSourDiesel

4:21am Sun 30 Sep 12

Gina the weaner says...

E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.
our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?
Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days.
Self-abuse is no boasting matter...
At last! Speaking about something he should know about.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.[/p][/quote]our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?[/p][/quote]Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days.[/p][/quote]Self-abuse is no boasting matter...[/p][/quote]At last! Speaking about something he should know about. Gina the weaner

6:30am Sun 30 Sep 12

jayman says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese


l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese




l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal -

Vested Interest
The pressure from alcohol lobby
GW Pharma
Cowardly Politicians
Personal Prejudices
Greed
Money made from prohibition
Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place

Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers.
Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with -

Harm reduction
Science
Evidence
Expert Advice
Public opinion
To see drug dealers out of business long term
Or to prevent under age use

Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited -

Racism
Control
Money
Personal prejudices
The financial threat of Hemp Production
And more...


Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.
i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea
Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable.
'anti cancer' 'anti psychotic' are you fu-c-king serious!!!

cancer is a fault in the reproduction in cells, there are millions on trigger factors in this fault and usually start due to sustained genetic damage or cellular exposure to carcinogenic substances, cannabis 'is' a carcinogenic substance!!!!

cancer is an anti-psychotic?

you deluded fu-ckwit, no! it is not.

I WORK IN ADULT MENTAL HEALTH.
how about you stick to offering advice about the best grinder to use or how to make a spliff and leave the adult chit chat to people who know what they are talking about..

that's the most dangerous and misinformed comment I have read in a long time!!
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.[/p][/quote]Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.[/p][/quote]i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea[/p][/quote]Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable.[/p][/quote]'anti cancer' 'anti psychotic' are you fu-c-king serious!!! cancer is a fault in the reproduction in cells, there are millions on trigger factors in this fault and usually start due to sustained genetic damage or cellular exposure to carcinogenic substances, cannabis 'is' a carcinogenic substance!!!! cancer is an anti-psychotic? you deluded fu-ckwit, no! it is not. I WORK IN ADULT MENTAL HEALTH. how about you stick to offering advice about the best grinder to use or how to make a spliff and leave the adult chit chat to people who know what they are talking about.. that's the most dangerous and misinformed comment I have read in a long time!! jayman

10:30am Sun 30 Sep 12

pink oboe. says...

jayman wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese



l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese





l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal -

Vested Interest
The pressure from alcohol lobby
GW Pharma
Cowardly Politicians
Personal Prejudices
Greed
Money made from prohibition
Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place

Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers.
Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with -

Harm reduction
Science
Evidence
Expert Advice
Public opinion
To see drug dealers out of business long term
Or to prevent under age use

Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited -

Racism
Control
Money
Personal prejudices
The financial threat of Hemp Production
And more...


Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.
i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea
Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable.
'anti cancer' 'anti psychotic' are you fu-c-king serious!!!

cancer is a fault in the reproduction in cells, there are millions on trigger factors in this fault and usually start due to sustained genetic damage or cellular exposure to carcinogenic substances, cannabis 'is' a carcinogenic substance!!!!

cancer is an anti-psychotic?

you deluded fu-ckwit, no! it is not.

I WORK IN ADULT MENTAL HEALTH.
how about you stick to offering advice about the best grinder to use or how to make a spliff and leave the adult chit chat to people who know what they are talking about..

that's the most dangerous and misinformed comment I have read in a long time!!
I believe SSSD may be relying on research carried out in Brazil which concludes that CBD has anti-psychotic properties:

http://www.scielo.br
/pdf/bjmbr/v39n4/616
4.pdf

I have a feeling that he hadn't intended to suggest that cancer is anti-psychotic and perhaps he will clarify that.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.[/p][/quote]Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.[/p][/quote]i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea[/p][/quote]Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable.[/p][/quote]'anti cancer' 'anti psychotic' are you fu-c-king serious!!! cancer is a fault in the reproduction in cells, there are millions on trigger factors in this fault and usually start due to sustained genetic damage or cellular exposure to carcinogenic substances, cannabis 'is' a carcinogenic substance!!!! cancer is an anti-psychotic? you deluded fu-ckwit, no! it is not. I WORK IN ADULT MENTAL HEALTH. how about you stick to offering advice about the best grinder to use or how to make a spliff and leave the adult chit chat to people who know what they are talking about.. that's the most dangerous and misinformed comment I have read in a long time!![/p][/quote]I believe SSSD may be relying on research carried out in Brazil which concludes that CBD has anti-psychotic properties: http://www.scielo.br /pdf/bjmbr/v39n4/616 4.pdf I have a feeling that he hadn't intended to suggest that cancer is anti-psychotic and perhaps he will clarify that. pink oboe.

12:06pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

jayman wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese l wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese l wrote:
Nebs wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese l wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.
i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea
Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable.
'anti cancer' 'anti psychotic' are you fu-c-king serious!!! cancer is a fault in the reproduction in cells, there are millions on trigger factors in this fault and usually start due to sustained genetic damage or cellular exposure to carcinogenic substances, cannabis 'is' a carcinogenic substance!!!! cancer is an anti-psychotic? you deluded fu-ckwit, no! it is not. I WORK IN ADULT MENTAL HEALTH. how about you stick to offering advice about the best grinder to use or how to make a spliff and leave the adult chit chat to people who know what they are talking about.. that's the most dangerous and misinformed comment I have read in a long time!!
Fool. Actually one of the two main ingredients in Cannabis IS an anti psychotic as you'd know if you actually knew anything about the subject. More proof that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing (applies to ET too as on another story he's trying to tell me that man cannot travel through the Van Allen Belt and we didn't have the technology in the late sixties to send a man to the moon, laughable, we didn't just go once, we went half a dozen times).
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.[/p][/quote]Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.[/p][/quote]i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea[/p][/quote]Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable.[/p][/quote]'anti cancer' 'anti psychotic' are you fu-c-king serious!!! cancer is a fault in the reproduction in cells, there are millions on trigger factors in this fault and usually start due to sustained genetic damage or cellular exposure to carcinogenic substances, cannabis 'is' a carcinogenic substance!!!! cancer is an anti-psychotic? you deluded fu-ckwit, no! it is not. I WORK IN ADULT MENTAL HEALTH. how about you stick to offering advice about the best grinder to use or how to make a spliff and leave the adult chit chat to people who know what they are talking about.. that's the most dangerous and misinformed comment I have read in a long time!![/p][/quote]Fool. Actually one of the two main ingredients in Cannabis IS an anti psychotic as you'd know if you actually knew anything about the subject. More proof that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing (applies to ET too as on another story he's trying to tell me that man cannot travel through the Van Allen Belt and we didn't have the technology in the late sixties to send a man to the moon, laughable, we didn't just go once, we went half a dozen times). Truth Will Prevail

1:55pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Still waiting for your response Jayman. You may work in a mental health unit but you sure aint no Doctor or Nurse cos they wouldn't be so stupid as to make the assertions you have made without checking their facts first. Are you a cleaner, or maybe a patient? That would make more sense. Before you blast off again with your unsubstantiated claims, CHECK YOUR FACTS, I suggest 'Google Scholar' as a good place to start, where you will find that one of the two main active ingredients of cannabis is indeed an anti psychotic and there is also a growing body of evidence that some of the active ingredients of cannabis do indeed supress certain cancers (the name Guzman springs to mind) so CHECK YOUR FACTS before you put your size nines in it again.
Still waiting for your response Jayman. You may work in a mental health unit but you sure aint no Doctor or Nurse cos they wouldn't be so stupid as to make the assertions you have made without checking their facts first. Are you a cleaner, or maybe a patient? That would make more sense. Before you blast off again with your unsubstantiated claims, CHECK YOUR FACTS, I suggest 'Google Scholar' as a good place to start, where you will find that one of the two main active ingredients of cannabis is indeed an anti psychotic and there is also a growing body of evidence that some of the active ingredients of cannabis do indeed supress certain cancers (the name Guzman springs to mind) so CHECK YOUR FACTS before you put your size nines in it again. Truth Will Prevail

2:18pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.
Boredom kills... the thread and you have murdered many with your sniffling boring chat about not being able to get off your head and escape your humdrum life...
Another brainwashed prohibitionist?
Err, no...one who has made his own mind up based on his own opinion of things...thats alright isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.[/p][/quote]Boredom kills... the thread and you have murdered many with your sniffling boring chat about not being able to get off your head and escape your humdrum life...[/p][/quote]Another brainwashed prohibitionist?[/p][/quote]Err, no...one who has made his own mind up based on his own opinion of things...thats alright isn't it? E -Type

2:26pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Gina the weaner wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.
our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?
Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days.
Self-abuse is no boasting matter...
At last! Speaking about something he should know about.
Im sure he does and im sure you do too.

Must irk you to have the son of a ..stropmag account deleted, your main account and have to rely on your girly account to post off. LOL
[quote][p][bold]Gina the weaner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.[/p][/quote]our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?[/p][/quote]Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days.[/p][/quote]Self-abuse is no boasting matter...[/p][/quote]At last! Speaking about something he should know about.[/p][/quote]Im sure he does and im sure you do too. Must irk you to have the son of a ..stropmag account deleted, your main account and have to rely on your girly account to post off. LOL E -Type

2:26pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

E -Type wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese l wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.
Boredom kills... the thread and you have murdered many with your sniffling boring chat about not being able to get off your head and escape your humdrum life...
Another brainwashed prohibitionist?
Err, no...one who has made his own mind up based on his own opinion of things...thats alright isn't it?
Thats a sign of low intelligence, you should make up your mind on the basis of the evidence, not "opinion", you clown. Still waiting for your apology about the VAB, late 60s technology, spacesuits etc etc, although as that depends on you having enough brains to find the real facts and being man enough to admit you are wrong I won't hold my breath.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.[/p][/quote]Boredom kills... the thread and you have murdered many with your sniffling boring chat about not being able to get off your head and escape your humdrum life...[/p][/quote]Another brainwashed prohibitionist?[/p][/quote]Err, no...one who has made his own mind up based on his own opinion of things...thats alright isn't it?[/p][/quote]Thats a sign of low intelligence, you should make up your mind on the basis of the evidence, not "opinion", you clown. Still waiting for your apology about the VAB, late 60s technology, spacesuits etc etc, although as that depends on you having enough brains to find the real facts and being man enough to admit you are wrong I won't hold my breath. Truth Will Prevail

2:34pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

jayman wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese

l
wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese



l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese





l
wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal -

Vested Interest
The pressure from alcohol lobby
GW Pharma
Cowardly Politicians
Personal Prejudices
Greed
Money made from prohibition
Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place

Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers.
Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with -

Harm reduction
Science
Evidence
Expert Advice
Public opinion
To see drug dealers out of business long term
Or to prevent under age use

Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited -

Racism
Control
Money
Personal prejudices
The financial threat of Hemp Production
And more...


Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.
i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea
Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable.
'anti cancer' 'anti psychotic' are you fu-c-king serious!!!

cancer is a fault in the reproduction in cells, there are millions on trigger factors in this fault and usually start due to sustained genetic damage or cellular exposure to carcinogenic substances, cannabis 'is' a carcinogenic substance!!!!

cancer is an anti-psychotic?

you deluded fu-ckwit, no! it is not.

I WORK IN ADULT MENTAL HEALTH.
how about you stick to offering advice about the best grinder to use or how to make a spliff and leave the adult chit chat to people who know what they are talking about..

that's the most dangerous and misinformed comment I have read in a long time!!
Adult mental health? Can i then ask what do you make of a poster who had many accounts and would post and use his other accounts to reply to himself and to support his posts. Who also used a female persona to post as well ( Gina the weana) Very Telling?

Effects of too much of the weed?
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.[/p][/quote]Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.[/p][/quote]i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea[/p][/quote]Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable.[/p][/quote]'anti cancer' 'anti psychotic' are you fu-c-king serious!!! cancer is a fault in the reproduction in cells, there are millions on trigger factors in this fault and usually start due to sustained genetic damage or cellular exposure to carcinogenic substances, cannabis 'is' a carcinogenic substance!!!! cancer is an anti-psychotic? you deluded fu-ckwit, no! it is not. I WORK IN ADULT MENTAL HEALTH. how about you stick to offering advice about the best grinder to use or how to make a spliff and leave the adult chit chat to people who know what they are talking about.. that's the most dangerous and misinformed comment I have read in a long time!![/p][/quote]Adult mental health? Can i then ask what do you make of a poster who had many accounts and would post and use his other accounts to reply to himself and to support his posts. Who also used a female persona to post as well ( Gina the weana) Very Telling? Effects of too much of the weed? E -Type

2:38pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

And what would you make of a poster who claims to be more intelligent than anyone else on here but makes childish assertions that schoolchidren can see straight through? The consequence of in-breeding and mental health issues perhaps?
And what would you make of a poster who claims to be more intelligent than anyone else on here but makes childish assertions that schoolchidren can see straight through? The consequence of in-breeding and mental health issues perhaps? Truth Will Prevail

2:48pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
jayman wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese l wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese l wrote:
Nebs wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese l wrote:
Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.
The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.
Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.
Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.
i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea
Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable.
'anti cancer' 'anti psychotic' are you fu-c-king serious!!! cancer is a fault in the reproduction in cells, there are millions on trigger factors in this fault and usually start due to sustained genetic damage or cellular exposure to carcinogenic substances, cannabis 'is' a carcinogenic substance!!!! cancer is an anti-psychotic? you deluded fu-ckwit, no! it is not. I WORK IN ADULT MENTAL HEALTH. how about you stick to offering advice about the best grinder to use or how to make a spliff and leave the adult chit chat to people who know what they are talking about.. that's the most dangerous and misinformed comment I have read in a long time!!
Fool. Actually one of the two main ingredients in Cannabis IS an anti psychotic as you'd know if you actually knew anything about the subject. More proof that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing (applies to ET too as on another story he's trying to tell me that man cannot travel through the Van Allen Belt and we didn't have the technology in the late sixties to send a man to the moon, laughable, we didn't just go once, we went half a dozen times).
"Van allen belt"

Would seem NASA Chief Dan Goldin thought this to be a problem too when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. Seems he forgot man had been to the moon 6 times by then... LOL yeah right.

"we didn't just go once, we went half a dozen times" We? Any independent evidence to prove that? No thought not (as you are wont to say when you ask a question)

Perhaps you were drugging the weed when man 'landed on the moon' man! LOL hilarious!
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]From what I read on here about how wonderful and harmless it is, I'm surprised that the government don't just legalise it but also make it compulsory.[/p][/quote]The reasons why cannabis is still illegal - Vested Interest The pressure from alcohol lobby GW Pharma Cowardly Politicians Personal Prejudices Greed Money made from prohibition Certain jobs secured with prohibition in place Cannabis isnt illegal because its harmful, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco would be class A drugs and coffee would be sold by bootleggers. Cannabis being against the law has nothing to do with - Harm reduction Science Evidence Expert Advice Public opinion To see drug dealers out of business long term Or to prevent under age use Many reasons why cannabis was first prohibited - Racism Control Money Personal prejudices The financial threat of Hemp Production And more... Cannabis isnt harmless, but your fooling yourself if you think whats why its illegal. Man has been using this plant for over 10,000 years non problematically. This unjust prohibition is just a blip in time.[/p][/quote]Thanks. What harm does it do, and what evidence do you have for statement that it isn't harmless.[/p][/quote]Well of course it isnt harmless. But when you compare the harms to other legal drugs including pharmaceuticals, you will see that cannabis is the least harmful. The harms mostly come from people adding tobacco in with their cannabis. But the biggest harm in my opinion is when kids use cannabis. To put it in perspective, alcohol and certain life experiences can cause more harm to the developing brain than cannabis, yet anything that could cause a change in a young persons brain should be avoided. So its not harmless, but it is the safest recreational drug and medicine on earth. The other harms surrounding cannabis are down to the fact criminals control the market. Gang violence, contamination, a lack in CBD (the anti psychotic chemical found in cannabis) and so on. What really annoys me is that with criminals controlling cannabis, kids find it very easy to obtain. So when prohibitionists assume people like me wanting legal regulation comes from a selfish place is simply wrong. Its about harm reduction, not pretending that everything is fine and prohibition works. If it was working then why are criminals able to become rich from selling cannabis? Why do children find cannabis easier to obtain than alcohol and tobacco (even with those legal drugs so poorly regulated). Its a fail which places the vulnerable in a dangerous situation. Lets stop pretending millions of people dont use cannabis, because they do. The demand doesnt go away because its illegal.[/p][/quote]i thought your strapline was "less harmful than aspirin". well aspirin does you some good believe it or not. i'm guessing you'll dispute that too. cue 17 paragraphs of verbal diarrhea[/p][/quote]Cannabis does more good than aspirin. As far as i know, aspirin doesnt have anti psychotic and anti cancer properties. Cannabis does. Aspirin isnt as versatile as cannabis, meaning its just a medicine. You cannot create fuel, textiles, building materials and so on with aspirin. It seems your against cannabis, but for no particular reason. Keep supporting a policy which gifts criminals the control over cannabis, a policy born out of fear, racism and greed, and only still exists because of cowardly politicians and their vested interest. More interested in protecting alcohol companies than the young and vulnerable.[/p][/quote]'anti cancer' 'anti psychotic' are you fu-c-king serious!!! cancer is a fault in the reproduction in cells, there are millions on trigger factors in this fault and usually start due to sustained genetic damage or cellular exposure to carcinogenic substances, cannabis 'is' a carcinogenic substance!!!! cancer is an anti-psychotic? you deluded fu-ckwit, no! it is not. I WORK IN ADULT MENTAL HEALTH. how about you stick to offering advice about the best grinder to use or how to make a spliff and leave the adult chit chat to people who know what they are talking about.. that's the most dangerous and misinformed comment I have read in a long time!![/p][/quote]Fool. Actually one of the two main ingredients in Cannabis IS an anti psychotic as you'd know if you actually knew anything about the subject. More proof that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing (applies to ET too as on another story he's trying to tell me that man cannot travel through the Van Allen Belt and we didn't have the technology in the late sixties to send a man to the moon, laughable, we didn't just go once, we went half a dozen times).[/p][/quote]"Van allen belt" Would seem NASA Chief Dan Goldin thought this to be a problem too when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. Seems he forgot man had been to the moon 6 times by then... LOL yeah right. "we didn't just go once, we went half a dozen times" We? Any independent evidence to prove that? No thought not (as you are wont to say when you ask a question) Perhaps you were drugging the weed when man 'landed on the moon' man! LOL hilarious! E -Type

2:55pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

You truly are an imbecile ET, both the US and the USSR sent dozens of unmanned lunar orbiters and landers plus the US sent five manned lunar orbiters to the moon prior to Apollo 11 plus loads more have been there since and guess what? The technology was good enough to get them there, and back, and none of the astronauts or cosmonauts died from radiation sickness from their pass through the Van Allen Belt. You really are a classic example of a little bit of knowledge being a very, very dangerous thing. Ho ho ho!
You truly are an imbecile ET, both the US and the USSR sent dozens of unmanned lunar orbiters and landers plus the US sent five manned lunar orbiters to the moon prior to Apollo 11 plus loads more have been there since and guess what? The technology was good enough to get them there, and back, and none of the astronauts or cosmonauts died from radiation sickness from their pass through the Van Allen Belt. You really are a classic example of a little bit of knowledge being a very, very dangerous thing. Ho ho ho! Truth Will Prevail

3:03pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
E -Type wrote:
SuperSilverSourDiese l wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.
Boredom kills... the thread and you have murdered many with your sniffling boring chat about not being able to get off your head and escape your humdrum life...
Another brainwashed prohibitionist?
Err, no...one who has made his own mind up based on his own opinion of things...thats alright isn't it?
Thats a sign of low intelligence, you should make up your mind on the basis of the evidence, not "opinion", you clown. Still waiting for your apology about the VAB, late 60s technology, spacesuits etc etc, although as that depends on you having enough brains to find the real facts and being man enough to admit you are wrong I won't hold my breath.
" sign of low intelligence"

Any link to what you say? Any evidence? You did check thats the case didn't you? I mean didn't you?

Or have you given your opinion without any evidence?

if you cant provide evidence does that mean you are of low intelligence?

Hung by your own petard?


Im off the mind that everything you say is what you have thought and not bothered to check.

You think it and then post it!

You telling another poster to check his outrageous hypercriticism is the act of an outrageous hypocrite!

You are always looking for apologies for things you are wrong on. Theres a mental health worker on here, im sure he can diagnose whats wrong with you...i just think your bonkers!


Man never went to the moon get over it..
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Asprin causes stomach ulcers, Paracetomol damages internal organs and kills dozens every year. Peanut butter kills. Glass doors kill. Horse riding kills. Bees kill. But no-one has ever died from an overdose of Cannabis in the history of the earth. Why am I telling you this? You've been told this dozens of times but you are incapable of learning that simple fact. Give it up SSSD, he really isn't worth it.[/p][/quote]Boredom kills... the thread and you have murdered many with your sniffling boring chat about not being able to get off your head and escape your humdrum life...[/p][/quote]Another brainwashed prohibitionist?[/p][/quote]Err, no...one who has made his own mind up based on his own opinion of things...thats alright isn't it?[/p][/quote]Thats a sign of low intelligence, you should make up your mind on the basis of the evidence, not "opinion", you clown. Still waiting for your apology about the VAB, late 60s technology, spacesuits etc etc, although as that depends on you having enough brains to find the real facts and being man enough to admit you are wrong I won't hold my breath.[/p][/quote]" sign of low intelligence" Any link to what you say? Any evidence? You did check thats the case didn't you? I mean didn't you? Or have you given your opinion without any evidence? if you cant provide evidence does that mean you are of low intelligence? Hung by your own petard? Im off the mind that everything you say is what you have thought and not bothered to check. You think it and then post it! You telling another poster to check his outrageous hypercriticism is the act of an outrageous hypocrite! You are always looking for apologies for things you are wrong on. Theres a mental health worker on here, im sure he can diagnose whats wrong with you...i just think your bonkers! Man never went to the moon get over it.. E -Type

3:06pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
And what would you make of a poster who claims to be more intelligent than anyone else on here but makes childish assertions that schoolchidren can see straight through? The consequence of in-breeding and mental health issues perhaps?
"who claims to be more intelligent than anyone else on here"

Can you show where that claim was made? Or is this more of your lies when you are cornered?

Havent you been proven to be a liar on here many times and yet you continue to post them?

Too much weed? Or just a pathological liar? Or bit of both.
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: And what would you make of a poster who claims to be more intelligent than anyone else on here but makes childish assertions that schoolchidren can see straight through? The consequence of in-breeding and mental health issues perhaps?[/p][/quote]"who claims to be more intelligent than anyone else on here" Can you show where that claim was made? Or is this more of your lies when you are cornered? Havent you been proven to be a liar on here many times and yet you continue to post them? Too much weed? Or just a pathological liar? Or bit of both. E -Type

3:07pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Ha ha ha! The evidence is all there numb nuts. You truly are the most childish ignorant muppet it has ever been my misfortune to come across, just glad I don't live near you.
Ha ha ha! The evidence is all there numb nuts. You truly are the most childish ignorant muppet it has ever been my misfortune to come across, just glad I don't live near you. Truth Will Prevail

3:10pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

PS are you now saying that both the Americans and the Russians faked all the dozens and dozens of lunar probes, orbiters, landers etc both before and after the A11 mission? Truly laughable! Go learn some REAL facts before you bother posting again.
PS are you now saying that both the Americans and the Russians faked all the dozens and dozens of lunar probes, orbiters, landers etc both before and after the A11 mission? Truly laughable! Go learn some REAL facts before you bother posting again. Truth Will Prevail

3:11pm Sun 30 Sep 12

stropmag. says...

E -Type wrote:
Gina the weaner wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.
our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?
Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days.
Self-abuse is no boasting matter...
At last! Speaking about something he should know about.
Im sure he does and im sure you do too.

Must irk you to have the son of a ..stropmag account deleted, your main account and have to rely on your girly account to post off. LOL
Ah! E -Type, you seek to have changed your name whilst I've been on vacation. I'm not sure what you mean about my son's account having been deleted. First he's heard of it!

I see you now claim to be an authority on space travel. I guess you have a head start on us mere Earthlings with your Pavee background, your ancestors having arrived from some distant galaxy. Or is TWP closer to the truth when he says you are an imbecile?
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gina the weaner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.[/p][/quote]our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?[/p][/quote]Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days.[/p][/quote]Self-abuse is no boasting matter...[/p][/quote]At last! Speaking about something he should know about.[/p][/quote]Im sure he does and im sure you do too. Must irk you to have the son of a ..stropmag account deleted, your main account and have to rely on your girly account to post off. LOL[/p][/quote]Ah! E -Type, you seek to have changed your name whilst I've been on vacation. I'm not sure what you mean about my son's account having been deleted. First he's heard of it! I see you now claim to be an authority on space travel. I guess you have a head start on us mere Earthlings with your Pavee background, your ancestors having arrived from some distant galaxy. Or is TWP closer to the truth when he says you are an imbecile? stropmag.

3:57pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

High five Stropmag. Actually it was ET who had his account stopped, hence his new name, whilst I had my old one reinstated because ET had made an "unjustifiable" complaint about me. And if ET continues with his rudeness he'll get cancelled again, ha ha!
.
Do you want a laugh? On the "Rector publishes book" story he claims that Neil Armstrong was moving the same as he would do on earth ..."Strange how they only jumped as high as they would of done if they had been on earth. LOL"
.
I showed this to my little grandson as ET is a perfect example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing and guess what? Even my grandson saw straight through his assertion and asked me how heavy the suits were. When I told him they weigh the best part of 200 lbs he immediately said you couldn't jump around in them anywhere on earth, which is true, and even on the moon you would jump very carefully. From the mouths of babes! So a ten year old boy is more intelligent than ET!Always said his level of logic and understanding reminded me of junior school kids and there's the proof! Ha ha ha, ho ho ho, he he he!
.
Can't wait to hear his explanation of how all the other astronauts and cosmonauts have survived passing through the Van Allen Belt on their way to the moon (no VA radiation actually on the moon of course) and how the US and USSR have managed to send dozens more unmanned landers, orbiters etc to the moon before and since A11 if they "didn't have the technology" to do it. Strange, stupid, ludicrous little man.
High five Stropmag. Actually it was ET who had his account stopped, hence his new name, whilst I had my old one reinstated because ET had made an "unjustifiable" complaint about me. And if ET continues with his rudeness he'll get cancelled again, ha ha! . Do you want a laugh? On the "Rector publishes book" story he claims that Neil Armstrong was moving the same as he would do on earth ..."Strange how they only jumped as high as they would of done if they had been on earth. LOL" . I showed this to my little grandson as ET is a perfect example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing and guess what? Even my grandson saw straight through his assertion and asked me how heavy the suits were. When I told him they weigh the best part of 200 lbs he immediately said you couldn't jump around in them anywhere on earth, which is true, and even on the moon you would jump very carefully. From the mouths of babes! So a ten year old boy is more intelligent than ET!Always said his level of logic and understanding reminded me of junior school kids and there's the proof! Ha ha ha, ho ho ho, he he he! . Can't wait to hear his explanation of how all the other astronauts and cosmonauts have survived passing through the Van Allen Belt on their way to the moon (no VA radiation actually on the moon of course) and how the US and USSR have managed to send dozens more unmanned landers, orbiters etc to the moon before and since A11 if they "didn't have the technology" to do it. Strange, stupid, ludicrous little man. Truth Will Prevail

4:42pm Sun 30 Sep 12

jayman says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Still waiting for your response Jayman. You may work in a mental health unit but you sure aint no Doctor or Nurse cos they wouldn't be so stupid as to make the assertions you have made without checking their facts first. Are you a cleaner, or maybe a patient? That would make more sense. Before you blast off again with your unsubstantiated claims, CHECK YOUR FACTS, I suggest 'Google Scholar' as a good place to start, where you will find that one of the two main active ingredients of cannabis is indeed an anti psychotic and there is also a growing body of evidence that some of the active ingredients of cannabis do indeed supress certain cancers (the name Guzman springs to mind) so CHECK YOUR FACTS before you put your size nines in it again.
lol.. the irony is I couldn't respond as i was at work.

cannabis is not an anti-psychotic nor is it or dose it have scientifically proven cancer fighting/curing abilities,

i suppose you think it is a 'conspiracy' by pharmaceutical companies to suppress its potential research.

no!

its not an anti-psychotic. cannabis has been linked to psychosis.

the research about supposed THC naturally occurring in the human body is wrong. THC is a chemical substance that AEA 'dopamine'

THC is created by the cannabis plant as a natural pesticide. animals will eat the cannabis weed and become sick and unable to concentrate,

it suggests a synergy in how plants have evolved and how plants create substances as simple neurotoxin to affect animals but cannot indicate the direct link.. ie the plant uses it as a defence.

why the fu-ck would a plant create a psychoactive chemical exact to the one we naturally produce when the plant has no central nervous system...

cannabis as an anti cancer drug?

im not even going to get involved with this utterly stupid hypothesis..
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Still waiting for your response Jayman. You may work in a mental health unit but you sure aint no Doctor or Nurse cos they wouldn't be so stupid as to make the assertions you have made without checking their facts first. Are you a cleaner, or maybe a patient? That would make more sense. Before you blast off again with your unsubstantiated claims, CHECK YOUR FACTS, I suggest 'Google Scholar' as a good place to start, where you will find that one of the two main active ingredients of cannabis is indeed an anti psychotic and there is also a growing body of evidence that some of the active ingredients of cannabis do indeed supress certain cancers (the name Guzman springs to mind) so CHECK YOUR FACTS before you put your size nines in it again.[/p][/quote]lol.. the irony is I couldn't respond as i was at work. cannabis is not an anti-psychotic nor is it or dose it have scientifically proven cancer fighting/curing abilities, i suppose you think it is a 'conspiracy' by pharmaceutical companies to suppress its potential research. no! its not an anti-psychotic. cannabis has been linked to psychosis. the research about supposed THC naturally occurring in the human body is wrong. THC is a chemical substance that [mimics] AEA 'dopamine' THC is created by the cannabis plant as a natural pesticide. animals will eat the cannabis weed and become sick and unable to concentrate, it suggests a synergy in how plants have evolved and how plants create substances as simple neurotoxin to affect animals but cannot indicate the direct link.. ie the plant uses it as a defence. why the fu-ck would a plant create a psychoactive chemical exact to the one we naturally produce when the plant has no central nervous system... cannabis as an anti cancer drug? im not even going to get involved with this utterly stupid hypothesis.. jayman

4:53pm Sun 30 Sep 12

jayman says...

missed a bit in the above post.

AEA dopamine is a psychoactive neurotransmitter that acts on the central nervous system and is counteracted by endorphins.

THC is a psychoactive 'drug' that in no way resembles the AEA molecule.
missed a bit in the above post. AEA [HO HO NH2] dopamine is a psychoactive neurotransmitter that acts on the central nervous system and is counteracted by endorphins. THC [(H3C H3C) H-H CH3 O OH CH3] is a psychoactive 'drug' that in no way resembles the AEA molecule. jayman

4:58pm Sun 30 Sep 12

jayman says...

THC molecule

(H3C H3C) CH3 H-H OH CH3

AEA dopamine molecule

(HO HO) NH2

alas THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!!!!!

d1ck
THC molecule (H3C H3C) CH3 H-H OH CH3 AEA dopamine molecule (HO HO) NH2 alas THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!!!!! d1ck jayman

5:06pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
You truly are an imbecile ET, both the US and the USSR sent dozens of unmanned lunar orbiters and landers plus the US sent five manned lunar orbiters to the moon prior to Apollo 11 plus loads more have been there since and guess what? The technology was good enough to get them there, and back, and none of the astronauts or cosmonauts died from radiation sickness from their pass through the Van Allen Belt. You really are a classic example of a little bit of knowledge being a very, very dangerous thing. Ho ho ho!
Take it back over to the thread dealing with this ( the poor vicars thread) rather than trying to state you lack of proof again on another thread to avoid the gaze of those up to pace after reading the debate on said thread..

BTW why do you make mention of unmanned probes or landings! they are not in question..to muddy the waters...i do think so...Get thee back to the other thread you flat earther!
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: You truly are an imbecile ET, both the US and the USSR sent dozens of unmanned lunar orbiters and landers plus the US sent five manned lunar orbiters to the moon prior to Apollo 11 plus loads more have been there since and guess what? The technology was good enough to get them there, and back, and none of the astronauts or cosmonauts died from radiation sickness from their pass through the Van Allen Belt. You really are a classic example of a little bit of knowledge being a very, very dangerous thing. Ho ho ho![/p][/quote]Take it back over to the thread dealing with this ( the poor vicars thread) rather than trying to state you lack of proof again on another thread to avoid the gaze of those up to pace after reading the debate on said thread.. BTW why do you make mention of unmanned probes or landings! they are not in question..to muddy the waters...i do think so...Get thee back to the other thread you flat earther! E -Type

5:12pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Ha ha ha! The evidence is all there numb nuts. You truly are the most childish ignorant muppet it has ever been my misfortune to come across, just glad I don't live near you.
If the evidence is all there that those who give opinion on something without checking that what they say is evidenced then lets see the evidence of that? Come lets see it, rather than just saying its there give a link to it..


Or is it you have in fact fallen foul to the exact thing you were stating as fact?

It clear there is no evidence!

Which means you have given your opinion with evidence which in turn means, going by your own logic, you are of low intelligence...Im think that is evidenced by your posts...you are your own worse enemy when posting, the Hadleigh stoner is a name you have earned...very much the forum clown..
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Ha ha ha! The evidence is all there numb nuts. You truly are the most childish ignorant muppet it has ever been my misfortune to come across, just glad I don't live near you.[/p][/quote]If the evidence is all there that those who give opinion on something without checking that what they say is evidenced then lets see the evidence of that? Come lets see it, rather than just saying its there give a link to it.. Or is it you have in fact fallen foul to the exact thing you were stating as fact? It clear there is no evidence! Which means you have given your opinion with evidence which in turn means, going by your own logic, you are of low intelligence...Im think that is evidenced by your posts...you are your own worse enemy when posting, the Hadleigh stoner is a name you have earned...very much the forum clown.. E -Type

5:17pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
PS are you now saying that both the Americans and the Russians faked all the dozens and dozens of lunar probes, orbiters, landers etc both before and after the A11 mission? Truly laughable! Go learn some REAL facts before you bother posting again.
Take it to the other post and you will see, as you already know, this is about men on the moon and nothing else although you try the strawman argument to try wriggle like some slitering twisting thing...
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: PS are you now saying that both the Americans and the Russians faked all the dozens and dozens of lunar probes, orbiters, landers etc both before and after the A11 mission? Truly laughable! Go learn some REAL facts before you bother posting again.[/p][/quote]Take it to the other post and you will see, as you already know, this is about men on the moon and nothing else although you try the strawman argument to try wriggle like some slitering twisting thing... E -Type

5:37pm Sun 30 Sep 12

jayman says...

or the molecular formulas of

dopamine

C8H11NO2

THC

C21H30O2
or the molecular formulas of dopamine C8H11NO2 THC C21H30O2 jayman

5:57pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

stropmag. wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Gina the weaner wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.
our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?
Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days.
Self-abuse is no boasting matter...
At last! Speaking about something he should know about.
Im sure he does and im sure you do too.

Must irk you to have the son of a ..stropmag account deleted, your main account and have to rely on your girly account to post off. LOL
Ah! E -Type, you seek to have changed your name whilst I've been on vacation. I'm not sure what you mean about my son's account having been deleted. First he's heard of it!

I see you now claim to be an authority on space travel. I guess you have a head start on us mere Earthlings with your Pavee background, your ancestors having arrived from some distant galaxy. Or is TWP closer to the truth when he says you are an imbecile?
Oh dear the head nutcase is back...or so the poster would have us believe.

Son of a ..... had most of his multiple accounts deleted, he needed them to shore up his pitiable personality, but if you are his "dada" as he called you, then you will be aware of this rather limited contributions and need for additional support.

He is still posting as a female though...were you aware of....things?

He has made a pathetic idiot out of himself.. but then like father like son...lol

I claim nothing in regards to being an authority, how have you come to that conclusion?

My culture like yours is from earth as far as i know...by that i mean unless you tell me differently about yours!

Even then i'd not believe Somalians were from another planet, country yes but not planet.

I say there is much debate that the moon landings didn't take place and i believe that to be the case and for that you label me an imbecile.

Whilst saying my culture came from "some distant galaxy"

I would think anyone posting like you have, about people coming from another planet, would be more fitting of the epithet "imbecile'

But then it takes all sorts.

The thread is cannabis..for or against?

Your 'son' in his guise as a female hasn't given his opinion on the matter yet..perhaps he was waiting for you...

Btw TWP is also known as the Hadleigh Stoner.. so we dont need to ask his opinion on illegal drug taking.
[quote][p][bold]stropmag.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gina the weaner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Take no notice of old Asbo, life must have treated him harshly, maybe he was bullied at school, maybe mummy didn't cuddle him enough when he was young. Whatever the problem it has left him a bitter twisted individual who can't help slagging off anything and everything he doesn't understand, bless him.[/p][/quote]our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. got that truthy?[/p][/quote]Ah, I upset him, sorry Asbo. Btw your life might be empty and mundane but mine certainly isn't, if only you knew what I've been doing over the last month, happy days.[/p][/quote]Self-abuse is no boasting matter...[/p][/quote]At last! Speaking about something he should know about.[/p][/quote]Im sure he does and im sure you do too. Must irk you to have the son of a ..stropmag account deleted, your main account and have to rely on your girly account to post off. LOL[/p][/quote]Ah! E -Type, you seek to have changed your name whilst I've been on vacation. I'm not sure what you mean about my son's account having been deleted. First he's heard of it! I see you now claim to be an authority on space travel. I guess you have a head start on us mere Earthlings with your Pavee background, your ancestors having arrived from some distant galaxy. Or is TWP closer to the truth when he says you are an imbecile?[/p][/quote]Oh dear the head nutcase is back...or so the poster would have us believe. Son of a ..... had most of his multiple accounts deleted, he needed them to shore up his pitiable personality, but if you are his "dada" as he called you, then you will be aware of this rather limited contributions and need for additional support. He is still posting as a female though...were you aware of....things? He has made a pathetic idiot out of himself.. but then like father like son...lol I claim nothing in regards to being an authority, how have you come to that conclusion? My culture like yours is from earth as far as i know...by that i mean unless you tell me differently about yours! Even then i'd not believe Somalians were from another planet, country yes but not planet. I say there is much debate that the moon landings didn't take place and i believe that to be the case and for that you label me an imbecile. Whilst saying my culture came from "some distant galaxy" I would think anyone posting like you have, about people coming from another planet, would be more fitting of the epithet "imbecile' But then it takes all sorts. The thread is cannabis..for or against? Your 'son' in his guise as a female hasn't given his opinion on the matter yet..perhaps he was waiting for you... Btw TWP is also known as the Hadleigh Stoner.. so we dont need to ask his opinion on illegal drug taking. E -Type

6:00pm Sun 30 Sep 12

jayman says...

and if you think that the immune messenger Endocrinol endocannabinoids found in the human body have anything to do with feeling 'high' then think again. the G-protein coupled receptors prevent the second chemical messenger from having an effect on the receptors CB1 and CB2 which is controlled by the said g-protein, introducing high levels of cannabis into the body reduces and damages the G-protein and, this effect will cause more chemicals to interact with the CB1 and CB2 receptors

AKA paranoid schizophrenia.

now lets have a look at the CB1 receptor antagonists..

..............

i think i may have lost the wiki experts by now..... thank god for that!
and if you think that the immune messenger Endocrinol endocannabinoids found in the human body have anything to do with feeling 'high' then think again. the G-protein coupled receptors prevent the second chemical messenger from having an effect on the receptors CB1 and CB2 which is controlled by the said g-protein, introducing high levels of cannabis into the body reduces and damages the G-protein and, this effect will cause more chemicals to interact with the CB1 and CB2 receptors AKA paranoid schizophrenia. now lets have a look at the CB1 receptor antagonists.. .............. i think i may have lost the wiki experts by now..... thank god for that! jayman

6:27pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
High five Stropmag. Actually it was ET who had his account stopped, hence his new name, whilst I had my old one reinstated because ET had made an "unjustifiable" complaint about me. And if ET continues with his rudeness he'll get cancelled again, ha ha!
.
Do you want a laugh? On the "Rector publishes book" story he claims that Neil Armstrong was moving the same as he would do on earth ..."Strange how they only jumped as high as they would of done if they had been on earth. LOL"
.
I showed this to my little grandson as ET is a perfect example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing and guess what? Even my grandson saw straight through his assertion and asked me how heavy the suits were. When I told him they weigh the best part of 200 lbs he immediately said you couldn't jump around in them anywhere on earth, which is true, and even on the moon you would jump very carefully. From the mouths of babes! So a ten year old boy is more intelligent than ET!Always said his level of logic and understanding reminded me of junior school kids and there's the proof! Ha ha ha, ho ho ho, he he he!
.
Can't wait to hear his explanation of how all the other astronauts and cosmonauts have survived passing through the Van Allen Belt on their way to the moon (no VA radiation actually on the moon of course) and how the US and USSR have managed to send dozens more unmanned landers, orbiters etc to the moon before and since A11 if they "didn't have the technology" to do it. Strange, stupid, ludicrous little man.
Oh i see, I was rightly restricted while you were unfairly punished...thats seems to be the sonnet of your life doesn't it? " why is everyone picking on me" You are so pathetic.

If I had made an "unjustifiable" complaint against you, which i didn't, then why was you removed?

It would seem you were removed for a justified reason or you wouldn't of been removed. You are really an ill illogical person aren't you! You contradict yourself constantly or post comment that rebound on you...like a few on here and the other thread.

Hadleigh stoner? More like the Hadleigh moaner!

Rudeness? You mean in proving you wrong time and again and pointing out the inadequacies in your posts, which are invariably aimed at me.

You posts to me are littered with name calling...and yet you complain of name calling...you are really troubled.

As For N.Armstrong..It is indeed strange that his weight would of been in the region of 17% of that on earth yet when he jumped he didn't jump as he should of been able to jump 6, 7, 8 feet, but just a foot or so, as if he was on earth. Perhaps he had smoked some of the weed and was too laid back to try?

As for the space suit, which wouldn't of worked anyway and wouldn't of fitted through the hatch of the lander...17% of 200 ilbs is?

Laughing at your ill presented and rambling 'evidence' really does give a clue to your 'reality'

As for the VAB The problem with the Van Allen belts is not that you can't fly though them, because it probably is possible to fly through them, but that at the time Apollo was being planned nobody knew anything about them!

And still don't know everything. If you look at info on the size height and consistency of the belts you come up with many varied figures depentding on the source. When the Apollo craft were supposedly sent to the moon they were like a diver who jumps into water not knowing how deep it is. They couldn't have devised suits and ships to survive because they didn't know they had to.

Again you pretend something i have ever mentioned. I have stated that the technology available at the time would not of allowed man to land on the moon...i never stated it wouldn't allow man to go into space. You are so desperate to prove yourself right you lie about the posts proving you wrong!

It clear you are off in the stars...
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: High five Stropmag. Actually it was ET who had his account stopped, hence his new name, whilst I had my old one reinstated because ET had made an "unjustifiable" complaint about me. And if ET continues with his rudeness he'll get cancelled again, ha ha! . Do you want a laugh? On the "Rector publishes book" story he claims that Neil Armstrong was moving the same as he would do on earth ..."Strange how they only jumped as high as they would of done if they had been on earth. LOL" . I showed this to my little grandson as ET is a perfect example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing and guess what? Even my grandson saw straight through his assertion and asked me how heavy the suits were. When I told him they weigh the best part of 200 lbs he immediately said you couldn't jump around in them anywhere on earth, which is true, and even on the moon you would jump very carefully. From the mouths of babes! So a ten year old boy is more intelligent than ET!Always said his level of logic and understanding reminded me of junior school kids and there's the proof! Ha ha ha, ho ho ho, he he he! . Can't wait to hear his explanation of how all the other astronauts and cosmonauts have survived passing through the Van Allen Belt on their way to the moon (no VA radiation actually on the moon of course) and how the US and USSR have managed to send dozens more unmanned landers, orbiters etc to the moon before and since A11 if they "didn't have the technology" to do it. Strange, stupid, ludicrous little man.[/p][/quote]Oh i see, I was rightly restricted while you were unfairly punished...thats seems to be the sonnet of your life doesn't it? " why is everyone picking on me" You are so pathetic. If I had made an "unjustifiable" complaint against you, which i didn't, then why was you removed? It would seem you were removed for a justified reason or you wouldn't of been removed. You are really an ill illogical person aren't you! You contradict yourself constantly or post comment that rebound on you...like a few on here and the other thread. Hadleigh stoner? More like the Hadleigh moaner! Rudeness? You mean in proving you wrong time and again and pointing out the inadequacies in your posts, which are invariably aimed at me. You posts to me are littered with name calling...and yet you complain of name calling...you are really troubled. As For N.Armstrong..It is indeed strange that his weight would of been in the region of 17% of that on earth yet when he jumped he didn't jump as he should of been able to jump 6, 7, 8 feet, but just a foot or so, as if he was on earth. Perhaps he had smoked some of the weed and was too laid back to try? As for the space suit, which wouldn't of worked anyway and wouldn't of fitted through the hatch of the lander...17% of 200 ilbs is? Laughing at your ill presented and rambling 'evidence' really does give a clue to your 'reality' As for the VAB The problem with the Van Allen belts is not that you can't fly though them, because it probably is possible to fly through them, but that at the time Apollo was being planned nobody knew anything about them! And still don't know everything. If you look at info on the size height and consistency of the belts you come up with many varied figures depentding on the source. When the Apollo craft were supposedly sent to the moon they were like a diver who jumps into water not knowing how deep it is. They couldn't have devised suits and ships to survive because they didn't know they had to. Again you pretend something i have ever mentioned. I have stated that the technology available at the time would not of allowed man to land on the moon...i never stated it wouldn't allow man to go into space. You are so desperate to prove yourself right you lie about the posts proving you wrong! It clear you are off in the stars... E -Type

6:38pm Sun 30 Sep 12

stropmag. says...

@E -Type:

You Said: “Son of a ..... had most of his multiple accounts deleted, he needed them to shore up his pitiable personality, but if you are his "dada" as he called you, then you will be aware of this rather limited contributions and need for additional support.”


I would be surprised if my son referred to me as “dada”. I have only ever known him to refer to me as “Father” or Dad”.

You Said: “He is still posting as a female though...were you aware of....things?”


You are still posting as a male…so…

You Said: “I claim nothing in regards to being an authority, how have you come to that conclusion?”


Because of your unbending assertions that fly in the face of what is generally accepted. One is entitled, surely, to conclude that you consider yourself to know better and in my book that would make you an authority. You are not of course but that is what you imply.

You Said: “My culture like yours is from earth as far as i know...by that i mean unless you tell me differently about yours! “


Sorry, I thought you had secret languages passed down- never written- from thousands of years past. Also customs that cannot be divulged as they too are secret. All the stuff of science fiction and pre-historic alien visitations, surely?

You Said: “I say there is much debate that the moon landings didn't take place and i believe that to be the case and for that you label me an imbecile.”


I think this conspiracy theory was put to bed a long time ago. I did not label you an imbecile, TWP did that for other reasons. I just happen to think he’s right.

You Said: “The thread is cannabis..for or against?”


My personal view is that cannabis is, on balance, less harmful than alcohol which is a legal drug the production and distribution/sale of which is monitored and controlled by the state which derives a substantial income by way of taxation from it. I would like to see cannabis fall under the same regime as alcohol. You will no doubt recall that I do on occasions partake of the drug myself but I happen not to smoke it.

You Said: “Your 'son' in his guise as a female hasn't given his opinion on the matter yet..perhaps he was waiting for you...”


You will have to ask him about that.

You Said: “Btw TWP is also known as the Hadleigh Stoner.. so we dont need to ask his opinion on illegal drug taking.”


You may not need to but I would value his opinion even if I did not agree with him.
@E -Type: You Said: “Son of a ..... had most of his multiple accounts deleted, he needed them to shore up his pitiable personality, but if you are his "dada" as he called you, then you will be aware of this rather limited contributions and need for additional support.” I would be surprised if my son referred to me as “dada”. I have only ever known him to refer to me as “Father” or Dad”. You Said: “He is still posting as a female though...were you aware of....things?” You are still posting as a male…so… You Said: “I claim nothing in regards to being an authority, how have you come to that conclusion?” Because of your unbending assertions that fly in the face of what is generally accepted. One is entitled, surely, to conclude that you consider yourself to know better and in my book that would make you an authority. You are not of course but that is what you imply. You Said: “My culture like yours is from earth as far as i know...by that i mean unless you tell me differently about yours! “ Sorry, I thought you had secret languages passed down- never written- from thousands of years past. Also customs that cannot be divulged as they too are secret. All the stuff of science fiction and pre-historic alien visitations, surely? You Said: “I say there is much debate that the moon landings didn't take place and i believe that to be the case and for that you label me an imbecile.” I think this conspiracy theory was put to bed a long time ago. I did not label you an imbecile, TWP did that for other reasons. I just happen to think he’s right. You Said: “The thread is cannabis..for or against?” My personal view is that cannabis is, on balance, less harmful than alcohol which is a legal drug the production and distribution/sale of which is monitored and controlled by the state which derives a substantial income by way of taxation from it. I would like to see cannabis fall under the same regime as alcohol. You will no doubt recall that I do on occasions partake of the drug myself but I happen not to smoke it. You Said: “Your 'son' in his guise as a female hasn't given his opinion on the matter yet..perhaps he was waiting for you...” You will have to ask him about that. You Said: “Btw TWP is also known as the Hadleigh Stoner.. so we dont need to ask his opinion on illegal drug taking.” You may not need to but I would value his opinion even if I did not agree with him. stropmag.

7:52pm Sun 30 Sep 12

E -Type says...

stropmag. wrote:
@E -Type:

You Said: “Son of a ..... had most of his multiple accounts deleted, he needed them to shore up his pitiable personality, but if you are his "dada" as he called you, then you will be aware of this rather limited contributions and need for additional support.”


I would be surprised if my son referred to me as “dada”. I have only ever known him to refer to me as “Father” or Dad”.

You Said: “He is still posting as a female though...were you aware of....things?”


You are still posting as a male…so…

You Said: “I claim nothing in regards to being an authority, how have you come to that conclusion?”


Because of your unbending assertions that fly in the face of what is generally accepted. One is entitled, surely, to conclude that you consider yourself to know better and in my book that would make you an authority. You are not of course but that is what you imply.

You Said: “My culture like yours is from earth as far as i know...by that i mean unless you tell me differently about yours! “


Sorry, I thought you had secret languages passed down- never written- from thousands of years past. Also customs that cannot be divulged as they too are secret. All the stuff of science fiction and pre-historic alien visitations, surely?

You Said: “I say there is much debate that the moon landings didn't take place and i believe that to be the case and for that you label me an imbecile.”


I think this conspiracy theory was put to bed a long time ago. I did not label you an imbecile, TWP did that for other reasons. I just happen to think he’s right.

You Said: “The thread is cannabis..for or against?”


My personal view is that cannabis is, on balance, less harmful than alcohol which is a legal drug the production and distribution/sale of which is monitored and controlled by the state which derives a substantial income by way of taxation from it. I would like to see cannabis fall under the same regime as alcohol. You will no doubt recall that I do on occasions partake of the drug myself but I happen not to smoke it.

You Said: “Your 'son' in his guise as a female hasn't given his opinion on the matter yet..perhaps he was waiting for you...”


You will have to ask him about that.

You Said: “Btw TWP is also known as the Hadleigh Stoner.. so we dont need to ask his opinion on illegal drug taking.”


You may not need to but I would value his opinion even if I did not agree with him.
Point by point...

His referring to you is on the other threads go look.

I post as the gender i am...unlike your son, so the question remains...are you aware of ...things?


Is the notion of man walking on the moon " generally accepted "?

I would say that isn't the case as the 100s if not 1000s of sites debunking 'the man on the moon' myth shows!

No authority needed although there does seem to be an awful lot of people with such authority who are of the same mind as i am. You say "Tomato" i say "Tomahto" it then comes down to the more likely. taken everything into consideration its more likely man has never walked on the moon then and hasn't to date, even though technology has advanced man has never 'gone back' WHY, because you would of had need to go in the first place to go 'back'

My culture does indeed have two languages pasted down through the ages... doesn't yours? Or is your language a sort of African Esperanto? ie relatively new?

Are 'in-house' beliefs from any culture the thing of sci-fi? Why?

And why would such beliefs have to be connected to "aliens"

Is it the belief of your culture, that some beliefs by other cultures must be sci-fiction and extraterrestrial? or is that your own conclusion.

See how being reasonable allows information about other cultures to be revealed? Keep it civil and we might enlighten many readers, from the other culture, to what our different cultures believe and think.

Both our cultures get bad posts aimed at them on here! Racist abuse and slurs etc. I have often defended mine against such and im sure you have defended yours too.

The debate on the 'moon landings' has never been put to bed, unless you mean to your satisfaction, which is fair enough. as time goes by its getting more and more likely that people will not accept it happened.

Poor old NA was always very troubled about the whole matter. Never confortable taking about it ans often spoke cryptically on the matter.

TWP labels anyone who doesn't agree with him an "idiot or fool" if you prove him wrong time and again then he goes to town with the name calling while threatening to make a complaint about any rudeness aimed at him in retaliation...he likes to box with the other boxers hand tied behind their back.

My question on Cannabis had nothing to do with alcohol, or salad cream for that matter...it was more along the lines of would you like it made legal so young people can buy it readily?

You agree you break the law in "partaking" of the drug then?

Nice to see you learn quickly, by that i mean not engaging in name calling and snide comment.. doesn't work with me, as you know..because im rather good at that myself having endured it all my life.
[quote][p][bold]stropmag.[/bold] wrote: @E -Type: You Said: “Son of a ..... had most of his multiple accounts deleted, he needed them to shore up his pitiable personality, but if you are his "dada" as he called you, then you will be aware of this rather limited contributions and need for additional support.” I would be surprised if my son referred to me as “dada”. I have only ever known him to refer to me as “Father” or Dad”. You Said: “He is still posting as a female though...were you aware of....things?” You are still posting as a male…so… You Said: “I claim nothing in regards to being an authority, how have you come to that conclusion?” Because of your unbending assertions that fly in the face of what is generally accepted. One is entitled, surely, to conclude that you consider yourself to know better and in my book that would make you an authority. You are not of course but that is what you imply. You Said: “My culture like yours is from earth as far as i know...by that i mean unless you tell me differently about yours! “ Sorry, I thought you had secret languages passed down- never written- from thousands of years past. Also customs that cannot be divulged as they too are secret. All the stuff of science fiction and pre-historic alien visitations, surely? You Said: “I say there is much debate that the moon landings didn't take place and i believe that to be the case and for that you label me an imbecile.” I think this conspiracy theory was put to bed a long time ago. I did not label you an imbecile, TWP did that for other reasons. I just happen to think he’s right. You Said: “The thread is cannabis..for or against?” My personal view is that cannabis is, on balance, less harmful than alcohol which is a legal drug the production and distribution/sale of which is monitored and controlled by the state which derives a substantial income by way of taxation from it. I would like to see cannabis fall under the same regime as alcohol. You will no doubt recall that I do on occasions partake of the drug myself but I happen not to smoke it. You Said: “Your 'son' in his guise as a female hasn't given his opinion on the matter yet..perhaps he was waiting for you...” You will have to ask him about that. You Said: “Btw TWP is also known as the Hadleigh Stoner.. so we dont need to ask his opinion on illegal drug taking.” You may not need to but I would value his opinion even if I did not agree with him.[/p][/quote]Point by point... His referring to you is on the other threads go look. I post as the gender i am...unlike your son, so the question remains...are you aware of ...things? Is the notion of man walking on the moon " generally accepted "? I would say that isn't the case as the 100s if not 1000s of sites debunking 'the man on the moon' myth shows! No authority needed although there does seem to be an awful lot of people with such authority who are of the same mind as i am. You say "Tomato" i say "Tomahto" it then comes down to the more likely. taken everything into consideration its more likely man has never walked on the moon then and hasn't to date, even though technology has advanced man has never 'gone back' WHY, because you would of had need to go in the first place to go 'back' My culture does indeed have two languages pasted down through the ages... doesn't yours? Or is your language a sort of African Esperanto? ie relatively new? Are 'in-house' beliefs from any culture the thing of sci-fi? Why? And why would such beliefs have to be connected to "aliens" Is it the belief of your culture, that some beliefs by other cultures must be sci-fiction and extraterrestrial? or is that your own conclusion. See how being reasonable allows information about other cultures to be revealed? Keep it civil and we might enlighten many readers, from the other culture, to what our different cultures believe and think. Both our cultures get bad posts aimed at them on here! Racist abuse and slurs etc. I have often defended mine against such and im sure you have defended yours too. The debate on the 'moon landings' has never been put to bed, unless you mean to your satisfaction, which is fair enough. as time goes by its getting more and more likely that people will not accept it happened. Poor old NA was always very troubled about the whole matter. Never confortable taking about it ans often spoke cryptically on the matter. TWP labels anyone who doesn't agree with him an "idiot or fool" if you prove him wrong time and again then he goes to town with the name calling while threatening to make a complaint about any rudeness aimed at him in retaliation...he likes to box with the other boxers hand tied behind their back. My question on Cannabis had nothing to do with alcohol, or salad cream for that matter...it was more along the lines of would you like it made legal so young people can buy it readily? You agree you break the law in "partaking" of the drug then? Nice to see you learn quickly, by that i mean not engaging in name calling and snide comment.. doesn't work with me, as you know..because im rather good at that myself having endured it all my life. E -Type

8:40am Mon 1 Oct 12

tatersalad says...

Babs Stanley wrote:
We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal cannabis farms, instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over the THC and CBD content.

Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an illegal monopoly on cannabis so they make millions out of a medicine that you can grow in your greenhouse for virtually nothing.

If we introduced a legally regulated system we would solve nearly all the problems around cannabis. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, prescription medicines and all other recreational drugs. If anyone does have a problem with it they could get help without having to confess to a crime.

CLEAR published independent, expert research last year which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum.

It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us about cannabis. Find out the truth for yourself and wake up to the lies you have been told.
Once the government start taxing cannabis, it will no longer be a problem. The very thought of the people getting something not controlled by government is hurting them.
[quote][p][bold]Babs Stanley[/bold] wrote: We need to stop this stupid and unwinnable war against cannabis. It is causing far more harm to our communities than it prevents. If we had a properly regulated system of production and supply we'd have no more illegal cannabis farms, instead we'd have thousands of new jobs. We'd have no more dealers on the streets. Cannabis would be available to adults only through licensed outlets and we'd have some control over the THC and CBD content. Doctors would be able to prescribe one of the most effective medicines that has no serious side effects at all. At the moment the government has given GW Pharmaceuticals an illegal monopoly on cannabis so they make millions out of a medicine that you can grow in your greenhouse for virtually nothing. If we introduced a legally regulated system we would solve nearly all the problems around cannabis. Science proves how much safer it is than tobacco, alcohol, prescription medicines and all other recreational drugs. If anyone does have a problem with it they could get help without having to confess to a crime. CLEAR published independent, expert research last year which shows that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis would produce a net gain to the UK economy of up to £9.3 billion per annum. It is a scandal that our government, our judges, our courts, our police and our newspapers keep misleading us about cannabis. Find out the truth for yourself and wake up to the lies you have been told.[/p][/quote]Once the government start taxing cannabis, it will no longer be a problem. The very thought of the people getting something not controlled by government is hurting them. tatersalad

12:05pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

CBDs used to be described as the anti psychotic component of cannabis, and they do seem to have that effect. You dispute that but as far as I can see CBDs are still described as anti psychotic or having anti psychotic effects (random examples below) so can you explain why you disagree - in terms that non scientists can understand. I could scatter plenty of physics equations around myself but who would understand them, besides if you really know your discipline you can explain it to anyone, true? (except for people who don’t want to learn)
.
Cannabidiol as an antipsychotic agent, European Psychiatry, Volume 22, Supplement 1, March 2007, Page S21. See also Volume 24 European Psychiatry.
.
http://bjp.rcpsych.o
rg/content/192/4/306
.short
.
http://www.scielo.br
/scielo.php?pid=s010
0-879x2006000400001&
script=sci_arttext
.
http://www.springerl
ink.com/content/f3k3
40p5x6344422/
.
And a recent paper suggesting cannabis may suppress some cancers, if you really know your onions you wouldn’t dismiss any ideas out of hand, true?…
.
http://www.sciencedi
rect.com/science/art
icle/pii/S0304383509
002523
..
..
On a more practical note the following is from the Royal College of Psychiatrists …
.
http://www.rcpsych.a
c.uk/mentalhealthinf
o/problems/alcoholan
ddrugs/cannabis.aspx

.
“Research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents“.
.
So you are more likely to get problems if you have faulty genes. And as we know young brains are more at risk than older ones. So what do we do, if it remains illegal it is regarded as more exotic by the kids and they can get it whenever they want it. If it is legalised we can restrict sales and less kids use it (Holland, Portugal etc). Unless you know a better way of stopping the kids from using it? (and don’t say the law, the law does not work).
.
“The main risk to physical health from cannabis is probably from the tobacco that it is often smoked with“.
.
Mark those words …The MAIN risk is from small amounts of the legal drug, the tobacco. Or not as the case may be - never heard of pipes, cakes, bongs etc?
.
“Recent research in Denmark suggests that (cannabis induced psychosis) is a short-lived psychotic disorder that seems to be brought on by cannabis use but which subsides fairly quickly once the individual has stopped using it. It's quite unusual though – in the whole of Denmark they found only around 100 new cases per year“.
.
Short lived disorder … subsides quickly (usually within days) … quite unusual … only 100 cases per year. 100 CASES PER YEAR! Denmark can’t be magnitudes different to us, which explains why our hospitals are NOT bursting at the seams with cannabis casualties, like they are with alcohol casualties. C’mon, be honest! It’s not rocket science.
.
Have the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the NHS Mental Healthcare website got it wrong?…
CBDs used to be described as the anti psychotic component of cannabis, and they do seem to have that effect. You dispute that but as far as I can see CBDs are still described as anti psychotic or having anti psychotic effects (random examples below) so can you explain why you disagree - in terms that non scientists can understand. I could scatter plenty of physics equations around myself but who would understand them, besides if you really know your discipline you can explain it to anyone, true? (except for people who don’t want to learn) . Cannabidiol as an antipsychotic agent, European Psychiatry, Volume 22, Supplement 1, March 2007, Page S21. See also Volume 24 European Psychiatry. . http://bjp.rcpsych.o rg/content/192/4/306 .short . http://www.scielo.br /scielo.php?pid=s010 0-879x2006000400001& script=sci_arttext . http://www.springerl ink.com/content/f3k3 40p5x6344422/ . And a recent paper suggesting cannabis may suppress some cancers, if you really know your onions you wouldn’t dismiss any ideas out of hand, true?… . http://www.sciencedi rect.com/science/art icle/pii/S0304383509 002523 .. .. On a more practical note the following is from the Royal College of Psychiatrists … . http://www.rcpsych.a c.uk/mentalhealthinf o/problems/alcoholan ddrugs/cannabis.aspx . “Research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents“. . So you are more likely to get problems if you have faulty genes. And as we know young brains are more at risk than older ones. So what do we do, if it remains illegal it is regarded as more exotic by the kids and they can get it whenever they want it. If it is legalised we can restrict sales and less kids use it (Holland, Portugal etc). Unless you know a better way of stopping the kids from using it? (and don’t say the law, the law does not work). . “The main risk to physical health from cannabis is probably from the tobacco that it is often smoked with“. . Mark those words …The MAIN risk is from small amounts of the legal drug, the tobacco. Or not as the case may be - never heard of pipes, cakes, bongs etc? . “Recent research in Denmark suggests that (cannabis induced psychosis) is a short-lived psychotic disorder that seems to be brought on by cannabis use but which subsides fairly quickly once the individual has stopped using it. It's quite unusual though – in the whole of Denmark they found only around 100 new cases per year“. . Short lived disorder … subsides quickly (usually within days) … quite unusual … only 100 cases per year. 100 CASES PER YEAR! Denmark can’t be magnitudes different to us, which explains why our hospitals are NOT bursting at the seams with cannabis casualties, like they are with alcohol casualties. C’mon, be honest! It’s not rocket science. . Have the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the NHS Mental Healthcare website got it wrong?… Truth Will Prevail

12:22pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Oops meant to address the above posting to JAYMAN.
.
As for the moon landings, there never was any controversy at the time as so many people saw it, and I don't just mean the TV pics, I mean the long slow slog of getting dozens of unmanned probes to orbit and then land on the moon first, then the five manned missions that orbited the moon prior to the actual landing (which completely rubbishes claims that the technology wasn't there and that the VA Belt was too dangerous to travel through, absolute tosh) and the people like me who watched Apollo leave earth orbit in our 'scopes. Any controversy only arose years later when it became fashionable amongst thick stupid people who weren't even born at the time to be a conspiracy theorist. Never found a conspiracy theorist yet who had an ounce of brains or a science degree, says it all really, especially now we even have recent pics of the landing site. One day we'll revisit the landing site and the conspiracy theorists will have to eat humble pie, serves the thick stupid ****s right.
Oops meant to address the above posting to JAYMAN. . As for the moon landings, there never was any controversy at the time as so many people saw it, and I don't just mean the TV pics, I mean the long slow slog of getting dozens of unmanned probes to orbit and then land on the moon first, then the five manned missions that orbited the moon prior to the actual landing (which completely rubbishes claims that the technology wasn't there and that the VA Belt was too dangerous to travel through, absolute tosh) and the people like me who watched Apollo leave earth orbit in our 'scopes. Any controversy only arose years later when it became fashionable amongst thick stupid people who weren't even born at the time to be a conspiracy theorist. Never found a conspiracy theorist yet who had an ounce of brains or a science degree, says it all really, especially now we even have recent pics of the landing site. One day we'll revisit the landing site and the conspiracy theorists will have to eat humble pie, serves the thick stupid ****s right. Truth Will Prevail

3:08pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Oops meant to address the above posting to JAYMAN.
.
As for the moon landings, there never was any controversy at the time as so many people saw it, and I don't just mean the TV pics, I mean the long slow slog of getting dozens of unmanned probes to orbit and then land on the moon first, then the five manned missions that orbited the moon prior to the actual landing (which completely rubbishes claims that the technology wasn't there and that the VA Belt was too dangerous to travel through, absolute tosh) and the people like me who watched Apollo leave earth orbit in our 'scopes. Any controversy only arose years later when it became fashionable amongst thick stupid people who weren't even born at the time to be a conspiracy theorist. Never found a conspiracy theorist yet who had an ounce of brains or a science degree, says it all really, especially now we even have recent pics of the landing site. One day we'll revisit the landing site and the conspiracy theorists will have to eat humble pie, serves the thick stupid ****s right.
Take this back onto the other thread, you are trying to keep it here because these same contentions by you have been dealt with over there and you are trying to get a new audience to spin your myths too

You have ignored all the links given to you that proves your faith in America, its media and its agency NASA is misguided. As you say in another post " (except for people who don’t want to learn) "

The contention that you have

" Never found a conspiracy theorist yet who had an ounce of brains or a science degree"

Is along the lines of

" but suffice to say that no astronomer ever reported seening a 'UFO' "

Both which are totally wrong. There are many scientist that do not believe in the moon walk

You seem to think if you say something then it is fact and you say and think this without checking if what you say is in fact fact!

You dont have to be born at the time of a hoax to know a hoax is a hoax...

"Bill Kaysing appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show, detailing how NASA had conned the American people into believing that they had landed men on the Moon. A national survey at the time by the program makers showed a staggering 60% of Americans believed the Moon landings were faked. We have moved on a further 32 years, and still there are those who believe NASA lies."

"no point trying to convince the old trolls though, they're all completely brainwashed by the media lies."

Recognise your own words posted? Its you believing what the media reported that was fed them by NASA...no one ever say the moon walk or landing...it all went through Nasa!

The only rocket(s) you saw leaving earths orbit had no men on it...but you were probably smoking some of the dodgy stuff at the time...

Obarma said recently the Americans wont go to the moon even after 2020

"we dont have the technology"

No mention of BACK.


btw NASSA destroyed their copies of the moon landings and had to use the media copies which were copied of the NASA TV screens...getting it yet?
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Oops meant to address the above posting to JAYMAN. . As for the moon landings, there never was any controversy at the time as so many people saw it, and I don't just mean the TV pics, I mean the long slow slog of getting dozens of unmanned probes to orbit and then land on the moon first, then the five manned missions that orbited the moon prior to the actual landing (which completely rubbishes claims that the technology wasn't there and that the VA Belt was too dangerous to travel through, absolute tosh) and the people like me who watched Apollo leave earth orbit in our 'scopes. Any controversy only arose years later when it became fashionable amongst thick stupid people who weren't even born at the time to be a conspiracy theorist. Never found a conspiracy theorist yet who had an ounce of brains or a science degree, says it all really, especially now we even have recent pics of the landing site. One day we'll revisit the landing site and the conspiracy theorists will have to eat humble pie, serves the thick stupid ****s right.[/p][/quote]Take this back onto the other thread, you are trying to keep it here because these same contentions by you have been dealt with over there and you are trying to get a new audience to spin your myths too You have ignored all the links given to you that proves your faith in America, its media and its agency NASA is misguided. As you say in another post " (except for people who don’t want to learn) " The contention that you have " Never found a conspiracy theorist yet who had an ounce of brains or a science degree" Is along the lines of " but suffice to say that no astronomer ever reported seening a 'UFO' " Both which are totally wrong. There are many scientist that do not believe in the moon walk You seem to think if you say something then it is fact and you say and think this without checking if what you say is in fact fact! You dont have to be born at the time of a hoax to know a hoax is a hoax... "Bill Kaysing appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show, detailing how NASA had conned the American people into believing that they had landed men on the Moon. A national survey at the time by the program makers showed a staggering 60% of Americans believed the Moon landings were faked. We have moved on a further 32 years, and still there are those who believe NASA lies." "no point trying to convince the old trolls though, they're all completely brainwashed by the media lies." Recognise your own words posted? Its you believing what the media reported that was fed them by NASA...no one ever say the moon walk or landing...it all went through Nasa! The only rocket(s) you saw leaving earths orbit had no men on it...but you were probably smoking some of the dodgy stuff at the time... Obarma said recently the Americans wont go to the moon even after 2020 "we dont have the technology" No mention of BACK. btw NASSA destroyed their copies of the moon landings and had to use the media copies which were copied of the NASA TV screens...getting it yet? E -Type

4:06pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

The Apollo Program collected 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon - NO published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim.
.
The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and Earth rocks in that they show a lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence of having undergone impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical traits. Furthermore, most are more than 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks. The Moon rocks also share the same traits as samples retrieved from the Moon by Soviet lander missions.
.
Brave men died in the race to get to the moon. On 27 January 1967, a fire erupted in the Apollo 1 command module during a test on the launch pad, destroying the module and killing astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee. A test flight of the Block II CSM in Earth orbit, Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo flight and the first manned flight of the Saturn IB. It was the only manned Apollo launch not from LC 39. It included the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft. Apollo 8 was the first manned CIRCUMLUNAR flight of the CSM (10 orbits in 20 hours) and the first manned flight of the Saturn V. The crew were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon and earthrise over the lunar horizon with their own eyes. LIVE television pictures were broadcast to Earth. During 10 days in Earth orbit, Apollo 9 conducted the first manned flight test of the Lunar Module, demonstrating its propulsion and ability to rendezvous and dock with the CSM. An EVA tested the Portable Life Support System. In this "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, Apollo 10's Lunar Module was flown manned around the Moon and descended to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) without landing. If ET is right all these astronauts should have died from exposure to the Van Allen radiation but none did.
.
On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module performed the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility, overcoming navigation errors and computer alarms. Astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin performed a single EVA in the direct vicinity of the LM. Following two lightning strikes on the spacecraft during launch, with brief loss of fuel cells and telemetry, Apollo 12 performed the first precise manned landing on the Moon in the Ocean of Storms near the Surveyor 3 probe. In two EVAs, the astronauts recovered portions of Surveyor and returned them to Earth. After docking problems, a faulty LM abort switch and delayed landing radar acquisition, Apollo 14's LM landed successfully at Fra Mauro. First color video images from the surface of the Moon, first materials science experiments in space, and two EVAs, in one of which Shepard performed a golf shot.Apollo 15, landing at Hadley-Apennine was the first "J series" mission with a 3-day lunar stay and extensive geology investigations. After a malfunction in a backup CSM yaw gimbal servo loop delayed the landing and reduced CSM time in lunar orbit, Apollo 16's LM landed in the Descartes Highlands. No ascent stage deorbit due to malfunction; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA.The final Apollo lunar mission landed at Taurus-Littrow. Schmitt, a geologist, was the first professional scientist to go on a NASA mission. First night launch; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA. But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET we didn’t have the technology to do any of this, ha ha!
.
Since 1969 the lunar landing sites have been detected by NASA, Indian and Chinese space missions and the A11 site is even visible in photos taken from low lunar orbit by the A11 team themselves. Mark my words, one day man will return to the moon and the A11 landing site will be revealed in all it’s glory and conspiracy theorists the world over will have to eat their brainless words. Btw according to the latest official stats only 6% of people doubt the lunar landings took place, and I bet not a single one of them even has a science A level never mind a science degree, which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters, ha ha ha!
The Apollo Program collected 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon - NO published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim. . The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and Earth rocks in that they show a lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence of having undergone impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical traits. Furthermore, most are more than 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks. The Moon rocks also share the same traits as samples retrieved from the Moon by Soviet lander missions. . Brave men died in the race to get to the moon. On 27 January 1967, a fire erupted in the Apollo 1 command module during a test on the launch pad, destroying the module and killing astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee. A test flight of the Block II CSM in Earth orbit, Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo flight and the first manned flight of the Saturn IB. It was the only manned Apollo launch not from LC 39. It included the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft. Apollo 8 was the first manned CIRCUMLUNAR flight of the CSM (10 orbits in 20 hours) and the first manned flight of the Saturn V. The crew were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon and earthrise over the lunar horizon with their own eyes. LIVE television pictures were broadcast to Earth. During 10 days in Earth orbit, Apollo 9 conducted the first manned flight test of the Lunar Module, demonstrating its propulsion and ability to rendezvous and dock with the CSM. An EVA tested the Portable Life Support System. In this "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, Apollo 10's Lunar Module was flown manned around the Moon and descended to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) without landing. If ET is right all these astronauts should have died from exposure to the Van Allen radiation but none did. . On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module performed the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility, overcoming navigation errors and computer alarms. Astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin performed a single EVA in the direct vicinity of the LM. Following two lightning strikes on the spacecraft during launch, with brief loss of fuel cells and telemetry, Apollo 12 performed the first precise manned landing on the Moon in the Ocean of Storms near the Surveyor 3 probe. In two EVAs, the astronauts recovered portions of Surveyor and returned them to Earth. After docking problems, a faulty LM abort switch and delayed landing radar acquisition, Apollo 14's LM landed successfully at Fra Mauro. First color video images from the surface of the Moon, first materials science experiments in space, and two EVAs, in one of which Shepard performed a golf shot.Apollo 15, landing at Hadley-Apennine was the first "J series" mission with a 3-day lunar stay and extensive geology investigations. After a malfunction in a backup CSM yaw gimbal servo loop delayed the landing and reduced CSM time in lunar orbit, Apollo 16's LM landed in the Descartes Highlands. No ascent stage deorbit due to malfunction; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA.The final Apollo lunar mission landed at Taurus-Littrow. Schmitt, a geologist, was the first professional scientist to go on a NASA mission. First night launch; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA. But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET we didn’t have the technology to do any of this, ha ha! . Since 1969 the lunar landing sites have been detected by NASA, Indian and Chinese space missions and the A11 site is even visible in photos taken from low lunar orbit by the A11 team themselves. Mark my words, one day man will return to the moon and the A11 landing site will be revealed in all it’s glory and conspiracy theorists the world over will have to eat their brainless words. Btw according to the latest official stats only 6% of people doubt the lunar landings took place, and I bet not a single one of them even has a science A level never mind a science degree, which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters, ha ha ha! Truth Will Prevail

4:12pm Mon 1 Oct 12

jayman says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
CBDs used to be described as the anti psychotic component of cannabis, and they do seem to have that effect. You dispute that but as far as I can see CBDs are still described as anti psychotic or having anti psychotic effects (random examples below) so can you explain why you disagree - in terms that non scientists can understand. I could scatter plenty of physics equations around myself but who would understand them, besides if you really know your discipline you can explain it to anyone, true? (except for people who don’t want to learn)
.
Cannabidiol as an antipsychotic agent, European Psychiatry, Volume 22, Supplement 1, March 2007, Page S21. See also Volume 24 European Psychiatry.
.
http://bjp.rcpsych.o

rg/content/192/4/306

.short
.
http://www.scielo.br

/scielo.php?pid=s010

0-879x2006000400001&
amp;
script=sci_arttext
.
http://www.springerl

ink.com/content/f3k3

40p5x6344422/
.
And a recent paper suggesting cannabis may suppress some cancers, if you really know your onions you wouldn’t dismiss any ideas out of hand, true?…
.
http://www.sciencedi

rect.com/science/art

icle/pii/S0304383509

002523
..
..
On a more practical note the following is from the Royal College of Psychiatrists …
.
http://www.rcpsych.a

c.uk/mentalhealthinf

o/problems/alcoholan

ddrugs/cannabis.aspx


.
“Research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents“.
.
So you are more likely to get problems if you have faulty genes. And as we know young brains are more at risk than older ones. So what do we do, if it remains illegal it is regarded as more exotic by the kids and they can get it whenever they want it. If it is legalised we can restrict sales and less kids use it (Holland, Portugal etc). Unless you know a better way of stopping the kids from using it? (and don’t say the law, the law does not work).
.
“The main risk to physical health from cannabis is probably from the tobacco that it is often smoked with“.
.
Mark those words …The MAIN risk is from small amounts of the legal drug, the tobacco. Or not as the case may be - never heard of pipes, cakes, bongs etc?
.
“Recent research in Denmark suggests that (cannabis induced psychosis) is a short-lived psychotic disorder that seems to be brought on by cannabis use but which subsides fairly quickly once the individual has stopped using it. It's quite unusual though – in the whole of Denmark they found only around 100 new cases per year“.
.
Short lived disorder … subsides quickly (usually within days) … quite unusual … only 100 cases per year. 100 CASES PER YEAR! Denmark can’t be magnitudes different to us, which explains why our hospitals are NOT bursting at the seams with cannabis casualties, like they are with alcohol casualties. C’mon, be honest! It’s not rocket science.
.
Have the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the NHS Mental Healthcare website got it wrong?…
you keep reading the research summaries, you have no or little understanding of what the science actually says, just the opinion of the scientist.

this is why science research is 'peer reviewed!'

a team of scientists from the OPERA research facility once claimed that had found a particle that could travel faster then light.

then head of the above mentioned experiment has now resigned. because he was making claims that where based on bad science..
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: CBDs used to be described as the anti psychotic component of cannabis, and they do seem to have that effect. You dispute that but as far as I can see CBDs are still described as anti psychotic or having anti psychotic effects (random examples below) so can you explain why you disagree - in terms that non scientists can understand. I could scatter plenty of physics equations around myself but who would understand them, besides if you really know your discipline you can explain it to anyone, true? (except for people who don’t want to learn) . Cannabidiol as an antipsychotic agent, European Psychiatry, Volume 22, Supplement 1, March 2007, Page S21. See also Volume 24 European Psychiatry. . http://bjp.rcpsych.o rg/content/192/4/306 .short . http://www.scielo.br /scielo.php?pid=s010 0-879x2006000400001& amp; script=sci_arttext . http://www.springerl ink.com/content/f3k3 40p5x6344422/ . And a recent paper suggesting cannabis may suppress some cancers, if you really know your onions you wouldn’t dismiss any ideas out of hand, true?… . http://www.sciencedi rect.com/science/art icle/pii/S0304383509 002523 .. .. On a more practical note the following is from the Royal College of Psychiatrists … . http://www.rcpsych.a c.uk/mentalhealthinf o/problems/alcoholan ddrugs/cannabis.aspx . “Research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents“. . So you are more likely to get problems if you have faulty genes. And as we know young brains are more at risk than older ones. So what do we do, if it remains illegal it is regarded as more exotic by the kids and they can get it whenever they want it. If it is legalised we can restrict sales and less kids use it (Holland, Portugal etc). Unless you know a better way of stopping the kids from using it? (and don’t say the law, the law does not work). . “The main risk to physical health from cannabis is probably from the tobacco that it is often smoked with“. . Mark those words …The MAIN risk is from small amounts of the legal drug, the tobacco. Or not as the case may be - never heard of pipes, cakes, bongs etc? . “Recent research in Denmark suggests that (cannabis induced psychosis) is a short-lived psychotic disorder that seems to be brought on by cannabis use but which subsides fairly quickly once the individual has stopped using it. It's quite unusual though – in the whole of Denmark they found only around 100 new cases per year“. . Short lived disorder … subsides quickly (usually within days) … quite unusual … only 100 cases per year. 100 CASES PER YEAR! Denmark can’t be magnitudes different to us, which explains why our hospitals are NOT bursting at the seams with cannabis casualties, like they are with alcohol casualties. C’mon, be honest! It’s not rocket science. . Have the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the NHS Mental Healthcare website got it wrong?…[/p][/quote]you keep reading the research summaries, you have no or little understanding of what the science actually says, just the opinion of the scientist. this is why science research is 'peer reviewed!' a team of scientists from the OPERA research facility once claimed that had found a particle that could travel faster then light. then head of the above mentioned experiment has now resigned. because he was making claims that where based on bad science.. jayman

4:13pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Diannah says...

SuperSilverSourDiese
l
wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work.

remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
Yes lets waste police time for a bad smell, distracting them from real crimes like Rape, Assault and Theft, for a plant proven to be safer than alcohol and aspirin. Well done.
He was arrested for the theft of £5000 of electricity as well as cultivating illegal substances. Does that make you feel happier now?

Don't think anybody can argue the point that this man was growing it for his own use!
[quote][p][bold]SuperSilverSourDiese l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]Yes lets waste police time for a bad smell, distracting them from real crimes like Rape, Assault and Theft, for a plant proven to be safer than alcohol and aspirin. Well done.[/p][/quote]He was arrested for the theft of £5000 of electricity as well as cultivating illegal substances. Does that make you feel happier now? Don't think anybody can argue the point that this man was growing it for his own use! Diannah

4:33pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Sally Ann30 says...

jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
Lol.. so that's 90% of the flats in grays then....
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]Lol.. so that's 90% of the flats in grays then.... Sally Ann30

4:56pm Mon 1 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Sally Ann30 wrote:
jayman wrote:
well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..
Lol.. so that's 90% of the flats in grays then....
the anecdotal carries so much more weight than the bogroll. it's loserville
[quote][p][bold]Sally Ann30[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: well done police, keep up the good work. remember, if you smell something like a cross between old gym socks cats p1ss and herbs for no apparent reason emanating from a property near you, contact the local police..[/p][/quote]Lol.. so that's 90% of the flats in grays then....[/p][/quote]the anecdotal carries so much more weight than the bogroll. it's loserville beyond the valley of the asbos

5:05pm Mon 1 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
The Apollo Program collected 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon - NO published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim.
.
The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and Earth rocks in that they show a lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence of having undergone impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical traits. Furthermore, most are more than 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks. The Moon rocks also share the same traits as samples retrieved from the Moon by Soviet lander missions.
.
Brave men died in the race to get to the moon. On 27 January 1967, a fire erupted in the Apollo 1 command module during a test on the launch pad, destroying the module and killing astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee. A test flight of the Block II CSM in Earth orbit, Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo flight and the first manned flight of the Saturn IB. It was the only manned Apollo launch not from LC 39. It included the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft. Apollo 8 was the first manned CIRCUMLUNAR flight of the CSM (10 orbits in 20 hours) and the first manned flight of the Saturn V. The crew were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon and earthrise over the lunar horizon with their own eyes. LIVE television pictures were broadcast to Earth. During 10 days in Earth orbit, Apollo 9 conducted the first manned flight test of the Lunar Module, demonstrating its propulsion and ability to rendezvous and dock with the CSM. An EVA tested the Portable Life Support System. In this "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, Apollo 10's Lunar Module was flown manned around the Moon and descended to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) without landing. If ET is right all these astronauts should have died from exposure to the Van Allen radiation but none did.
.
On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module performed the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility, overcoming navigation errors and computer alarms. Astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin performed a single EVA in the direct vicinity of the LM. Following two lightning strikes on the spacecraft during launch, with brief loss of fuel cells and telemetry, Apollo 12 performed the first precise manned landing on the Moon in the Ocean of Storms near the Surveyor 3 probe. In two EVAs, the astronauts recovered portions of Surveyor and returned them to Earth. After docking problems, a faulty LM abort switch and delayed landing radar acquisition, Apollo 14's LM landed successfully at Fra Mauro. First color video images from the surface of the Moon, first materials science experiments in space, and two EVAs, in one of which Shepard performed a golf shot.Apollo 15, landing at Hadley-Apennine was the first "J series" mission with a 3-day lunar stay and extensive geology investigations. After a malfunction in a backup CSM yaw gimbal servo loop delayed the landing and reduced CSM time in lunar orbit, Apollo 16's LM landed in the Descartes Highlands. No ascent stage deorbit due to malfunction; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA.The final Apollo lunar mission landed at Taurus-Littrow. Schmitt, a geologist, was the first professional scientist to go on a NASA mission. First night launch; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA. But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET we didn’t have the technology to do any of this, ha ha!
.
Since 1969 the lunar landing sites have been detected by NASA, Indian and Chinese space missions and the A11 site is even visible in photos taken from low lunar orbit by the A11 team themselves. Mark my words, one day man will return to the moon and the A11 landing site will be revealed in all it’s glory and conspiracy theorists the world over will have to eat their brainless words. Btw according to the latest official stats only 6% of people doubt the lunar landings took place, and I bet not a single one of them even has a science A level never mind a science degree, which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters, ha ha ha!
you're on the wrong story gramps.
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: The Apollo Program collected 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon - NO published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim. . The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and Earth rocks in that they show a lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence of having undergone impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical traits. Furthermore, most are more than 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks. The Moon rocks also share the same traits as samples retrieved from the Moon by Soviet lander missions. . Brave men died in the race to get to the moon. On 27 January 1967, a fire erupted in the Apollo 1 command module during a test on the launch pad, destroying the module and killing astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee. A test flight of the Block II CSM in Earth orbit, Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo flight and the first manned flight of the Saturn IB. It was the only manned Apollo launch not from LC 39. It included the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft. Apollo 8 was the first manned CIRCUMLUNAR flight of the CSM (10 orbits in 20 hours) and the first manned flight of the Saturn V. The crew were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon and earthrise over the lunar horizon with their own eyes. LIVE television pictures were broadcast to Earth. During 10 days in Earth orbit, Apollo 9 conducted the first manned flight test of the Lunar Module, demonstrating its propulsion and ability to rendezvous and dock with the CSM. An EVA tested the Portable Life Support System. In this "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, Apollo 10's Lunar Module was flown manned around the Moon and descended to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) without landing. If ET is right all these astronauts should have died from exposure to the Van Allen radiation but none did. . On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module performed the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility, overcoming navigation errors and computer alarms. Astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin performed a single EVA in the direct vicinity of the LM. Following two lightning strikes on the spacecraft during launch, with brief loss of fuel cells and telemetry, Apollo 12 performed the first precise manned landing on the Moon in the Ocean of Storms near the Surveyor 3 probe. In two EVAs, the astronauts recovered portions of Surveyor and returned them to Earth. After docking problems, a faulty LM abort switch and delayed landing radar acquisition, Apollo 14's LM landed successfully at Fra Mauro. First color video images from the surface of the Moon, first materials science experiments in space, and two EVAs, in one of which Shepard performed a golf shot.Apollo 15, landing at Hadley-Apennine was the first "J series" mission with a 3-day lunar stay and extensive geology investigations. After a malfunction in a backup CSM yaw gimbal servo loop delayed the landing and reduced CSM time in lunar orbit, Apollo 16's LM landed in the Descartes Highlands. No ascent stage deorbit due to malfunction; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA.The final Apollo lunar mission landed at Taurus-Littrow. Schmitt, a geologist, was the first professional scientist to go on a NASA mission. First night launch; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA. But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET we didn’t have the technology to do any of this, ha ha! . Since 1969 the lunar landing sites have been detected by NASA, Indian and Chinese space missions and the A11 site is even visible in photos taken from low lunar orbit by the A11 team themselves. Mark my words, one day man will return to the moon and the A11 landing site will be revealed in all it’s glory and conspiracy theorists the world over will have to eat their brainless words. Btw according to the latest official stats only 6% of people doubt the lunar landings took place, and I bet not a single one of them even has a science A level never mind a science degree, which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters, ha ha ha![/p][/quote]you're on the wrong story gramps. beyond the valley of the asbos

5:06pm Mon 1 Oct 12

LoopyLou88 says...

one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down.
one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down. LoopyLou88

5:09pm Mon 1 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

why have the underbelly in our society become so fixated with this drug? our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. high five me SSDD
why have the underbelly in our society become so fixated with this drug? our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. high five me SSDD beyond the valley of the asbos

5:12pm Mon 1 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

LoopyLou88 wrote:
one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down.
what number is it?
[quote][p][bold]LoopyLou88[/bold] wrote: one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down.[/p][/quote]what number is it? beyond the valley of the asbos

5:23pm Mon 1 Oct 12

LoopyLou88 says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
LoopyLou88 wrote:
one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down.
what number is it?
got no idea, but you can see lit up from train station purple glowing light, green plants, purple light on during day too.
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LoopyLou88[/bold] wrote: one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down.[/p][/quote]what number is it?[/p][/quote]got no idea, but you can see lit up from train station purple glowing light, green plants, purple light on during day too. LoopyLou88

5:36pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Diannah says...

LoopyLou88 wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
LoopyLou88 wrote:
one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down.
what number is it?
got no idea, but you can see lit up from train station purple glowing light, green plants, purple light on during day too.
You sure its not just one of TWP's moon rocks glowing?
[quote][p][bold]LoopyLou88[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LoopyLou88[/bold] wrote: one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down.[/p][/quote]what number is it?[/p][/quote]got no idea, but you can see lit up from train station purple glowing light, green plants, purple light on during day too.[/p][/quote]You sure its not just one of TWP's moon rocks glowing? Diannah

6:12pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

jayman wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: CBDs used to be described as the anti psychotic component of cannabis, and they do seem to have that effect. You dispute that but as far as I can see CBDs are still described as anti psychotic or having anti psychotic effects (random examples below) so can you explain why you disagree - in terms that non scientists can understand. I could scatter plenty of physics equations around myself but who would understand them, besides if you really know your discipline you can explain it to anyone, true? (except for people who don’t want to learn) . Cannabidiol as an antipsychotic agent, European Psychiatry, Volume 22, Supplement 1, March 2007, Page S21. See also Volume 24 European Psychiatry. . http://bjp.rcpsych.o rg/content/192/4/306 .short . http://www.scielo.br /scielo.php?pid=s010 0-879x2006000400001&
amp; amp; script=sci_arttext . http://www.springerl ink.com/content/f3k3 40p5x6344422/ . And a recent paper suggesting cannabis may suppress some cancers, if you really know your onions you wouldn’t dismiss any ideas out of hand, true?… . http://www.sciencedi rect.com/science/art icle/pii/S0304383509 002523 .. .. On a more practical note the following is from the Royal College of Psychiatrists … . http://www.rcpsych.a c.uk/mentalhealthinf o/problems/alcoholan ddrugs/cannabis.aspx . “Research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents“. . So you are more likely to get problems if you have faulty genes. And as we know young brains are more at risk than older ones. So what do we do, if it remains illegal it is regarded as more exotic by the kids and they can get it whenever they want it. If it is legalised we can restrict sales and less kids use it (Holland, Portugal etc). Unless you know a better way of stopping the kids from using it? (and don’t say the law, the law does not work). . “The main risk to physical health from cannabis is probably from the tobacco that it is often smoked with“. . Mark those words …The MAIN risk is from small amounts of the legal drug, the tobacco. Or not as the case may be - never heard of pipes, cakes, bongs etc? . “Recent research in Denmark suggests that (cannabis induced psychosis) is a short-lived psychotic disorder that seems to be brought on by cannabis use but which subsides fairly quickly once the individual has stopped using it. It's quite unusual though – in the whole of Denmark they found only around 100 new cases per year“. . Short lived disorder … subsides quickly (usually within days) … quite unusual … only 100 cases per year. 100 CASES PER YEAR! Denmark can’t be magnitudes different to us, which explains why our hospitals are NOT bursting at the seams with cannabis casualties, like they are with alcohol casualties. C’mon, be honest! It’s not rocket science. . Have the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the NHS Mental Healthcare website got it wrong?…
you keep reading the research summaries, you have no or little understanding of what the science actually says, just the opinion of the scientist. this is why science research is 'peer reviewed!' a team of scientists from the OPERA research facility once claimed that had found a particle that could travel faster then light. then head of the above mentioned experiment has now resigned. because he was making claims that where based on bad science..
I have a science degree dodo, just not bio-chemistry, and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s so don't tell me how to suck eggs. I asked you a serious question which any real scientist would have been happy to answer. I can only assume that you are NOT the real deal or you would have taken the trouble to give a proper reply. Btw the head of Opera should never have resigned, the error was not "bad science" as you put it but a miniscule malfunction which took hundreds of highly qualified technicians to correct. All the head of Opera did was to report what had been found with the proviso that it would take a lot of investigation to confirm or deny it, which is exactly what happened. Now then, how about a proper resoned response to the Royal College of Psychiatrists or don't they know what they are talking about either?
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: CBDs used to be described as the anti psychotic component of cannabis, and they do seem to have that effect. You dispute that but as far as I can see CBDs are still described as anti psychotic or having anti psychotic effects (random examples below) so can you explain why you disagree - in terms that non scientists can understand. I could scatter plenty of physics equations around myself but who would understand them, besides if you really know your discipline you can explain it to anyone, true? (except for people who don’t want to learn) . Cannabidiol as an antipsychotic agent, European Psychiatry, Volume 22, Supplement 1, March 2007, Page S21. See also Volume 24 European Psychiatry. . http://bjp.rcpsych.o rg/content/192/4/306 .short . http://www.scielo.br /scielo.php?pid=s010 0-879x2006000400001& amp; amp; script=sci_arttext . http://www.springerl ink.com/content/f3k3 40p5x6344422/ . And a recent paper suggesting cannabis may suppress some cancers, if you really know your onions you wouldn’t dismiss any ideas out of hand, true?… . http://www.sciencedi rect.com/science/art icle/pii/S0304383509 002523 .. .. On a more practical note the following is from the Royal College of Psychiatrists … . http://www.rcpsych.a c.uk/mentalhealthinf o/problems/alcoholan ddrugs/cannabis.aspx . “Research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents“. . So you are more likely to get problems if you have faulty genes. And as we know young brains are more at risk than older ones. So what do we do, if it remains illegal it is regarded as more exotic by the kids and they can get it whenever they want it. If it is legalised we can restrict sales and less kids use it (Holland, Portugal etc). Unless you know a better way of stopping the kids from using it? (and don’t say the law, the law does not work). . “The main risk to physical health from cannabis is probably from the tobacco that it is often smoked with“. . Mark those words …The MAIN risk is from small amounts of the legal drug, the tobacco. Or not as the case may be - never heard of pipes, cakes, bongs etc? . “Recent research in Denmark suggests that (cannabis induced psychosis) is a short-lived psychotic disorder that seems to be brought on by cannabis use but which subsides fairly quickly once the individual has stopped using it. It's quite unusual though – in the whole of Denmark they found only around 100 new cases per year“. . Short lived disorder … subsides quickly (usually within days) … quite unusual … only 100 cases per year. 100 CASES PER YEAR! Denmark can’t be magnitudes different to us, which explains why our hospitals are NOT bursting at the seams with cannabis casualties, like they are with alcohol casualties. C’mon, be honest! It’s not rocket science. . Have the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the NHS Mental Healthcare website got it wrong?…[/p][/quote]you keep reading the research summaries, you have no or little understanding of what the science actually says, just the opinion of the scientist. this is why science research is 'peer reviewed!' a team of scientists from the OPERA research facility once claimed that had found a particle that could travel faster then light. then head of the above mentioned experiment has now resigned. because he was making claims that where based on bad science..[/p][/quote]I have a science degree dodo, just not bio-chemistry, and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s so don't tell me how to suck eggs. I asked you a serious question which any real scientist would have been happy to answer. I can only assume that you are NOT the real deal or you would have taken the trouble to give a proper reply. Btw the head of Opera should never have resigned, the error was not "bad science" as you put it but a miniscule malfunction which took hundreds of highly qualified technicians to correct. All the head of Opera did was to report what had been found with the proviso that it would take a lot of investigation to confirm or deny it, which is exactly what happened. Now then, how about a proper resoned response to the Royal College of Psychiatrists or don't they know what they are talking about either? Truth Will Prevail

6:31pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
The Apollo Program collected 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon - NO published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim.
.
The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and Earth rocks in that they show a lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence of having undergone impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical traits. Furthermore, most are more than 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks. The Moon rocks also share the same traits as samples retrieved from the Moon by Soviet lander missions.
.
Brave men died in the race to get to the moon. On 27 January 1967, a fire erupted in the Apollo 1 command module during a test on the launch pad, destroying the module and killing astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee. A test flight of the Block II CSM in Earth orbit, Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo flight and the first manned flight of the Saturn IB. It was the only manned Apollo launch not from LC 39. It included the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft. Apollo 8 was the first manned CIRCUMLUNAR flight of the CSM (10 orbits in 20 hours) and the first manned flight of the Saturn V. The crew were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon and earthrise over the lunar horizon with their own eyes. LIVE television pictures were broadcast to Earth. During 10 days in Earth orbit, Apollo 9 conducted the first manned flight test of the Lunar Module, demonstrating its propulsion and ability to rendezvous and dock with the CSM. An EVA tested the Portable Life Support System. In this "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, Apollo 10's Lunar Module was flown manned around the Moon and descended to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) without landing. If ET is right all these astronauts should have died from exposure to the Van Allen radiation but none did.
.
On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module performed the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility, overcoming navigation errors and computer alarms. Astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin performed a single EVA in the direct vicinity of the LM. Following two lightning strikes on the spacecraft during launch, with brief loss of fuel cells and telemetry, Apollo 12 performed the first precise manned landing on the Moon in the Ocean of Storms near the Surveyor 3 probe. In two EVAs, the astronauts recovered portions of Surveyor and returned them to Earth. After docking problems, a faulty LM abort switch and delayed landing radar acquisition, Apollo 14's LM landed successfully at Fra Mauro. First color video images from the surface of the Moon, first materials science experiments in space, and two EVAs, in one of which Shepard performed a golf shot.Apollo 15, landing at Hadley-Apennine was the first "J series" mission with a 3-day lunar stay and extensive geology investigations. After a malfunction in a backup CSM yaw gimbal servo loop delayed the landing and reduced CSM time in lunar orbit, Apollo 16's LM landed in the Descartes Highlands. No ascent stage deorbit due to malfunction; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA.The final Apollo lunar mission landed at Taurus-Littrow. Schmitt, a geologist, was the first professional scientist to go on a NASA mission. First night launch; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA. But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET we didn’t have the technology to do any of this, ha ha!
.
Since 1969 the lunar landing sites have been detected by NASA, Indian and Chinese space missions and the A11 site is even visible in photos taken from low lunar orbit by the A11 team themselves. Mark my words, one day man will return to the moon and the A11 landing site will be revealed in all it’s glory and conspiracy theorists the world over will have to eat their brainless words. Btw according to the latest official stats only 6% of people doubt the lunar landings took place, and I bet not a single one of them even has a science A level never mind a science degree, which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters, ha ha ha!
You will of course be aware that some of the rocks they handed out were FAKE! 'Good ole boys' Neil and Buzz palmed them off on Holland

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/science/space
/6105902/Moon-rock-g
iven-to-Holland-by-N
eil-Armstrong-and-Bu
zz-Aldrin-is-fake.ht
ml

You keep harping on about "peer reviewed" but surely you are aware If you had a monkey review another monkeys work, which he is in agreement with, that it could be said the 1st monkeys work was "peer reviewed" clue up yourself man!


" If ET is right " Hey its got nothing to do with me...i wasn't part of the hoax!

Its people with the knowledge of the radiation involved who have said man could not go through the belt in the craft they are said to have done...have you looked at all the clear evidence of this on the internet? Or are you thinking only I think this is the case?
You are a minority in the civilised world in thinking man walked, jumped, played golf on the moon..They didn't but they pretended to.

Im just pointing out while there is much independent proof that man didnt go to the moon and land there the only evidence available they did is from those who had most to gain by stating man did...

As for all the flying around in space no one is saying space craft didn't do that what is being said is man didn't land on the moon...repeat didn't land on the moon....

"err.. Houston we have a problem, we cant get the film studio door open...over"

"Houston to astronauts, give it a good shake and then kick the bottom and it will open...remember not to go into the cantina...you're supposed to be playing golf on the moon...over"

The VAB is your red herring, it could be traversed through by men if the crafts were protected enough, but the crafts were not protected to cause man to survive because man didn't go through it.

Prattling on with Nasa reports as if they are proof as silly as the notion of men wearing space suits that wouldn't of fitted in or out of 'Eagle" leaping inches off the ground while the tape is run 505 slower than normal...It was all a trick..take your telescope and get your money back..you've been conned! LOL

You have complained about me to admin again about me being rude to you while you post comments like this?

" But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET"

You're going to get yourself banned and then what will Nasa do without you?

Merk you words...have you got a bet on with the bookies or something...if so you have lost...

Where is the link you are stating says only 6% of people doubt the moon landing...that must of been taken in your household.

I bet more than 75% of people on these threads , if they have given it a thought, believe man walked on the moon...

" which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters,"

Is that a fact? Or a bit more of your "I thought it so it must be the case"

Other than posting Nasa information what have you posted that shows this walk took place...Nothing!
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: The Apollo Program collected 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon - NO published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim. . The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and Earth rocks in that they show a lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence of having undergone impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical traits. Furthermore, most are more than 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks. The Moon rocks also share the same traits as samples retrieved from the Moon by Soviet lander missions. . Brave men died in the race to get to the moon. On 27 January 1967, a fire erupted in the Apollo 1 command module during a test on the launch pad, destroying the module and killing astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee. A test flight of the Block II CSM in Earth orbit, Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo flight and the first manned flight of the Saturn IB. It was the only manned Apollo launch not from LC 39. It included the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft. Apollo 8 was the first manned CIRCUMLUNAR flight of the CSM (10 orbits in 20 hours) and the first manned flight of the Saturn V. The crew were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon and earthrise over the lunar horizon with their own eyes. LIVE television pictures were broadcast to Earth. During 10 days in Earth orbit, Apollo 9 conducted the first manned flight test of the Lunar Module, demonstrating its propulsion and ability to rendezvous and dock with the CSM. An EVA tested the Portable Life Support System. In this "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, Apollo 10's Lunar Module was flown manned around the Moon and descended to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) without landing. If ET is right all these astronauts should have died from exposure to the Van Allen radiation but none did. . On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module performed the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility, overcoming navigation errors and computer alarms. Astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin performed a single EVA in the direct vicinity of the LM. Following two lightning strikes on the spacecraft during launch, with brief loss of fuel cells and telemetry, Apollo 12 performed the first precise manned landing on the Moon in the Ocean of Storms near the Surveyor 3 probe. In two EVAs, the astronauts recovered portions of Surveyor and returned them to Earth. After docking problems, a faulty LM abort switch and delayed landing radar acquisition, Apollo 14's LM landed successfully at Fra Mauro. First color video images from the surface of the Moon, first materials science experiments in space, and two EVAs, in one of which Shepard performed a golf shot.Apollo 15, landing at Hadley-Apennine was the first "J series" mission with a 3-day lunar stay and extensive geology investigations. After a malfunction in a backup CSM yaw gimbal servo loop delayed the landing and reduced CSM time in lunar orbit, Apollo 16's LM landed in the Descartes Highlands. No ascent stage deorbit due to malfunction; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA.The final Apollo lunar mission landed at Taurus-Littrow. Schmitt, a geologist, was the first professional scientist to go on a NASA mission. First night launch; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA. But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET we didn’t have the technology to do any of this, ha ha! . Since 1969 the lunar landing sites have been detected by NASA, Indian and Chinese space missions and the A11 site is even visible in photos taken from low lunar orbit by the A11 team themselves. Mark my words, one day man will return to the moon and the A11 landing site will be revealed in all it’s glory and conspiracy theorists the world over will have to eat their brainless words. Btw according to the latest official stats only 6% of people doubt the lunar landings took place, and I bet not a single one of them even has a science A level never mind a science degree, which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters, ha ha ha![/p][/quote]You will of course be aware that some of the rocks they handed out were FAKE! 'Good ole boys' Neil and Buzz palmed them off on Holland http://www.telegraph .co.uk/science/space /6105902/Moon-rock-g iven-to-Holland-by-N eil-Armstrong-and-Bu zz-Aldrin-is-fake.ht ml You keep harping on about "peer reviewed" but surely you are aware If you had a monkey review another monkeys work, which he is in agreement with, that it could be said the 1st monkeys work was "peer reviewed" clue up yourself man! " If ET is right " Hey its got nothing to do with me...i wasn't part of the hoax! Its people with the knowledge of the radiation involved who have said man could not go through the belt in the craft they are said to have done...have you looked at all the clear evidence of this on the internet? Or are you thinking only I think this is the case? You are a minority in the civilised world in thinking man walked, jumped, played golf on the moon..They didn't but they pretended to. Im just pointing out while there is much independent proof that man didnt go to the moon and land there the only evidence available they did is from those who had most to gain by stating man did... As for all the flying around in space no one is saying space craft didn't do that what is being said is man didn't land on the moon...repeat didn't land on the moon.... "err.. Houston we have a problem, we cant get the film studio door open...over" "Houston to astronauts, give it a good shake and then kick the bottom and it will open...remember not to go into the cantina...you're supposed to be playing golf on the moon...over" The VAB is your red herring, it could be traversed through by men if the crafts were protected enough, but the crafts were not protected to cause man to survive because man didn't go through it. Prattling on with Nasa reports as if they are proof as silly as the notion of men wearing space suits that wouldn't of fitted in or out of 'Eagle" leaping inches off the ground while the tape is run 505 slower than normal...It was all a trick..take your telescope and get your money back..you've been conned! LOL You have complained about me to admin again about me being rude to you while you post comments like this? " But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET" You're going to get yourself banned and then what will Nasa do without you? Merk you words...have you got a bet on with the bookies or something...if so you have lost... Where is the link you are stating says only 6% of people doubt the moon landing...that must of been taken in your household. I bet more than 75% of people on these threads , if they have given it a thought, believe man walked on the moon... " which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters," Is that a fact? Or a bit more of your "I thought it so it must be the case" Other than posting Nasa information what have you posted that shows this walk took place...Nothing! E -Type

6:35pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E -Type says...

LoopyLou88 wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
LoopyLou88 wrote:
one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down.
what number is it?
got no idea, but you can see lit up from train station purple glowing light, green plants, purple light on during day too.
Thats probably TWP bachelor flat, his space lights flickering on and off as he uses his 1960s junior telescope, to see if he can detect golf balls on the moon.
[quote][p][bold]LoopyLou88[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LoopyLou88[/bold] wrote: one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down.[/p][/quote]what number is it?[/p][/quote]got no idea, but you can see lit up from train station purple glowing light, green plants, purple light on during day too.[/p][/quote]Thats probably TWP bachelor flat, his space lights flickering on and off as he uses his 1960s junior telescope, to see if he can detect golf balls on the moon. E -Type

6:46pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E -Type says...

E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
The Apollo Program collected 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon - NO published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim.
.
The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and Earth rocks in that they show a lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence of having undergone impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical traits. Furthermore, most are more than 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks. The Moon rocks also share the same traits as samples retrieved from the Moon by Soviet lander missions.
.
Brave men died in the race to get to the moon. On 27 January 1967, a fire erupted in the Apollo 1 command module during a test on the launch pad, destroying the module and killing astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee. A test flight of the Block II CSM in Earth orbit, Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo flight and the first manned flight of the Saturn IB. It was the only manned Apollo launch not from LC 39. It included the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft. Apollo 8 was the first manned CIRCUMLUNAR flight of the CSM (10 orbits in 20 hours) and the first manned flight of the Saturn V. The crew were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon and earthrise over the lunar horizon with their own eyes. LIVE television pictures were broadcast to Earth. During 10 days in Earth orbit, Apollo 9 conducted the first manned flight test of the Lunar Module, demonstrating its propulsion and ability to rendezvous and dock with the CSM. An EVA tested the Portable Life Support System. In this "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, Apollo 10's Lunar Module was flown manned around the Moon and descended to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) without landing. If ET is right all these astronauts should have died from exposure to the Van Allen radiation but none did.
.
On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module performed the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility, overcoming navigation errors and computer alarms. Astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin performed a single EVA in the direct vicinity of the LM. Following two lightning strikes on the spacecraft during launch, with brief loss of fuel cells and telemetry, Apollo 12 performed the first precise manned landing on the Moon in the Ocean of Storms near the Surveyor 3 probe. In two EVAs, the astronauts recovered portions of Surveyor and returned them to Earth. After docking problems, a faulty LM abort switch and delayed landing radar acquisition, Apollo 14's LM landed successfully at Fra Mauro. First color video images from the surface of the Moon, first materials science experiments in space, and two EVAs, in one of which Shepard performed a golf shot.Apollo 15, landing at Hadley-Apennine was the first "J series" mission with a 3-day lunar stay and extensive geology investigations. After a malfunction in a backup CSM yaw gimbal servo loop delayed the landing and reduced CSM time in lunar orbit, Apollo 16's LM landed in the Descartes Highlands. No ascent stage deorbit due to malfunction; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA.The final Apollo lunar mission landed at Taurus-Littrow. Schmitt, a geologist, was the first professional scientist to go on a NASA mission. First night launch; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA. But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET we didn’t have the technology to do any of this, ha ha!
.
Since 1969 the lunar landing sites have been detected by NASA, Indian and Chinese space missions and the A11 site is even visible in photos taken from low lunar orbit by the A11 team themselves. Mark my words, one day man will return to the moon and the A11 landing site will be revealed in all it’s glory and conspiracy theorists the world over will have to eat their brainless words. Btw according to the latest official stats only 6% of people doubt the lunar landings took place, and I bet not a single one of them even has a science A level never mind a science degree, which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters, ha ha ha!
You will of course be aware that some of the rocks they handed out were FAKE! 'Good ole boys' Neil and Buzz palmed them off on Holland

http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/science/space

/6105902/Moon-rock-g

iven-to-Holland-by-N

eil-Armstrong-and-Bu

zz-Aldrin-is-fake.ht

ml

You keep harping on about "peer reviewed" but surely you are aware If you had a monkey review another monkeys work, which he is in agreement with, that it could be said the 1st monkeys work was "peer reviewed" clue up yourself man!


" If ET is right " Hey its got nothing to do with me...i wasn't part of the hoax!

Its people with the knowledge of the radiation involved who have said man could not go through the belt in the craft they are said to have done...have you looked at all the clear evidence of this on the internet? Or are you thinking only I think this is the case?
You are a minority in the civilised world in thinking man walked, jumped, played golf on the moon..They didn't but they pretended to.

Im just pointing out while there is much independent proof that man didnt go to the moon and land there the only evidence available they did is from those who had most to gain by stating man did...

As for all the flying around in space no one is saying space craft didn't do that what is being said is man didn't land on the moon...repeat didn't land on the moon....

"err.. Houston we have a problem, we cant get the film studio door open...over"

"Houston to astronauts, give it a good shake and then kick the bottom and it will open...remember not to go into the cantina...you're supposed to be playing golf on the moon...over"

The VAB is your red herring, it could be traversed through by men if the crafts were protected enough, but the crafts were not protected to cause man to survive because man didn't go through it.

Prattling on with Nasa reports as if they are proof as silly as the notion of men wearing space suits that wouldn't of fitted in or out of 'Eagle" leaping inches off the ground while the tape is run 505 slower than normal...It was all a trick..take your telescope and get your money back..you've been conned! LOL

You have complained about me to admin again about me being rude to you while you post comments like this?

" But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET"

You're going to get yourself banned and then what will Nasa do without you?

Merk you words...have you got a bet on with the bookies or something...if so you have lost...

Where is the link you are stating says only 6% of people doubt the moon landing...that must of been taken in your household.

I bet more than 75% of people on these threads , if they have given it a thought, believe man walked on the moon...

" which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters,"

Is that a fact? Or a bit more of your "I thought it so it must be the case"

Other than posting Nasa information what have you posted that shows this walk took place...Nothing!
Have you had Nasa mess with my phone? Too many things appearing on my posts that shouldn't ..Typos? Or something more sinister...

* looks around suspiciously*

For 505 read 50%

For Merk read Mark

For I bet more than 75% of people on these threads , if they have given it a thought, believe man walked on the moon... READ
I bet more than 75% of people on these threads , if they have given it a thought, believe man didn't walk on the moon.

If i hear strange nosies and beeps coming from my shower head you know im going to blame you...now where is my tin foil helmet...
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: The Apollo Program collected 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon - NO published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim. . The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and Earth rocks in that they show a lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence of having undergone impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical traits. Furthermore, most are more than 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks. The Moon rocks also share the same traits as samples retrieved from the Moon by Soviet lander missions. . Brave men died in the race to get to the moon. On 27 January 1967, a fire erupted in the Apollo 1 command module during a test on the launch pad, destroying the module and killing astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee. A test flight of the Block II CSM in Earth orbit, Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo flight and the first manned flight of the Saturn IB. It was the only manned Apollo launch not from LC 39. It included the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft. Apollo 8 was the first manned CIRCUMLUNAR flight of the CSM (10 orbits in 20 hours) and the first manned flight of the Saturn V. The crew were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon and earthrise over the lunar horizon with their own eyes. LIVE television pictures were broadcast to Earth. During 10 days in Earth orbit, Apollo 9 conducted the first manned flight test of the Lunar Module, demonstrating its propulsion and ability to rendezvous and dock with the CSM. An EVA tested the Portable Life Support System. In this "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, Apollo 10's Lunar Module was flown manned around the Moon and descended to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) without landing. If ET is right all these astronauts should have died from exposure to the Van Allen radiation but none did. . On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module performed the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility, overcoming navigation errors and computer alarms. Astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin performed a single EVA in the direct vicinity of the LM. Following two lightning strikes on the spacecraft during launch, with brief loss of fuel cells and telemetry, Apollo 12 performed the first precise manned landing on the Moon in the Ocean of Storms near the Surveyor 3 probe. In two EVAs, the astronauts recovered portions of Surveyor and returned them to Earth. After docking problems, a faulty LM abort switch and delayed landing radar acquisition, Apollo 14's LM landed successfully at Fra Mauro. First color video images from the surface of the Moon, first materials science experiments in space, and two EVAs, in one of which Shepard performed a golf shot.Apollo 15, landing at Hadley-Apennine was the first "J series" mission with a 3-day lunar stay and extensive geology investigations. After a malfunction in a backup CSM yaw gimbal servo loop delayed the landing and reduced CSM time in lunar orbit, Apollo 16's LM landed in the Descartes Highlands. No ascent stage deorbit due to malfunction; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA.The final Apollo lunar mission landed at Taurus-Littrow. Schmitt, a geologist, was the first professional scientist to go on a NASA mission. First night launch; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA. But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET we didn’t have the technology to do any of this, ha ha! . Since 1969 the lunar landing sites have been detected by NASA, Indian and Chinese space missions and the A11 site is even visible in photos taken from low lunar orbit by the A11 team themselves. Mark my words, one day man will return to the moon and the A11 landing site will be revealed in all it’s glory and conspiracy theorists the world over will have to eat their brainless words. Btw according to the latest official stats only 6% of people doubt the lunar landings took place, and I bet not a single one of them even has a science A level never mind a science degree, which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters, ha ha ha![/p][/quote]You will of course be aware that some of the rocks they handed out were FAKE! 'Good ole boys' Neil and Buzz palmed them off on Holland http://www.telegraph .co.uk/science/space /6105902/Moon-rock-g iven-to-Holland-by-N eil-Armstrong-and-Bu zz-Aldrin-is-fake.ht ml You keep harping on about "peer reviewed" but surely you are aware If you had a monkey review another monkeys work, which he is in agreement with, that it could be said the 1st monkeys work was "peer reviewed" clue up yourself man! " If ET is right " Hey its got nothing to do with me...i wasn't part of the hoax! Its people with the knowledge of the radiation involved who have said man could not go through the belt in the craft they are said to have done...have you looked at all the clear evidence of this on the internet? Or are you thinking only I think this is the case? You are a minority in the civilised world in thinking man walked, jumped, played golf on the moon..They didn't but they pretended to. Im just pointing out while there is much independent proof that man didnt go to the moon and land there the only evidence available they did is from those who had most to gain by stating man did... As for all the flying around in space no one is saying space craft didn't do that what is being said is man didn't land on the moon...repeat didn't land on the moon.... "err.. Houston we have a problem, we cant get the film studio door open...over" "Houston to astronauts, give it a good shake and then kick the bottom and it will open...remember not to go into the cantina...you're supposed to be playing golf on the moon...over" The VAB is your red herring, it could be traversed through by men if the crafts were protected enough, but the crafts were not protected to cause man to survive because man didn't go through it. Prattling on with Nasa reports as if they are proof as silly as the notion of men wearing space suits that wouldn't of fitted in or out of 'Eagle" leaping inches off the ground while the tape is run 505 slower than normal...It was all a trick..take your telescope and get your money back..you've been conned! LOL You have complained about me to admin again about me being rude to you while you post comments like this? " But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET" You're going to get yourself banned and then what will Nasa do without you? Merk you words...have you got a bet on with the bookies or something...if so you have lost... Where is the link you are stating says only 6% of people doubt the moon landing...that must of been taken in your household. I bet more than 75% of people on these threads , if they have given it a thought, believe man walked on the moon... " which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters," Is that a fact? Or a bit more of your "I thought it so it must be the case" Other than posting Nasa information what have you posted that shows this walk took place...Nothing![/p][/quote]Have you had Nasa mess with my phone? Too many things appearing on my posts that shouldn't ..Typos? Or something more sinister... * looks around suspiciously* For 505 read 50% For Merk read Mark For I bet more than 75% of people on these threads , if they have given it a thought, believe man walked on the moon... READ I bet more than 75% of people on these threads , if they have given it a thought, believe man didn't walk on the moon. If i hear strange nosies and beeps coming from my shower head you know im going to blame you...now where is my tin foil helmet... E -Type

6:53pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E - Type says...

Oh yes nearly forgot TWP says " and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s".

Well, Ive been a reader of H&E since the 70's so I must be just as qualified to talk about heavenly bodys.
Oh yes nearly forgot TWP says " and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s". Well, Ive been a reader of H&E since the 70's so I must be just as qualified to talk about heavenly bodys. E - Type

6:54pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E -Type says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
The Apollo Program collected 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon - NO published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim.
.
The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and Earth rocks in that they show a lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence of having undergone impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical traits. Furthermore, most are more than 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks. The Moon rocks also share the same traits as samples retrieved from the Moon by Soviet lander missions.
.
Brave men died in the race to get to the moon. On 27 January 1967, a fire erupted in the Apollo 1 command module during a test on the launch pad, destroying the module and killing astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee. A test flight of the Block II CSM in Earth orbit, Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo flight and the first manned flight of the Saturn IB. It was the only manned Apollo launch not from LC 39. It included the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft. Apollo 8 was the first manned CIRCUMLUNAR flight of the CSM (10 orbits in 20 hours) and the first manned flight of the Saturn V. The crew were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon and earthrise over the lunar horizon with their own eyes. LIVE television pictures were broadcast to Earth. During 10 days in Earth orbit, Apollo 9 conducted the first manned flight test of the Lunar Module, demonstrating its propulsion and ability to rendezvous and dock with the CSM. An EVA tested the Portable Life Support System. In this "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, Apollo 10's Lunar Module was flown manned around the Moon and descended to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) without landing. If ET is right all these astronauts should have died from exposure to the Van Allen radiation but none did.
.
On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module performed the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility, overcoming navigation errors and computer alarms. Astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin performed a single EVA in the direct vicinity of the LM. Following two lightning strikes on the spacecraft during launch, with brief loss of fuel cells and telemetry, Apollo 12 performed the first precise manned landing on the Moon in the Ocean of Storms near the Surveyor 3 probe. In two EVAs, the astronauts recovered portions of Surveyor and returned them to Earth. After docking problems, a faulty LM abort switch and delayed landing radar acquisition, Apollo 14's LM landed successfully at Fra Mauro. First color video images from the surface of the Moon, first materials science experiments in space, and two EVAs, in one of which Shepard performed a golf shot.Apollo 15, landing at Hadley-Apennine was the first "J series" mission with a 3-day lunar stay and extensive geology investigations. After a malfunction in a backup CSM yaw gimbal servo loop delayed the landing and reduced CSM time in lunar orbit, Apollo 16's LM landed in the Descartes Highlands. No ascent stage deorbit due to malfunction; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA.The final Apollo lunar mission landed at Taurus-Littrow. Schmitt, a geologist, was the first professional scientist to go on a NASA mission. First night launch; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA. But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET we didn’t have the technology to do any of this, ha ha!
.
Since 1969 the lunar landing sites have been detected by NASA, Indian and Chinese space missions and the A11 site is even visible in photos taken from low lunar orbit by the A11 team themselves. Mark my words, one day man will return to the moon and the A11 landing site will be revealed in all it’s glory and conspiracy theorists the world over will have to eat their brainless words. Btw according to the latest official stats only 6% of people doubt the lunar landings took place, and I bet not a single one of them even has a science A level never mind a science degree, which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters, ha ha ha!
you're on the wrong story gramps.
I have tried to coax him back over to the other thread by whispering things about there being a real life astronaut on there asking about him...but he wants to be here to argue two different weird opinons...laziness or just losing the plot a little?

If you asked him he'd report it as rudeness.

Shhh, here he comes..telescope in one hand and reefer in the other.
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: The Apollo Program collected 382 kilograms (840 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon - NO published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim. . The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and Earth rocks in that they show a lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence of having undergone impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical traits. Furthermore, most are more than 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks. The Moon rocks also share the same traits as samples retrieved from the Moon by Soviet lander missions. . Brave men died in the race to get to the moon. On 27 January 1967, a fire erupted in the Apollo 1 command module during a test on the launch pad, destroying the module and killing astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee. A test flight of the Block II CSM in Earth orbit, Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo flight and the first manned flight of the Saturn IB. It was the only manned Apollo launch not from LC 39. It included the first live TV broadcast from an American spacecraft. Apollo 8 was the first manned CIRCUMLUNAR flight of the CSM (10 orbits in 20 hours) and the first manned flight of the Saturn V. The crew were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon and earthrise over the lunar horizon with their own eyes. LIVE television pictures were broadcast to Earth. During 10 days in Earth orbit, Apollo 9 conducted the first manned flight test of the Lunar Module, demonstrating its propulsion and ability to rendezvous and dock with the CSM. An EVA tested the Portable Life Support System. In this "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, Apollo 10's Lunar Module was flown manned around the Moon and descended to 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) without landing. If ET is right all these astronauts should have died from exposure to the Van Allen radiation but none did. . On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module performed the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility, overcoming navigation errors and computer alarms. Astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin performed a single EVA in the direct vicinity of the LM. Following two lightning strikes on the spacecraft during launch, with brief loss of fuel cells and telemetry, Apollo 12 performed the first precise manned landing on the Moon in the Ocean of Storms near the Surveyor 3 probe. In two EVAs, the astronauts recovered portions of Surveyor and returned them to Earth. After docking problems, a faulty LM abort switch and delayed landing radar acquisition, Apollo 14's LM landed successfully at Fra Mauro. First color video images from the surface of the Moon, first materials science experiments in space, and two EVAs, in one of which Shepard performed a golf shot.Apollo 15, landing at Hadley-Apennine was the first "J series" mission with a 3-day lunar stay and extensive geology investigations. After a malfunction in a backup CSM yaw gimbal servo loop delayed the landing and reduced CSM time in lunar orbit, Apollo 16's LM landed in the Descartes Highlands. No ascent stage deorbit due to malfunction; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA.The final Apollo lunar mission landed at Taurus-Littrow. Schmitt, a geologist, was the first professional scientist to go on a NASA mission. First night launch; 3 lunar EVAs and deep space EVA. But according to that ignorant know-nothing ET we didn’t have the technology to do any of this, ha ha! . Since 1969 the lunar landing sites have been detected by NASA, Indian and Chinese space missions and the A11 site is even visible in photos taken from low lunar orbit by the A11 team themselves. Mark my words, one day man will return to the moon and the A11 landing site will be revealed in all it’s glory and conspiracy theorists the world over will have to eat their brainless words. Btw according to the latest official stats only 6% of people doubt the lunar landings took place, and I bet not a single one of them even has a science A level never mind a science degree, which is why the correct technical description of moon landing conspiracy theorists is ignorant nutters, ha ha ha![/p][/quote]you're on the wrong story gramps.[/p][/quote]I have tried to coax him back over to the other thread by whispering things about there being a real life astronaut on there asking about him...but he wants to be here to argue two different weird opinons...laziness or just losing the plot a little? If you asked him he'd report it as rudeness. Shhh, here he comes..telescope in one hand and reefer in the other. E -Type

6:59pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

ET "You keep harping on about "peer reviewed" but surely you are aware If you had a monkey review another monkeys work, which he is in agreement with, that it could be said the 1st monkeys work was "peer reviewed". That might be the way you travellers do it but in the world of science peer reviewed means reviewed by a panel of PROVEN experts in the field.
.
"As for all the flying around in space no one is saying space craft didn't do that what is being said is man didn't land on the moon", Imbecile, you can't get anywhere near the moon without going through the VA Belts, the actual landing on a body with 1/6th earths gravity was a fairly simple step after getting there and the VA radiation is not an issue on the surface of the moon. Bet you don't even know what VA radiation is and how to calculate the exposure without googling it.
.
You keep harping on about us not having the technology but what exactly do you mean? Computers for navigation? It's only simple Newtonian equations and trigonometry which you could do longhand or on a simple calculator, little different to terrestrial celestial navigation (all 3D as the earth is a sphere, dummy) which all ships and aircraft have used for years.
.
Golf balls on the moon? Even the most powerful terrestrial telescopes can't resolve golf balls on the moon you looney. If we could you'd have to grovel apologetically, as you will have to do one day.
.
You say you are not worried by people insulting you as people have insulted you all your life. I wonder why?
ET "You keep harping on about "peer reviewed" but surely you are aware If you had a monkey review another monkeys work, which he is in agreement with, that it could be said the 1st monkeys work was "peer reviewed". That might be the way you travellers do it but in the world of science peer reviewed means reviewed by a panel of PROVEN experts in the field. . "As for all the flying around in space no one is saying space craft didn't do that what is being said is man didn't land on the moon", Imbecile, you can't get anywhere near the moon without going through the VA Belts, the actual landing on a body with 1/6th earths gravity was a fairly simple step after getting there and the VA radiation is not an issue on the surface of the moon. Bet you don't even know what VA radiation is and how to calculate the exposure without googling it. . You keep harping on about us not having the technology but what exactly do you mean? Computers for navigation? It's only simple Newtonian equations and trigonometry which you could do longhand or on a simple calculator, little different to terrestrial celestial navigation (all 3D as the earth is a sphere, dummy) which all ships and aircraft have used for years. . Golf balls on the moon? Even the most powerful terrestrial telescopes can't resolve golf balls on the moon you looney. If we could you'd have to grovel apologetically, as you will have to do one day. . You say you are not worried by people insulting you as people have insulted you all your life. I wonder why? Truth Will Prevail

7:05pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

ET "You have complained about me to admin again about me being rude to you while you post comments like this?". Get your facts right! I have never complained about you although I can't say I haven't been tempted as the world would be a better place with ignoramii like you.
.
Do you even have the slightest idea what the "Nature" journal is? Thought not.
ET "You have complained about me to admin again about me being rude to you while you post comments like this?". Get your facts right! I have never complained about you although I can't say I haven't been tempted as the world would be a better place with ignoramii like you. . Do you even have the slightest idea what the "Nature" journal is? Thought not. Truth Will Prevail

7:07pm Mon 1 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

E -Type wrote:
LoopyLou88 wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
LoopyLou88 wrote:
one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down.
what number is it?
got no idea, but you can see lit up from train station purple glowing light, green plants, purple light on during day too.
Thats probably TWP bachelor flat, his space lights flickering on and off as he uses his 1960s junior telescope, to see if he can detect golf balls on the moon.
lol
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LoopyLou88[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LoopyLou88[/bold] wrote: one in thorpe bay flats barnstaple side of train station still not been taken down.[/p][/quote]what number is it?[/p][/quote]got no idea, but you can see lit up from train station purple glowing light, green plants, purple light on during day too.[/p][/quote]Thats probably TWP bachelor flat, his space lights flickering on and off as he uses his 1960s junior telescope, to see if he can detect golf balls on the moon.[/p][/quote]lol beyond the valley of the asbos

7:13pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E -Type says...

E - Type wrote:
Oh yes nearly forgot TWP says " and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s".

Well, Ive been a reader of H&E since the 70's so I must be just as qualified to talk about heavenly bodys.
If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again.
[quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: Oh yes nearly forgot TWP says " and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s". Well, Ive been a reader of H&E since the 70's so I must be just as qualified to talk about heavenly bodys.[/p][/quote]If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again. E -Type

7:19pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E - Type says...

E -Type wrote:
E - Type wrote:
Oh yes nearly forgot TWP says " and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s".

Well, Ive been a reader of H&E since the 70's so I must be just as qualified to talk about heavenly bodys.
If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again.
I should try a little cannabis if I were you, it can have positive effects in the treatment of schizophrenia. ( Always consult a doctor before taking such medication though).
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: Oh yes nearly forgot TWP says " and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s". Well, Ive been a reader of H&E since the 70's so I must be just as qualified to talk about heavenly bodys.[/p][/quote]If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again.[/p][/quote]I should try a little cannabis if I were you, it can have positive effects in the treatment of schizophrenia. ( Always consult a doctor before taking such medication though). E - Type

7:27pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E - Type says...

Further to my last:

Tell it to someone who gives a sh@t.
Further to my last: Tell it to someone who gives a sh@t. E - Type

7:30pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

E -Type wrote:
E - Type wrote: Oh yes nearly forgot TWP says " and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s". Well, Ive been a reader of H&E since the 70's so I must be just as qualified to talk about heavenly bodys.
If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again.
You are crazy, how can you call the Echo reinstating my account as TWP because the account was closed unjustifiably "aping your user name"??? In case you have forgotten YOU are the one whose account was closed down and you are the one who has re-registered with a similar name. I wonder if the Echo has realised that yet? You don't half talk a load of twaddle ET. Typical traveller attitude of trying(!) to use the law when it suits you and ignoring the law when it doesn't. Shame we can't have you removed from planet earth permanently cos the world would be a better place without people as ignorant as you.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: Oh yes nearly forgot TWP says " and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s". Well, Ive been a reader of H&E since the 70's so I must be just as qualified to talk about heavenly bodys.[/p][/quote]If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again.[/p][/quote]You are crazy, how can you call the Echo reinstating my account as TWP because the account was closed unjustifiably "aping your user name"??? In case you have forgotten YOU are the one whose account was closed down and you are the one who has re-registered with a similar name. I wonder if the Echo has realised that yet? You don't half talk a load of twaddle ET. Typical traveller attitude of trying(!) to use the law when it suits you and ignoring the law when it doesn't. Shame we can't have you removed from planet earth permanently cos the world would be a better place without people as ignorant as you. Truth Will Prevail

7:53pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E - Type says...

@E -Type (formerly known as E-Types.., E-Types, Minceir, Night'n'Day - et al)



If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again.
@E -Type (formerly known as E-Types.., E-Types, Minceir, Night'n'Day - et al) If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again. E - Type

8:00pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
E -Type wrote:
E - Type wrote: Oh yes nearly forgot TWP says " and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s". Well, Ive been a reader of H&E since the 70's so I must be just as qualified to talk about heavenly bodys.
If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again.
You are crazy, how can you call the Echo reinstating my account as TWP because the account was closed unjustifiably "aping your user name"??? In case you have forgotten YOU are the one whose account was closed down and you are the one who has re-registered with a similar name. I wonder if the Echo has realised that yet? You don't half talk a load of twaddle ET. Typical traveller attitude of trying(!) to use the law when it suits you and ignoring the law when it doesn't. Shame we can't have you removed from planet earth permanently cos the world would be a better place without people as ignorant as you.
OH DEAR!

I am crazy? LOL

Err, please check the poster i sent the comments to...they were not adressed to you...i dont smoke that stuff do you?

How could you have been "unjustifiably" deleted? If you were deleted then it is justified by those who deleted you!

"Typical traveller" Do you know a sufficient amount of Travellers ( peer reviewed) to be able to say what is typical or not? Or is this more of your rubbish or perhaps better termed.. more of your moon rock! LOL

Hey everyone uses the law when it suits them and ignores it when it doesn't...how many times have you sped a mile over the speed limit?


"we" which we is this? or do you think you are we?

We all get removed from the earth in time...dont be impatient...if the good die young then their is one on here who has probably a good 300 years left.

Do you think that when we pop our space boots we go and live on the moon?
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: Oh yes nearly forgot TWP says " and I have been a regular Nature /NS reader since the 70s". Well, Ive been a reader of H&E since the 70's so I must be just as qualified to talk about heavenly bodys.[/p][/quote]If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again.[/p][/quote]You are crazy, how can you call the Echo reinstating my account as TWP because the account was closed unjustifiably "aping your user name"??? In case you have forgotten YOU are the one whose account was closed down and you are the one who has re-registered with a similar name. I wonder if the Echo has realised that yet? You don't half talk a load of twaddle ET. Typical traveller attitude of trying(!) to use the law when it suits you and ignoring the law when it doesn't. Shame we can't have you removed from planet earth permanently cos the world would be a better place without people as ignorant as you.[/p][/quote]OH DEAR! I am crazy? LOL Err, please check the poster i sent the comments to...they were not adressed to you...i dont smoke that stuff do you? How could you have been "unjustifiably" deleted? If you were deleted then it is justified by those who deleted you! "Typical traveller" Do you know a sufficient amount of Travellers ( peer reviewed) to be able to say what is typical or not? Or is this more of your rubbish or perhaps better termed.. more of your moon rock! LOL Hey everyone uses the law when it suits them and ignores it when it doesn't...how many times have you sped a mile over the speed limit? "we" which we is this? or do you think you are we? We all get removed from the earth in time...dont be impatient...if the good die young then their is one on here who has probably a good 300 years left. Do you think that when we pop our space boots we go and live on the moon? E -Type

8:07pm Mon 1 Oct 12

InTheKnowOk says...

Drugs thread = Various comments by the same pot head trying to justify the use of this filthy addiction ....
Drugs thread = Various comments by the same pot head trying to justify the use of this filthy addiction .... InTheKnowOk

8:07pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E - Type says...

And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one.
And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one. E - Type

8:07pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E -Type says...

E - Type wrote:
@E -Type (formerly known as E-Types.., E-Types, Minceir, Night'n'Day - et al)



If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again.
You have forgot to mention all the names you have had on this forum before you were deleted...im sure this one you are using will soon be counted in that list. You have been warned and the fact you repeat the warning is proof you are aware of it...

It must be clear to all you are a rather disturbed individual.
[quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: @E -Type (formerly known as E-Types.., E-Types, Minceir, Night'n'Day - et al) If you libel anyone on here or use illegal or unlawful language i will work with those who you libel or the authorities to have you held to account for your actions. The admin has been informed that you have re-signed to the forum aping my user name...again.[/p][/quote]You have forgot to mention all the names you have had on this forum before you were deleted...im sure this one you are using will soon be counted in that list. You have been warned and the fact you repeat the warning is proof you are aware of it... It must be clear to all you are a rather disturbed individual. E -Type

8:10pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E -Type says...

E - Type wrote:
And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one.
Here is the proof anyone needed that cannabis does effect the brain!

A living example... although sample might be more appropriate!
[quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one.[/p][/quote]Here is the proof anyone needed that cannabis does effect the brain! A living example... although sample might be more appropriate! E -Type

8:59pm Mon 1 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

E -Type wrote:
E - Type wrote:
And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one.
Here is the proof anyone needed that cannabis does effect the brain!

A living example... although sample might be more appropriate!
take it as a form of flattery. your imposter obviously aspires to be you. he probably never had an original thought in his head
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one.[/p][/quote]Here is the proof anyone needed that cannabis does effect the brain! A living example... although sample might be more appropriate![/p][/quote]take it as a form of flattery. your imposter obviously aspires to be you. he probably never had an original thought in his head beyond the valley of the asbos

9:03pm Mon 1 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

E -Type wrote:
E - Type wrote:
And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one.
Here is the proof anyone needed that cannabis does effect the brain!

A living example... although sample might be more appropriate!
it's probably the hadleigh moaner
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one.[/p][/quote]Here is the proof anyone needed that cannabis does effect the brain! A living example... although sample might be more appropriate![/p][/quote]it's probably the hadleigh moaner beyond the valley of the asbos

9:37pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E -Type says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E -Type wrote:
E - Type wrote:
And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one.
Here is the proof anyone needed that cannabis does effect the brain!

A living example... although sample might be more appropriate!
it's probably the hadleigh moaner
Yes i had thought that might be the case..he gets whipped and then tries to save a bit of face with a new name.

He dont post much in the way of text because he knows his dry dribble will be recognised..
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one.[/p][/quote]Here is the proof anyone needed that cannabis does effect the brain! A living example... although sample might be more appropriate![/p][/quote]it's probably the hadleigh moaner[/p][/quote]Yes i had thought that might be the case..he gets whipped and then tries to save a bit of face with a new name. He dont post much in the way of text because he knows his dry dribble will be recognised.. E -Type

9:42pm Mon 1 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

E -Type wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E -Type wrote:
E - Type wrote:
And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one.
Here is the proof anyone needed that cannabis does effect the brain!

A living example... although sample might be more appropriate!
it's probably the hadleigh moaner
Yes i had thought that might be the case..he gets whipped and then tries to save a bit of face with a new name.

He dont post much in the way of text because he knows his dry dribble will be recognised..
you are aware that one of his many aliases is the hadleigh keyboard or drivel (hkod)?
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: And while you ponder that question I think I'll roll another one.[/p][/quote]Here is the proof anyone needed that cannabis does effect the brain! A living example... although sample might be more appropriate![/p][/quote]it's probably the hadleigh moaner[/p][/quote]Yes i had thought that might be the case..he gets whipped and then tries to save a bit of face with a new name. He dont post much in the way of text because he knows his dry dribble will be recognised..[/p][/quote]you are aware that one of his many aliases is the hadleigh keyboard or drivel (hkod)? beyond the valley of the asbos

9:49pm Mon 1 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

of
of beyond the valley of the asbos

10:12pm Mon 1 Oct 12

E -Type says...

He is put to bed at 9pm so he wont be around until he is woken up, washed, fed and sat at the computer.
He is put to bed at 9pm so he wont be around until he is woken up, washed, fed and sat at the computer. E -Type

4:07am Tue 2 Oct 12

E - Type says...

We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony. E - Type

11:05am Tue 2 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

You two are sick fantasists who think you're being clever by disrespecting the 40,000 people involved in the Apollo programme with your half baked ideas but you are actually just showing yourselves up as the uneducated ignorant plebs you really are. Orangutans and algebra.
You two are sick fantasists who think you're being clever by disrespecting the 40,000 people involved in the Apollo programme with your half baked ideas but you are actually just showing yourselves up as the uneducated ignorant plebs you really are. Orangutans and algebra. Truth Will Prevail

12:03pm Tue 2 Oct 12

AndyBSG says...

Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use

- reduced testosterone levels
- reduced sperm count and mobility
- increased risk of testicular cancer
- increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis

I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives.
Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use - reduced testosterone levels - reduced sperm count and mobility - increased risk of testicular cancer - increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives. AndyBSG

12:22pm Tue 2 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
You two are sick fantasists who think you're being clever by disrespecting the 40,000 people involved in the Apollo programme with your half baked ideas but you are actually just showing yourselves up as the uneducated ignorant plebs you really are. Orangutans and algebra.
Seems you dont have any independent evidence of what you allege...not that it matters.

How many people in the world care one way or the other if two man in fancy suits played leapfrog on a satellite?

Im only 'anti walk' because you are 'pro walk'... if you were anti walk id be pro walk LOL. And id provide the evidence that they did walk on the moon not just say it. Which is all you have done.

No one cares about the moon... people are more concerned about the earth.
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: You two are sick fantasists who think you're being clever by disrespecting the 40,000 people involved in the Apollo programme with your half baked ideas but you are actually just showing yourselves up as the uneducated ignorant plebs you really are. Orangutans and algebra.[/p][/quote]Seems you dont have any independent evidence of what you allege...not that it matters. How many people in the world care one way or the other if two man in fancy suits played leapfrog on a satellite? Im only 'anti walk' because you are 'pro walk'... if you were anti walk id be pro walk LOL. And id provide the evidence that they did walk on the moon not just say it. Which is all you have done. No one cares about the moon... people are more concerned about the earth. E -Type

2:29pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
You two are sick fantasists who think you're being clever by disrespecting the 40,000 people involved in the Apollo programme with your half baked ideas but you are actually just showing yourselves up as the uneducated ignorant plebs you really are. Orangutans and algebra.
Seems you dont have any independent evidence of what you allege...not that it matters.

How many people in the world care one way or the other if two man in fancy suits played leapfrog on a satellite?

Im only 'anti walk' because you are 'pro walk'... if you were anti walk id be pro walk LOL. And id provide the evidence that they did walk on the moon not just say it. Which is all you have done.

No one cares about the moon... people are more concerned about the earth.
Well, I'll be burgered ! An honest and half way reasonable comment from ET. Never thought I'd see the day. I doubt that you would be any better than TWP at providing what you call evidence pro lunar landing than you have been providing evidence to support the anti stance you have adopted though. I don't think that matters as evidence is merely supportive in the search for truth and, as you have rightly pointed out, we should perhaps be more concerned with what is happening on the planet.

If the moon landing was faked then it will surely go down in history as the most convincing and elaborate hoax since J.C was presented to us as the son of God.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: You two are sick fantasists who think you're being clever by disrespecting the 40,000 people involved in the Apollo programme with your half baked ideas but you are actually just showing yourselves up as the uneducated ignorant plebs you really are. Orangutans and algebra.[/p][/quote]Seems you dont have any independent evidence of what you allege...not that it matters. How many people in the world care one way or the other if two man in fancy suits played leapfrog on a satellite? Im only 'anti walk' because you are 'pro walk'... if you were anti walk id be pro walk LOL. And id provide the evidence that they did walk on the moon not just say it. Which is all you have done. No one cares about the moon... people are more concerned about the earth.[/p][/quote]Well, I'll be burgered ! An honest and half way reasonable comment from ET. Never thought I'd see the day. I doubt that you would be any better than TWP at providing what you call evidence pro lunar landing than you have been providing evidence to support the anti stance you have adopted though. I don't think that matters as evidence is merely supportive in the search for truth and, as you have rightly pointed out, we should perhaps be more concerned with what is happening on the planet. If the moon landing was faked then it will surely go down in history as the most convincing and elaborate hoax since J.C was presented to us as the son of God. Camp Incontinent

2:55pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Druggie Scumbag says...

AndyBSG wrote:
Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use

- reduced testosterone levels
- reduced sperm count and mobility
- increased risk of testicular cancer
- increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis

I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives.
Have you considered that your "stoner" peers may actually have achieved and that you have failed? If they are, as you say "not bothered" by their perceived (by you) underachievement maybe they have got it right (for themselves if not for you).
[quote][p][bold]AndyBSG[/bold] wrote: Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use - reduced testosterone levels - reduced sperm count and mobility - increased risk of testicular cancer - increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives.[/p][/quote]Have you considered that your "stoner" peers may actually have achieved and that you have failed? If they are, as you say "not bothered" by their perceived (by you) underachievement maybe they have got it right (for themselves if not for you). Druggie Scumbag

2:59pm Tue 2 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
You two are sick fantasists who think you're being clever by disrespecting the 40,000 people involved in the Apollo programme with your half baked ideas but you are actually just showing yourselves up as the uneducated ignorant plebs you really are. Orangutans and algebra.
Seems you dont have any independent evidence of what you allege...not that it matters.

How many people in the world care one way or the other if two man in fancy suits played leapfrog on a satellite?

Im only 'anti walk' because you are 'pro walk'... if you were anti walk id be pro walk LOL. And id provide the evidence that they did walk on the moon not just say it. Which is all you have done.

No one cares about the moon... people are more concerned about the earth.
Well, I'll be burgered ! An honest and half way reasonable comment from ET. Never thought I'd see the day. I doubt that you would be any better than TWP at providing what you call evidence pro lunar landing than you have been providing evidence to support the anti stance you have adopted though. I don't think that matters as evidence is merely supportive in the search for truth and, as you have rightly pointed out, we should perhaps be more concerned with what is happening on the planet.

If the moon landing was faked then it will surely go down in history as the most convincing and elaborate hoax since J.C was presented to us as the son of God.
No you are right i'd not be able to prove they did walk on the moon... but i would of least provided some sort of 'evidence' and not just stamped my feet and say "Yes they did because i and they say they did" as 'ole man moonwalk' is wont to do about everything.

Of course JC could of walked on the moon first but im sure he wouldn't of played golf..
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: You two are sick fantasists who think you're being clever by disrespecting the 40,000 people involved in the Apollo programme with your half baked ideas but you are actually just showing yourselves up as the uneducated ignorant plebs you really are. Orangutans and algebra.[/p][/quote]Seems you dont have any independent evidence of what you allege...not that it matters. How many people in the world care one way or the other if two man in fancy suits played leapfrog on a satellite? Im only 'anti walk' because you are 'pro walk'... if you were anti walk id be pro walk LOL. And id provide the evidence that they did walk on the moon not just say it. Which is all you have done. No one cares about the moon... people are more concerned about the earth.[/p][/quote]Well, I'll be burgered ! An honest and half way reasonable comment from ET. Never thought I'd see the day. I doubt that you would be any better than TWP at providing what you call evidence pro lunar landing than you have been providing evidence to support the anti stance you have adopted though. I don't think that matters as evidence is merely supportive in the search for truth and, as you have rightly pointed out, we should perhaps be more concerned with what is happening on the planet. If the moon landing was faked then it will surely go down in history as the most convincing and elaborate hoax since J.C was presented to us as the son of God.[/p][/quote]No you are right i'd not be able to prove they did walk on the moon... but i would of least provided some sort of 'evidence' and not just stamped my feet and say "Yes they did because i and they say they did" as 'ole man moonwalk' is wont to do about everything. Of course JC could of walked on the moon first but im sure he wouldn't of played golf.. E -Type

4:13pm Tue 2 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

AndyBSG wrote:
Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use

- reduced testosterone levels
- reduced sperm count and mobility
- increased risk of testicular cancer
- increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis

I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives.
the reduced sperm count is a good thing as the gene pool is less likely to be further polluted by spineless benefit suckers
[quote][p][bold]AndyBSG[/bold] wrote: Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use - reduced testosterone levels - reduced sperm count and mobility - increased risk of testicular cancer - increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives.[/p][/quote]the reduced sperm count is a good thing as the gene pool is less likely to be further polluted by spineless benefit suckers beyond the valley of the asbos

4:41pm Tue 2 Oct 12

AndyBSG says...

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
AndyBSG wrote:
Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use

- reduced testosterone levels
- reduced sperm count and mobility
- increased risk of testicular cancer
- increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis

I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives.
Have you considered that your "stoner" peers may actually have achieved and that you have failed? If they are, as you say "not bothered" by their perceived (by you) underachievement maybe they have got it right (for themselves if not for you).
I guess that depends on if you class working in minimum wage dead end jobs while living in run down rented accommodation and only looking forward to their weekly fix of waccy baccy as the highlight of their week as 'achievements'.

Personally I don't and feel sorry for anyone who does consider that as a happy and fulfilling lifestyle.
[quote][p][bold]Druggie Scumbag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AndyBSG[/bold] wrote: Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use - reduced testosterone levels - reduced sperm count and mobility - increased risk of testicular cancer - increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives.[/p][/quote]Have you considered that your "stoner" peers may actually have achieved and that you have failed? If they are, as you say "not bothered" by their perceived (by you) underachievement maybe they have got it right (for themselves if not for you).[/p][/quote]I guess that depends on if you class working in minimum wage dead end jobs while living in run down rented accommodation and only looking forward to their weekly fix of waccy baccy as the highlight of their week as 'achievements'. Personally I don't and feel sorry for anyone who does consider that as a happy and fulfilling lifestyle. AndyBSG

4:56pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Druggie Scumbag says...

AndyBSG wrote:
Druggie Scumbag wrote:
AndyBSG wrote:
Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use

- reduced testosterone levels
- reduced sperm count and mobility
- increased risk of testicular cancer
- increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis

I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives.
Have you considered that your "stoner" peers may actually have achieved and that you have failed? If they are, as you say "not bothered" by their perceived (by you) underachievement maybe they have got it right (for themselves if not for you).
I guess that depends on if you class working in minimum wage dead end jobs while living in run down rented accommodation and only looking forward to their weekly fix of waccy baccy as the highlight of their week as 'achievements'.

Personally I don't and feel sorry for anyone who does consider that as a happy and fulfilling lifestyle.
It's good to hear someone not classify cannabis users as "Benefits scroungers" as certain others on this thread have done. The reality is cannabis users come from all walks of life from the landed gentry (yes, they do still exist and I know one or two who are regular users) to the professions, management people , the whole spectrum of society. I see no correlation between ones cannabis use and the job that one does or the status one holds.
[quote][p][bold]AndyBSG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Druggie Scumbag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AndyBSG[/bold] wrote: Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use - reduced testosterone levels - reduced sperm count and mobility - increased risk of testicular cancer - increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives.[/p][/quote]Have you considered that your "stoner" peers may actually have achieved and that you have failed? If they are, as you say "not bothered" by their perceived (by you) underachievement maybe they have got it right (for themselves if not for you).[/p][/quote]I guess that depends on if you class working in minimum wage dead end jobs while living in run down rented accommodation and only looking forward to their weekly fix of waccy baccy as the highlight of their week as 'achievements'. Personally I don't and feel sorry for anyone who does consider that as a happy and fulfilling lifestyle.[/p][/quote]It's good to hear someone not classify cannabis users as "Benefits scroungers" as certain others on this thread have done. The reality is cannabis users come from all walks of life from the landed gentry (yes, they do still exist and I know one or two who are regular users) to the professions, management people , the whole spectrum of society. I see no correlation between ones cannabis use and the job that one does or the status one holds. Druggie Scumbag

6:11pm Tue 2 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
AndyBSG wrote:
Druggie Scumbag wrote:
AndyBSG wrote:
Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use

- reduced testosterone levels
- reduced sperm count and mobility
- increased risk of testicular cancer
- increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis

I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives.
Have you considered that your "stoner" peers may actually have achieved and that you have failed? If they are, as you say "not bothered" by their perceived (by you) underachievement maybe they have got it right (for themselves if not for you).
I guess that depends on if you class working in minimum wage dead end jobs while living in run down rented accommodation and only looking forward to their weekly fix of waccy baccy as the highlight of their week as 'achievements'.

Personally I don't and feel sorry for anyone who does consider that as a happy and fulfilling lifestyle.
It's good to hear someone not classify cannabis users as "Benefits scroungers" as certain others on this thread have done. The reality is cannabis users come from all walks of life from the landed gentry (yes, they do still exist and I know one or two who are regular users) to the professions, management people , the whole spectrum of society. I see no correlation between ones cannabis use and the job that one does or the status one holds.
well you should do...it's stigmatised and rightly so. dope is a philosophy. look at the strength of feeling it generates amongst the dependants. it is not a take it or leave it for many people, it is a lifestyle. those that become dependant have no moral fibre and have failed.
[quote][p][bold]Druggie Scumbag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AndyBSG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Druggie Scumbag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AndyBSG[/bold] wrote: Yes, lets legalise cannabis and completely ignore all of the following which all have proven links with cannabis use - reduced testosterone levels - reduced sperm count and mobility - increased risk of testicular cancer - increased risk of depression,anxiety and psychosis I only have to look around me at the people I went to school with and see how all the stoners have massively underachieved and don't seem bothered by it compared to others I went school with who have gone on to have successful lives.[/p][/quote]Have you considered that your "stoner" peers may actually have achieved and that you have failed? If they are, as you say "not bothered" by their perceived (by you) underachievement maybe they have got it right (for themselves if not for you).[/p][/quote]I guess that depends on if you class working in minimum wage dead end jobs while living in run down rented accommodation and only looking forward to their weekly fix of waccy baccy as the highlight of their week as 'achievements'. Personally I don't and feel sorry for anyone who does consider that as a happy and fulfilling lifestyle.[/p][/quote]It's good to hear someone not classify cannabis users as "Benefits scroungers" as certain others on this thread have done. The reality is cannabis users come from all walks of life from the landed gentry (yes, they do still exist and I know one or two who are regular users) to the professions, management people , the whole spectrum of society. I see no correlation between ones cannabis use and the job that one does or the status one holds.[/p][/quote]well you should do...it's stigmatised and rightly so. dope is a philosophy. look at the strength of feeling it generates amongst the dependants. it is not a take it or leave it for many people, it is a lifestyle. those that become dependant have no moral fibre and have failed. beyond the valley of the asbos

6:49pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Druggie Scumbag says...

@ BVA who says :

" those that become dependant have no moral fibre and have failed".

Few people become dependent on cannabis, I think I am right in saying that there is no physical dependency but a degree of psychological dependency is possible. Far less a problem than tobacco or alcohol.

There are many veterans from the war in Vietnam who became regular users of cannabis once back home in the US. Failures without moral fibre?

I have a sneaky suspicion I'd rather have them watching my back in a tricky situation than you.
@ BVA who says : " those that become dependant have no moral fibre and have failed". Few people become dependent on cannabis, I think I am right in saying that there is no physical dependency but a degree of psychological dependency is possible. Far less a problem than tobacco or alcohol. There are many veterans from the war in Vietnam who became regular users of cannabis once back home in the US. Failures without moral fibre? I have a sneaky suspicion I'd rather have them watching my back in a tricky situation than you. Druggie Scumbag

7:04pm Tue 2 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
@ BVA who says :

" those that become dependant have no moral fibre and have failed".

Few people become dependent on cannabis, I think I am right in saying that there is no physical dependency but a degree of psychological dependency is possible. Far less a problem than tobacco or alcohol.

There are many veterans from the war in Vietnam who became regular users of cannabis once back home in the US. Failures without moral fibre?

I have a sneaky suspicion I'd rather have them watching my back in a tricky situation than you.
yep the psychological dependancy. you'd rather have a screwed up vietnam vet watching your back....good luck with that?
[quote][p][bold]Druggie Scumbag[/bold] wrote: @ BVA who says : " those that become dependant have no moral fibre and have failed". Few people become dependent on cannabis, I think I am right in saying that there is no physical dependency but a degree of psychological dependency is possible. Far less a problem than tobacco or alcohol. There are many veterans from the war in Vietnam who became regular users of cannabis once back home in the US. Failures without moral fibre? I have a sneaky suspicion I'd rather have them watching my back in a tricky situation than you.[/p][/quote]yep the psychological dependancy. you'd rather have a screwed up vietnam vet watching your back....good luck with that? beyond the valley of the asbos

7:17pm Tue 2 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

E - Type wrote:
We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
[quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony. beyond the valley of the asbos

7:23pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Druggie Scumbag says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E - Type wrote:
We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
Yep. I'll definitely take my chances with the Vietnam vet thanks.

You two have a nice day.
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.[/p][/quote]Yep. I'll definitely take my chances with the Vietnam vet thanks. You two have a nice day. Druggie Scumbag

7:36pm Tue 2 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

lol another imposter with friends at the echo. obviously a chippy dope dependant.
lol another imposter with friends at the echo. obviously a chippy dope dependant. beyond the valley of the asbos

8:31pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E - Type wrote:
We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
A bit of a turn up for the books I must say.
Asbo & E.T.
E.T. & Asbo.
May you both be very happy together !
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.[/p][/quote]A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together ! Camp Incontinent

8:50pm Tue 2 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. high five me basildon stoners
our lives are so hollow and empty we need to escape the mundanity of our own existence - yeah. high five me basildon stoners beyond the valley of the asbos

10:16pm Tue 2 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E - Type wrote:
We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
A bit of a turn up for the books I must say.
Asbo & E.T.
E.T. & Asbo.
May you both be very happy together !
There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum.

One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself)

The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.[/p][/quote]A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together ![/p][/quote]There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum. One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself) The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher' E -Type

2:13pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Gina the weaner says...

E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E - Type wrote:
We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
A bit of a turn up for the books I must say.
Asbo & E.T.
E.T. & Asbo.
May you both be very happy together !
There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum.

One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself)

The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'
I thought you were the winkle scratcher.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.[/p][/quote]A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together ![/p][/quote]There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum. One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself) The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'[/p][/quote]I thought you were the winkle scratcher. Gina the weaner

3:33pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: You two are sick fantasists who think you're being clever by disrespecting the 40,000 people involved in the Apollo programme with your half baked ideas but you are actually just showing yourselves up as the uneducated ignorant plebs you really are. Orangutans and algebra.
Seems you dont have any independent evidence of what you allege...not that it matters. How many people in the world care one way or the other if two man in fancy suits played leapfrog on a satellite? Im only 'anti walk' because you are 'pro walk'... if you were anti walk id be pro walk LOL. And id provide the evidence that they did walk on the moon not just say it. Which is all you have done. No one cares about the moon... people are more concerned about the earth.
Well, I'll be burgered ! An honest and half way reasonable comment from ET. Never thought I'd see the day. I doubt that you would be any better than TWP at providing what you call evidence pro lunar landing than you have been providing evidence to support the anti stance you have adopted though. I don't think that matters as evidence is merely supportive in the search for truth and, as you have rightly pointed out, we should perhaps be more concerned with what is happening on the planet. If the moon landing was faked then it will surely go down in history as the most convincing and elaborate hoax since J.C was presented to us as the son of God.
That would be quite an achievement as 40,000 people were involved in the Apollo landings not to mention the five pre-landing missions that orbited the moon and the half dozen missions that came after Apollo 11 that also landed on the moon, none of which could have happened according to that old troll/alien ET as they would all have been irradiated to death as they passed through the Van Allen Belt! Laughable! We even have photos of the landing site now showing the astronauts footprints etc but even that is not good enough for these lame brains but never fear, one day we will go back again and then these losers will have to eat humble pie, ha ha ha! Btw ET you didn't actually need a 'scope to see A11 leaving earths orbit, it could be seen with the naked eye as most satellites can be if you know where to look, the scope just makes it easier.
.
Asbo, don't know why I'm bothering with this as you can't educate pork but the reason people feel so strogly about the cannabis issue is that it is AN UNJUST LAW not beause weed is addictive because it isn't as already proven to you via GOSH & NHS websites (but you still think you know better don't you? Ha ha ha! Foolish clown.
.
Well said Druggie Scumbag, most tokers I know are succesful professional class people, as am I, who have chosen to use cannabis since the 60s as it is magnitudes less harmful and interferes with our lifestyle far less than alcohol.
.
Andy BSG, cannabis the highlight of our existence? Laughable, unless you think spending our spare time sailing a small boat all round the North Sea and rock climbing is a dull existenece. So what do you do?
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: You two are sick fantasists who think you're being clever by disrespecting the 40,000 people involved in the Apollo programme with your half baked ideas but you are actually just showing yourselves up as the uneducated ignorant plebs you really are. Orangutans and algebra.[/p][/quote]Seems you dont have any independent evidence of what you allege...not that it matters. How many people in the world care one way or the other if two man in fancy suits played leapfrog on a satellite? Im only 'anti walk' because you are 'pro walk'... if you were anti walk id be pro walk LOL. And id provide the evidence that they did walk on the moon not just say it. Which is all you have done. No one cares about the moon... people are more concerned about the earth.[/p][/quote]Well, I'll be burgered ! An honest and half way reasonable comment from ET. Never thought I'd see the day. I doubt that you would be any better than TWP at providing what you call evidence pro lunar landing than you have been providing evidence to support the anti stance you have adopted though. I don't think that matters as evidence is merely supportive in the search for truth and, as you have rightly pointed out, we should perhaps be more concerned with what is happening on the planet. If the moon landing was faked then it will surely go down in history as the most convincing and elaborate hoax since J.C was presented to us as the son of God.[/p][/quote]That would be quite an achievement as 40,000 people were involved in the Apollo landings not to mention the five pre-landing missions that orbited the moon and the half dozen missions that came after Apollo 11 that also landed on the moon, none of which could have happened according to that old troll/alien ET as they would all have been irradiated to death as they passed through the Van Allen Belt! Laughable! We even have photos of the landing site now showing the astronauts footprints etc but even that is not good enough for these lame brains but never fear, one day we will go back again and then these losers will have to eat humble pie, ha ha ha! Btw ET you didn't actually need a 'scope to see A11 leaving earths orbit, it could be seen with the naked eye as most satellites can be if you know where to look, the scope just makes it easier. . Asbo, don't know why I'm bothering with this as you can't educate pork but the reason people feel so strogly about the cannabis issue is that it is AN UNJUST LAW not beause weed is addictive because it isn't as already proven to you via GOSH & NHS websites (but you still think you know better don't you? Ha ha ha! Foolish clown. . Well said Druggie Scumbag, most tokers I know are succesful professional class people, as am I, who have chosen to use cannabis since the 60s as it is magnitudes less harmful and interferes with our lifestyle far less than alcohol. . Andy BSG, cannabis the highlight of our existence? Laughable, unless you think spending our spare time sailing a small boat all round the North Sea and rock climbing is a dull existenece. So what do you do? Truth Will Prevail

6:18pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E - Type wrote:
We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
A bit of a turn up for the books I must say.
Asbo & E.T.
E.T. & Asbo.
May you both be very happy together !
There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum.

One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself)

The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'
Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.[/p][/quote]A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together ![/p][/quote]There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum. One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself) The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'[/p][/quote]Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too. Camp Incontinent

6:50pm Wed 3 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E - Type wrote:
We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
A bit of a turn up for the books I must say.
Asbo & E.T.
E.T. & Asbo.
May you both be very happy together !
There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum.

One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself)

The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'
Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too.
aren't you running late for you edl knees up?
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.[/p][/quote]A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together ![/p][/quote]There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum. One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself) The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'[/p][/quote]Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too.[/p][/quote]aren't you running late for you edl knees up? beyond the valley of the asbos

7:10pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Druggie Scumbag says...

The Essex Darts League, that's what you should get involved in, asbo. You may make new friends and widen your social circle. I've nothing against your boyfriend but it would be healthier if you surrounded yourself with proper people rather than the likes of E-Type.

Who knows, you may even meet a quality arrow chucker who can enjoy a toke or two when not on the oche.
The Essex Darts League, that's what you should get involved in, asbo. You may make new friends and widen your social circle. I've nothing against your boyfriend but it would be healthier if you surrounded yourself with proper people rather than the likes of E-Type. Who knows, you may even meet a quality arrow chucker who can enjoy a toke or two when not on the oche. Druggie Scumbag

7:13pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Don't get his hopes up, I doubt the care home will allow him out on his own.
Don't get his hopes up, I doubt the care home will allow him out on his own. Truth Will Prevail

7:15pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E - Type wrote:
We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
A bit of a turn up for the books I must say.
Asbo & E.T.
E.T. & Asbo.
May you both be very happy together !
There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum.

One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself)

The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'
Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too.
aren't you running late for you edl knees up?
I'm not a member but if they allow guests I'd be happy to go along as yours. Don't tell E.T. though !
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.[/p][/quote]A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together ![/p][/quote]There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum. One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself) The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'[/p][/quote]Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too.[/p][/quote]aren't you running late for you edl knees up?[/p][/quote]I'm not a member but if they allow guests I'd be happy to go along as yours. Don't tell E.T. though ! Camp Incontinent

7:46pm Wed 3 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E - Type wrote:
We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
A bit of a turn up for the books I must say.
Asbo & E.T.
E.T. & Asbo.
May you both be very happy together !
There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum.

One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself)

The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'
Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too.
aren't you running late for you edl knees up?
I'm not a member but if they allow guests I'd be happy to go along as yours. Don't tell E.T. though !
but you're the archetypal white van man from basildon... don't try to pull the wool...
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.[/p][/quote]A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together ![/p][/quote]There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum. One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself) The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'[/p][/quote]Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too.[/p][/quote]aren't you running late for you edl knees up?[/p][/quote]I'm not a member but if they allow guests I'd be happy to go along as yours. Don't tell E.T. though ![/p][/quote]but you're the archetypal white van man from basildon... don't try to pull the wool... beyond the valley of the asbos

7:51pm Wed 3 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
The Essex Darts League, that's what you should get involved in, asbo. You may make new friends and widen your social circle. I've nothing against your boyfriend but it would be healthier if you surrounded yourself with proper people rather than the likes of E-Type.

Who knows, you may even meet a quality arrow chucker who can enjoy a toke or two when not on the oche.
proper people like the dope addled dregs of our society eh truthy?
[quote][p][bold]Druggie Scumbag[/bold] wrote: The Essex Darts League, that's what you should get involved in, asbo. You may make new friends and widen your social circle. I've nothing against your boyfriend but it would be healthier if you surrounded yourself with proper people rather than the likes of E-Type. Who knows, you may even meet a quality arrow chucker who can enjoy a toke or two when not on the oche.[/p][/quote]proper people like the dope addled dregs of our society eh truthy? beyond the valley of the asbos

8:14pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Fortunately your opinion counts for nothing Asbo (name suits you sir) which is just as well as your posts make no sense.
Fortunately your opinion counts for nothing Asbo (name suits you sir) which is just as well as your posts make no sense. Truth Will Prevail

11:45pm Wed 3 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Druggie Scumbag wrote:
The Essex Darts League, that's what you should get involved in, asbo. You may make new friends and widen your social circle. I've nothing against your boyfriend but it would be healthier if you surrounded yourself with proper people rather than the likes of E-Type. Who knows, you may even meet a quality arrow chucker who can enjoy a toke or two when not on the oche.
You dont know me to comment on me...do you?
[quote][p][bold]Druggie Scumbag[/bold] wrote: The Essex Darts League, that's what you should get involved in, asbo. You may make new friends and widen your social circle. I've nothing against your boyfriend but it would be healthier if you surrounded yourself with proper people rather than the likes of E-Type. Who knows, you may even meet a quality arrow chucker who can enjoy a toke or two when not on the oche.[/p][/quote]You dont know me to comment on me...do you? E -Type

11:53pm Wed 3 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Gina the weaner wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E - Type wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together !
There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum. One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself) The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'
I thought you were the winkle scratcher.
Disgusting hypocrite. You join in attacking someone from a ethnic minority... but when your 'fathers' culture is under attack you run and hide... so you can be part of the 'boys' on here...truely sickening...
[quote][p][bold]Gina the weaner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.[/p][/quote]A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together ![/p][/quote]There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum. One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself) The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'[/p][/quote]I thought you were the winkle scratcher.[/p][/quote]Disgusting hypocrite. You join in attacking someone from a ethnic minority... but when your 'fathers' culture is under attack you run and hide... so you can be part of the 'boys' on here...truely sickening... E -Type

11:55pm Wed 3 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E - Type wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together !
There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum. One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself) The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'
Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too.
aren't you running late for you edl knees up?
I'm not a member but if they allow guests I'd be happy to go along as yours. Don't tell E.T. though !
EDL too mild for you?
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.[/p][/quote]A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together ![/p][/quote]There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum. One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself) The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'[/p][/quote]Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too.[/p][/quote]aren't you running late for you edl knees up?[/p][/quote]I'm not a member but if they allow guests I'd be happy to go along as yours. Don't tell E.T. though ![/p][/quote]EDL too mild for you? E -Type

7:06am Thu 4 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
E - Type wrote:
We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.
Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.
A bit of a turn up for the books I must say.
Asbo & E.T.
E.T. & Asbo.
May you both be very happy together !
There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum.

One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself)

The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'
Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too.
aren't you running late for you edl knees up?
I'm not a member but if they allow guests I'd be happy to go along as yours. Don't tell E.T. though !
but you're the archetypal white van man from basildon... don't try to pull the wool...
If I'm the driver of a white transit then you're the backseat passenger in the resprayed red skoda behind me.
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E - Type[/bold] wrote: We seem to be getting along well. You can take me out if you likes and i'll let you play with my little pony.[/p][/quote]Lets take this a step at a time. I feel like I'm being groomed but it's probably just thought transference from your pony.[/p][/quote]A bit of a turn up for the books I must say. Asbo & E.T. E.T. & Asbo. May you both be very happy together ![/p][/quote]There are many questions to be answered in life and more than one E -Type on the forum. One is debonair, handsome and modest ( myself) The other is a little paid 'wrinkle scratcher'[/p][/quote]Debonair, handsome and modest ? Is that what Asbo told you ? Anyway, I'm glad you cleared up the confusion surrounding the two E.T.s. Perhaps the 'wrinkle scratcher' will find an admirer here too.[/p][/quote]aren't you running late for you edl knees up?[/p][/quote]I'm not a member but if they allow guests I'd be happy to go along as yours. Don't tell E.T. though ![/p][/quote]but you're the archetypal white van man from basildon... don't try to pull the wool...[/p][/quote]If I'm the driver of a white transit then you're the backseat passenger in the resprayed red skoda behind me. Camp Incontinent

12:00pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

So let's get this straight, ET claims that every Apollo mission from Lovell, Boorman and Anders' first manned orbit of the moon in 1968 (Apollo 7) to the last Lunar landing by Cernan, Schmit and Evans in late 1972 (Apollo 17) was faked despite the fact that every single mission was televised live as it happened and tracked every inch of the way by the Russians and anyone else with a 'scope big enough to see it. And then ET says WE have to prove they happened? Oh no matey, if you are going to make such fantastic claims then it is YOU who has to provide the proof except that you can't, can you, because there is no such proof, because your ideas are total fantasy like most of the mental diarrhoea you spew forth on these pages.
So let's get this straight, ET claims that every Apollo mission from Lovell, Boorman and Anders' first manned orbit of the moon in 1968 (Apollo 7) to the last Lunar landing by Cernan, Schmit and Evans in late 1972 (Apollo 17) was faked despite the fact that every single mission was televised live as it happened and tracked every inch of the way by the Russians and anyone else with a 'scope big enough to see it. And then ET says WE have to prove they happened? Oh no matey, if you are going to make such fantastic claims then it is YOU who has to provide the proof except that you can't, can you, because there is no such proof, because your ideas are total fantasy like most of the mental diarrhoea you spew forth on these pages. Truth Will Prevail

2:15pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Alekhine says...

You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.
You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head. Alekhine

2:46pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

We can but hope Alek.
.
Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.
We can but hope Alek. . Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest. Truth Will Prevail

5:38pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
So let's get this straight, ET claims that every Apollo mission from Lovell, Boorman and Anders' first manned orbit of the moon in 1968 (Apollo 7) to the last Lunar landing by Cernan, Schmit and Evans in late 1972 (Apollo 17) was faked despite the fact that every single mission was televised live as it happened and tracked every inch of the way by the Russians and anyone else with a 'scope big enough to see it. And then ET says WE have to prove they happened? Oh no matey, if you are going to make such fantastic claims then it is YOU who has to provide the proof except that you can't, can you, because there is no such proof, because your ideas are total fantasy like most of the mental diarrhoea you spew forth on these pages.
I claim nothing 'ole man moonwalker'

What i say is you have provide not one iota if independent evidence of what you allege...not a nits handbag of independent proof!

We are not talking about being in space or orbiting but LANDING? The issues is about LANDING.

Trying to muddy the atmosphere with anything other than that, is just you avoiding the question of the lack of INDEPENDENT evidence that man ventured out of the disney studios at all...Where is the IND evidence..post it up old man moonwalker or accept that the people are not as gullible and naive as they (you) were in that time .
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: So let's get this straight, ET claims that every Apollo mission from Lovell, Boorman and Anders' first manned orbit of the moon in 1968 (Apollo 7) to the last Lunar landing by Cernan, Schmit and Evans in late 1972 (Apollo 17) was faked despite the fact that every single mission was televised live as it happened and tracked every inch of the way by the Russians and anyone else with a 'scope big enough to see it. And then ET says WE have to prove they happened? Oh no matey, if you are going to make such fantastic claims then it is YOU who has to provide the proof except that you can't, can you, because there is no such proof, because your ideas are total fantasy like most of the mental diarrhoea you spew forth on these pages.[/p][/quote]I claim nothing 'ole man moonwalker' What i say is you have provide not one iota if independent evidence of what you allege...not a nits handbag of independent proof! We are not talking about being in space or orbiting but LANDING? The issues is about LANDING. Trying to muddy the atmosphere with anything other than that, is just you avoiding the question of the lack of INDEPENDENT evidence that man ventured out of the disney studios at all...Where is the IND evidence..post it up old man moonwalker or accept that the people are not as gullible and naive as they (you) were in that time . E -Type

5:41pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Alekhine wrote:
You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.
So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon.

To date he hasn't been able to do so.
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.[/p][/quote]So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon. To date he hasn't been able to do so. E -Type

5:43pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
We can but hope Alek.
.
Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.
Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing?

What lies am i spreading.


The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: We can but hope Alek. . Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.[/p][/quote]Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing? What lies am i spreading. The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops? E -Type

5:45pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
We can but hope Alek.
.
Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.
Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing?

What lies am i spreading.


The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?
Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: We can but hope Alek. . Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.[/p][/quote]Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing? What lies am i spreading. The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?[/p][/quote]Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ? Camp Incontinent

6:49pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
We can but hope Alek.
.
Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.
Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing?

What lies am i spreading.


The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?
Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?
No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: We can but hope Alek. . Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.[/p][/quote]Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing? What lies am i spreading. The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?[/p][/quote]Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?[/p][/quote]No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours? E -Type

7:08pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Gina the weaner says...

E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
We can but hope Alek.
.
Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.
Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing?

What lies am i spreading.


The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?
Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?
No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?
Well, he did have a caravan but he actually travelled in it so I doubt he was a Traveller.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: We can but hope Alek. . Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.[/p][/quote]Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing? What lies am i spreading. The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?[/p][/quote]Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?[/p][/quote]No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?[/p][/quote]Well, he did have a caravan but he actually travelled in it so I doubt he was a Traveller. Gina the weaner

7:09pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Gina the weaner wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
We can but hope Alek.
.
Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.
Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing?

What lies am i spreading.


The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?
Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?
No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?
Well, he did have a caravan but he actually travelled in it so I doubt he was a Traveller.
Still pretending to be a female?
[quote][p][bold]Gina the weaner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: We can but hope Alek. . Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.[/p][/quote]Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing? What lies am i spreading. The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?[/p][/quote]Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?[/p][/quote]No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?[/p][/quote]Well, he did have a caravan but he actually travelled in it so I doubt he was a Traveller.[/p][/quote]Still pretending to be a female? E -Type

7:10pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
We can but hope Alek.
.
Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.
Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing?

What lies am i spreading.


The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?
Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?
No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?
Tony Blackburn believed he was a traveller. He may not have been but Blackburn obviously knew him better than you or I.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: We can but hope Alek. . Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.[/p][/quote]Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing? What lies am i spreading. The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?[/p][/quote]Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?[/p][/quote]No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?[/p][/quote]Tony Blackburn believed he was a traveller. He may not have been but Blackburn obviously knew him better than you or I. Camp Incontinent

8:18pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: So let's get this straight, ET claims that every Apollo mission from Lovell, Boorman and Anders' first manned orbit of the moon in 1968 (Apollo 7) to the last Lunar landing by Cernan, Schmit and Evans in late 1972 (Apollo 17) was faked despite the fact that every single mission was televised live as it happened and tracked every inch of the way by the Russians and anyone else with a 'scope big enough to see it. And then ET says WE have to prove they happened? Oh no matey, if you are going to make such fantastic claims then it is YOU who has to provide the proof except that you can't, can you, because there is no such proof, because your ideas are total fantasy like most of the mental diarrhoea you spew forth on these pages.
I claim nothing 'ole man moonwalker' What i say is you have provide not one iota if independent evidence of what you allege...not a nits handbag of independent proof! We are not talking about being in space or orbiting but LANDING? The issues is about LANDING. Trying to muddy the atmosphere with anything other than that, is just you avoiding the question of the lack of INDEPENDENT evidence that man ventured out of the disney studios at all...Where is the IND evidence..post it up old man moonwalker or accept that the people are not as gullible and naive as they (you) were in that time .
"The Russian couldn't even monitor there own probes". Who says? Your traveller mates or the funny websites? Idiot. The USSR made mistakes just as the US did on their first attempts BUT THEY LEARNT. (unlike you). Go read the FACTS!
.
So how did they all get through the VAB? You keep claiming they couldn't get through it but they DID a dozen times. Landing on the moon with 1/6 earths gravity was only a tiny step compared to what it took to get into space, get to the moon in the first place etc. Do you never learn?
.
There is tons of proof the US went to the moon SIX times in all, photos from Indian, Chinese and NASA probes etc etc. Anyone who followed the space race knows it is true, only weasley know-nothing little ****s like you who weren't even born at the time doubt it. Do you think you're being clever (probably). Well, you are the one making the fantastic claims so WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
.
I give up, you are such an imbecile you don't even know when you're beat. You are either the biggest fool of all time or you are suffering from a serious mental health issue, probably the messianic complex, I suspect the latter.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: So let's get this straight, ET claims that every Apollo mission from Lovell, Boorman and Anders' first manned orbit of the moon in 1968 (Apollo 7) to the last Lunar landing by Cernan, Schmit and Evans in late 1972 (Apollo 17) was faked despite the fact that every single mission was televised live as it happened and tracked every inch of the way by the Russians and anyone else with a 'scope big enough to see it. And then ET says WE have to prove they happened? Oh no matey, if you are going to make such fantastic claims then it is YOU who has to provide the proof except that you can't, can you, because there is no such proof, because your ideas are total fantasy like most of the mental diarrhoea you spew forth on these pages.[/p][/quote]I claim nothing 'ole man moonwalker' What i say is you have provide not one iota if independent evidence of what you allege...not a nits handbag of independent proof! We are not talking about being in space or orbiting but LANDING? The issues is about LANDING. Trying to muddy the atmosphere with anything other than that, is just you avoiding the question of the lack of INDEPENDENT evidence that man ventured out of the disney studios at all...Where is the IND evidence..post it up old man moonwalker or accept that the people are not as gullible and naive as they (you) were in that time .[/p][/quote]"The Russian couldn't even monitor there own probes". Who says? Your traveller mates or the funny websites? Idiot. The USSR made mistakes just as the US did on their first attempts BUT THEY LEARNT. (unlike you). Go read the FACTS! . So how did they all get through the VAB? You keep claiming they couldn't get through it but they DID a dozen times. Landing on the moon with 1/6 earths gravity was only a tiny step compared to what it took to get into space, get to the moon in the first place etc. Do you never learn? . There is tons of proof the US went to the moon SIX times in all, photos from Indian, Chinese and NASA probes etc etc. Anyone who followed the space race knows it is true, only weasley know-nothing little ****s like you who weren't even born at the time doubt it. Do you think you're being clever (probably). Well, you are the one making the fantastic claims so WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? . I give up, you are such an imbecile you don't even know when you're beat. You are either the biggest fool of all time or you are suffering from a serious mental health issue, probably the messianic complex, I suspect the latter. Truth Will Prevail

8:32pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Alekhine says...

E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.
So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon.

To date he hasn't been able to do so.
While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.[/p][/quote]So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon. To date he hasn't been able to do so.[/p][/quote]While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand.... Alekhine

8:33pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !)
.
NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites that are full of unsubstantiated schoolboy LIES. Will you never learn? Nah.
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !) . NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites that are full of unsubstantiated schoolboy LIES. Will you never learn? Nah. Truth Will Prevail

9:23pm Thu 4 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !)
.
NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites that are full of unsubstantiated schoolboy LIES. Will you never learn? Nah.
and the (ir)relevance to this story is? actually maybe there is a link....nobody gives a rat's rectum about cannabis users and nobody gives a rat's arrse about the lunar (non)landings
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !) . NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites that are full of unsubstantiated schoolboy LIES. Will you never learn? Nah.[/p][/quote]and the (ir)relevance to this story is? actually maybe there is a link....nobody gives a rat's rectum about cannabis users and nobody gives a rat's arrse about the lunar (non)landings beyond the valley of the asbos

9:30pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
We can but hope Alek.
.
Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.
Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing?

What lies am i spreading.


The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?
Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?
No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?
Tony Blackburn believed he was a traveller. He may not have been but Blackburn obviously knew him better than you or I.
So because Tony Blackburn thought he was a Traveller he must be...LOL...

Err...what you heard on the radio during gaps between Mud, The Sweet and Mungo Gerry isn't always fact.."Tony Blackburn says!" LOL...says it all.

Has anyone else, besides you and Tony Blackburn, said he was a Traveller? I mean anyone who would/should know...

Jimmy Jangle Jewellery is from your community ... accept your own..are you from Yorkshire? He was.
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: We can but hope Alek. . Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.[/p][/quote]Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing? What lies am i spreading. The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?[/p][/quote]Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?[/p][/quote]No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?[/p][/quote]Tony Blackburn believed he was a traveller. He may not have been but Blackburn obviously knew him better than you or I.[/p][/quote]So because Tony Blackburn thought he was a Traveller he must be...LOL... Err...what you heard on the radio during gaps between Mud, The Sweet and Mungo Gerry isn't always fact.."Tony Blackburn says!" LOL...says it all. Has anyone else, besides you and Tony Blackburn, said he was a Traveller? I mean anyone who would/should know... Jimmy Jangle Jewellery is from your community ... accept your own..are you from Yorkshire? He was. E -Type

9:44pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: So let's get this straight, ET claims that every Apollo mission from Lovell, Boorman and Anders' first manned orbit of the moon in 1968 (Apollo 7) to the last Lunar landing by Cernan, Schmit and Evans in late 1972 (Apollo 17) was faked despite the fact that every single mission was televised live as it happened and tracked every inch of the way by the Russians and anyone else with a 'scope big enough to see it. And then ET says WE have to prove they happened? Oh no matey, if you are going to make such fantastic claims then it is YOU who has to provide the proof except that you can't, can you, because there is no such proof, because your ideas are total fantasy like most of the mental diarrhoea you spew forth on these pages.
I claim nothing 'ole man moonwalker' What i say is you have provide not one iota if independent evidence of what you allege...not a nits handbag of independent proof! We are not talking about being in space or orbiting but LANDING? The issues is about LANDING. Trying to muddy the atmosphere with anything other than that, is just you avoiding the question of the lack of INDEPENDENT evidence that man ventured out of the disney studios at all...Where is the IND evidence..post it up old man moonwalker or accept that the people are not as gullible and naive as they (you) were in that time .
"The Russian couldn't even monitor there own probes". Who says? Your traveller mates or the funny websites? Idiot. The USSR made mistakes just as the US did on their first attempts BUT THEY LEARNT. (unlike you). Go read the FACTS!
.
So how did they all get through the VAB? You keep claiming they couldn't get through it but they DID a dozen times. Landing on the moon with 1/6 earths gravity was only a tiny step compared to what it took to get into space, get to the moon in the first place etc. Do you never learn?
.
There is tons of proof the US went to the moon SIX times in all, photos from Indian, Chinese and NASA probes etc etc. Anyone who followed the space race knows it is true, only weasley know-nothing little ****s like you who weren't even born at the time doubt it. Do you think you're being clever (probably). Well, you are the one making the fantastic claims so WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
.
I give up, you are such an imbecile you don't even know when you're beat. You are either the biggest fool of all time or you are suffering from a serious mental health issue, probably the messianic complex, I suspect the latter.
There is NO independent proof man walked on the moon...if there is... then post it up...rather than huffing, bluffing and snuffling over and over again...forget VAB, forget the orbit, forget all the other diversionary stuff you throw in to avoid what you need to do...which is provide the INDY proof...you Cant..

It would seem rather than i being the "fool, imbecile little ****s" It is you...

You stated something and when asked to provide independent proof of what you state you cant and then call names because you cant...oh dear oh dear oh lor...lol

"He dont plant flags, he dont pick moon rock, he just keep dancing, dancing and prancing, that ole man moonwalk he just keeps leapfrogging along"
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: So let's get this straight, ET claims that every Apollo mission from Lovell, Boorman and Anders' first manned orbit of the moon in 1968 (Apollo 7) to the last Lunar landing by Cernan, Schmit and Evans in late 1972 (Apollo 17) was faked despite the fact that every single mission was televised live as it happened and tracked every inch of the way by the Russians and anyone else with a 'scope big enough to see it. And then ET says WE have to prove they happened? Oh no matey, if you are going to make such fantastic claims then it is YOU who has to provide the proof except that you can't, can you, because there is no such proof, because your ideas are total fantasy like most of the mental diarrhoea you spew forth on these pages.[/p][/quote]I claim nothing 'ole man moonwalker' What i say is you have provide not one iota if independent evidence of what you allege...not a nits handbag of independent proof! We are not talking about being in space or orbiting but LANDING? The issues is about LANDING. Trying to muddy the atmosphere with anything other than that, is just you avoiding the question of the lack of INDEPENDENT evidence that man ventured out of the disney studios at all...Where is the IND evidence..post it up old man moonwalker or accept that the people are not as gullible and naive as they (you) were in that time .[/p][/quote]"The Russian couldn't even monitor there own probes". Who says? Your traveller mates or the funny websites? Idiot. The USSR made mistakes just as the US did on their first attempts BUT THEY LEARNT. (unlike you). Go read the FACTS! . So how did they all get through the VAB? You keep claiming they couldn't get through it but they DID a dozen times. Landing on the moon with 1/6 earths gravity was only a tiny step compared to what it took to get into space, get to the moon in the first place etc. Do you never learn? . There is tons of proof the US went to the moon SIX times in all, photos from Indian, Chinese and NASA probes etc etc. Anyone who followed the space race knows it is true, only weasley know-nothing little ****s like you who weren't even born at the time doubt it. Do you think you're being clever (probably). Well, you are the one making the fantastic claims so WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? . I give up, you are such an imbecile you don't even know when you're beat. You are either the biggest fool of all time or you are suffering from a serious mental health issue, probably the messianic complex, I suspect the latter.[/p][/quote]There is NO independent proof man walked on the moon...if there is... then post it up...rather than huffing, bluffing and snuffling over and over again...forget VAB, forget the orbit, forget all the other diversionary stuff you throw in to avoid what you need to do...which is provide the INDY proof...you Cant.. It would seem rather than i being the "fool, imbecile little ****s" It is you... You stated something and when asked to provide independent proof of what you state you cant and then call names because you cant...oh dear oh dear oh lor...lol "He dont plant flags, he dont pick moon rock, he just keep dancing, dancing and prancing, that ole man moonwalk he just keeps leapfrogging along" E -Type

9:47pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.
So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon.

To date he hasn't been able to do so.
While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....
You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable..

Do you believe man walked on the moon?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.[/p][/quote]So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon. To date he hasn't been able to do so.[/p][/quote]While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....[/p][/quote]You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable.. Do you believe man walked on the moon? E -Type

9:48pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
We can but hope Alek.
.
Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.
Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing?

What lies am i spreading.


The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?
Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?
No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?
Tony Blackburn believed he was a traveller. He may not have been but Blackburn obviously knew him better than you or I.
So because Tony Blackburn thought he was a Traveller he must be...LOL...

Err...what you heard on the radio during gaps between Mud, The Sweet and Mungo Gerry isn't always fact.."Tony Blackburn says!" LOL...says it all.

Has anyone else, besides you and Tony Blackburn, said he was a Traveller? I mean anyone who would/should know...

Jimmy Jangle Jewellery is from your community ... accept your own..are you from Yorkshire? He was.
I merely asked whether he was indeed a traveller and pointed out that Tony Blackburn seemed to believe that he was. I think Blackburn would have been in a far better position to judge than you or I are.
Here is the link. If you don't fancy listening to the whole interview then you can skip to 5:12 and just listen to the final moments.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=9CLo8H1QL
Ok

I think Blackburn may well have been right but as I have already said, I don't know and neither do you.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: We can but hope Alek. . Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.[/p][/quote]Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing? What lies am i spreading. The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?[/p][/quote]Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?[/p][/quote]No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?[/p][/quote]Tony Blackburn believed he was a traveller. He may not have been but Blackburn obviously knew him better than you or I.[/p][/quote]So because Tony Blackburn thought he was a Traveller he must be...LOL... Err...what you heard on the radio during gaps between Mud, The Sweet and Mungo Gerry isn't always fact.."Tony Blackburn says!" LOL...says it all. Has anyone else, besides you and Tony Blackburn, said he was a Traveller? I mean anyone who would/should know... Jimmy Jangle Jewellery is from your community ... accept your own..are you from Yorkshire? He was.[/p][/quote]I merely asked whether he was indeed a traveller and pointed out that Tony Blackburn seemed to believe that he was. I think Blackburn would have been in a far better position to judge than you or I are. Here is the link. If you don't fancy listening to the whole interview then you can skip to 5:12 and just listen to the final moments. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=9CLo8H1QL Ok I think Blackburn may well have been right but as I have already said, I don't know and neither do you. Camp Incontinent

9:50pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !)
.
NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites that are full of unsubstantiated schoolboy LIES. Will you never learn? Nah.
Landed on the moon..blah blah blah, Nasa said blah blah blah, Nasa showed blah blah blah, funky Nasa blah blah blah..

Change the record and show the IND proof not what Captain Pugwash said about his ship.
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !) . NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites that are full of unsubstantiated schoolboy LIES. Will you never learn? Nah.[/p][/quote]Landed on the moon..blah blah blah, Nasa said blah blah blah, Nasa showed blah blah blah, funky Nasa blah blah blah.. Change the record and show the IND proof not what Captain Pugwash said about his ship. E -Type

10:19pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Soouthchurch59 says...

But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?
But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce? Soouthchurch59

10:25pm Thu 4 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?
you appear to be fluent in gaol lingo and have an almighty chip about the police. anything you'd like to declare?
[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?[/p][/quote]you appear to be fluent in gaol lingo and have an almighty chip about the police. anything you'd like to declare? beyond the valley of the asbos

10:26pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?
Judging by his evasiveness during the interview I think he probably did.
[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?[/p][/quote]Judging by his evasiveness during the interview I think he probably did. Camp Incontinent

10:38pm Thu 4 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent?
the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent? beyond the valley of the asbos

10:38pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Soouthchurch59 says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote:
But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?
you appear to be fluent in gaol lingo and have an almighty chip about the police. anything you'd like to declare?
Does my 'lingo fluency' bother you?
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?[/p][/quote]you appear to be fluent in gaol lingo and have an almighty chip about the police. anything you'd like to declare?[/p][/quote]Does my 'lingo fluency' bother you? Soouthchurch59

10:42pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent?
I bow to your better knowledge.
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent?[/p][/quote]I bow to your better knowledge. Camp Incontinent

10:43pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent?
I bow to your better knowledge.
With my back to the wall of course !
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent?[/p][/quote]I bow to your better knowledge.[/p][/quote]With my back to the wall of course ! Camp Incontinent

10:43pm Thu 4 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote:
But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?
you appear to be fluent in gaol lingo and have an almighty chip about the police. anything you'd like to declare?
Does my 'lingo fluency' bother you?
have you considered a name change to camp illiterate?
[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?[/p][/quote]you appear to be fluent in gaol lingo and have an almighty chip about the police. anything you'd like to declare?[/p][/quote]Does my 'lingo fluency' bother you?[/p][/quote]have you considered a name change to camp illiterate? beyond the valley of the asbos

10:44pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Soouthchurch59 says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote:
But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?
Judging by his evasiveness during the interview I think he probably did.
In my book, those that turn a blind eye - are as guilty....
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?[/p][/quote]Judging by his evasiveness during the interview I think he probably did.[/p][/quote]In my book, those that turn a blind eye - are as guilty.... Soouthchurch59

10:46pm Thu 4 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent?
I bow to your better knowledge.
With my back to the wall of course !
well was going to say be careful 'cos soouthchurch is in the vicinity
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent?[/p][/quote]I bow to your better knowledge.[/p][/quote]With my back to the wall of course ![/p][/quote]well was going to say be careful 'cos soouthchurch is in the vicinity beyond the valley of the asbos

10:46pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !) . NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites that are full of unsubstantiated schoolboy LIES. Will you never learn? Nah.
Landed on the moon..blah blah blah, Nasa said blah blah blah, Nasa showed blah blah blah, funky Nasa blah blah blah.. Change the record and show the IND proof not what Captain Pugwash said about his ship.
YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING FANTASTIC CLAIMS SO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVIDE PROOF ... WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? YOU HAVEN'T GOT A GRAIN OF VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE HAVE YOU?
.
YOU CLAIM WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY IN THE 60s/70s BUT DOZENS OF MISSIONS SAY WE DID SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG!
.
YOU CLAIM WE COULDN'T PASS THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELT BUT IT IS CLEAR WE DID EXACTLY THAT MANY TIMES SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG!
.
TRUTH IS NO PROOF WOULD SATISFY YOU SHORT OF FIRING YOU UP THERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FIXATED WITH YOUR CHILDISH FANTASY. NOT THE MARK OF A MAN WHO CLAIMS HE IS MORE INTELLIGENT THAN ANYONE ELSE ON HERE.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !) . NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites that are full of unsubstantiated schoolboy LIES. Will you never learn? Nah.[/p][/quote]Landed on the moon..blah blah blah, Nasa said blah blah blah, Nasa showed blah blah blah, funky Nasa blah blah blah.. Change the record and show the IND proof not what Captain Pugwash said about his ship.[/p][/quote]YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING FANTASTIC CLAIMS SO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVIDE PROOF ... WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? YOU HAVEN'T GOT A GRAIN OF VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE HAVE YOU? . YOU CLAIM WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY IN THE 60s/70s BUT DOZENS OF MISSIONS SAY WE DID SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG! . YOU CLAIM WE COULDN'T PASS THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELT BUT IT IS CLEAR WE DID EXACTLY THAT MANY TIMES SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG! . TRUTH IS NO PROOF WOULD SATISFY YOU SHORT OF FIRING YOU UP THERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FIXATED WITH YOUR CHILDISH FANTASY. NOT THE MARK OF A MAN WHO CLAIMS HE IS MORE INTELLIGENT THAN ANYONE ELSE ON HERE. Truth Will Prevail

10:51pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Soouthchurch59 says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote:
But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?
you appear to be fluent in gaol lingo and have an almighty chip about the police. anything you'd like to declare?
Does my 'lingo fluency' bother you?
have you considered a name change to camp illiterate?
Says, the only man who keeps his punctuation up his asbo!
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?[/p][/quote]you appear to be fluent in gaol lingo and have an almighty chip about the police. anything you'd like to declare?[/p][/quote]Does my 'lingo fluency' bother you?[/p][/quote]have you considered a name change to camp illiterate?[/p][/quote]Says, the only man who keeps his punctuation up his asbo! Soouthchurch59

10:51pm Thu 4 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent?
I bow to your better knowledge.
how is your obsessing aversion therapy going?
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent?[/p][/quote]I bow to your better knowledge.[/p][/quote]how is your obsessing aversion therapy going? beyond the valley of the asbos

11:01pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Camp Incontinent says...

As soon as the pubs turn out Asbo's about. What was your tipple this evening ? Hand shandy ?
As soon as the pubs turn out Asbo's about. What was your tipple this evening ? Hand shandy ? Camp Incontinent

11:01pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Soouthchurch59 says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent?
I bow to your better knowledge.
With my back to the wall of course !
well was going to say be careful 'cos soouthchurch is in the vicinity
I'm more likely to be in the vicinity of your wife!
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: the only people that obsess about kiddy fiddlers spend their days thinking about fiddling with kids eh camp incontinent?[/p][/quote]I bow to your better knowledge.[/p][/quote]With my back to the wall of course ![/p][/quote]well was going to say be careful 'cos soouthchurch is in the vicinity[/p][/quote]I'm more likely to be in the vicinity of your wife! Soouthchurch59

11:04pm Thu 4 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

not sure mrs asbo's does ethnic
not sure mrs asbo's does ethnic beyond the valley of the asbos

11:05pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote:
We can but hope Alek.
.
Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.
Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing?

What lies am i spreading.


The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?
Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?
No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?
Tony Blackburn believed he was a traveller. He may not have been but Blackburn obviously knew him better than you or I.
So because Tony Blackburn thought he was a Traveller he must be...LOL...

Err...what you heard on the radio during gaps between Mud, The Sweet and Mungo Gerry isn't always fact.."Tony Blackburn says!" LOL...says it all.

Has anyone else, besides you and Tony Blackburn, said he was a Traveller? I mean anyone who would/should know...

Jimmy Jangle Jewellery is from your community ... accept your own..are you from Yorkshire? He was.
I merely asked whether he was indeed a traveller and pointed out that Tony Blackburn seemed to believe that he was. I think Blackburn would have been in a far better position to judge than you or I are.
Here is the link. If you don't fancy listening to the whole interview then you can skip to 5:12 and just listen to the final moments.

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=9CLo8H1QL

Ok

I think Blackburn may well have been right but as I have already said, I don't know and neither do you.
Im sure his family would know as would his biographer and the media and and and and...but Tony Blackburn? Maybe Dave Lee Travis "the hairy cornflake" will know as well.

Well if you asked me and then say i dont know then why did you ask me?

BTW i do know he wasn't a Pavee. And i know Savile isn't a Gypsy name

Perhaps he had his fortune told by a Traveller once and thats what you meant! LOL
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: We can but hope Alek. . Mind you it's not just about him, it's about spreading lies which I detest.[/p][/quote]Lies? Are you a fully moon buggy or is there a fe moons rocks missing? What lies am i spreading. The original moonwalker was Michael Jackson and i believe Jimmy Savile taught him...ever been on top of the pops?[/p][/quote]Ah, yes Jimmy Saville. A traveller wasn't he ?[/p][/quote]No i believe he was from your community... relative of yours?[/p][/quote]Tony Blackburn believed he was a traveller. He may not have been but Blackburn obviously knew him better than you or I.[/p][/quote]So because Tony Blackburn thought he was a Traveller he must be...LOL... Err...what you heard on the radio during gaps between Mud, The Sweet and Mungo Gerry isn't always fact.."Tony Blackburn says!" LOL...says it all. Has anyone else, besides you and Tony Blackburn, said he was a Traveller? I mean anyone who would/should know... Jimmy Jangle Jewellery is from your community ... accept your own..are you from Yorkshire? He was.[/p][/quote]I merely asked whether he was indeed a traveller and pointed out that Tony Blackburn seemed to believe that he was. I think Blackburn would have been in a far better position to judge than you or I are. Here is the link. If you don't fancy listening to the whole interview then you can skip to 5:12 and just listen to the final moments. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=9CLo8H1QL Ok I think Blackburn may well have been right but as I have already said, I don't know and neither do you.[/p][/quote]Im sure his family would know as would his biographer and the media and and and and...but Tony Blackburn? Maybe Dave Lee Travis "the hairy cornflake" will know as well. Well if you asked me and then say i dont know then why did you ask me? BTW i do know he wasn't a Pavee. And i know Savile isn't a Gypsy name Perhaps he had his fortune told by a Traveller once and thats what you meant! LOL E -Type

11:06pm Thu 4 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

with the very greatest of respect
with the very greatest of respect beyond the valley of the asbos

11:09pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote:
But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?
Judging by his evasiveness during the interview I think he probably did.
Did Jim ever fix you?
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?[/p][/quote]Judging by his evasiveness during the interview I think he probably did.[/p][/quote]Did Jim ever fix you? E -Type

11:09pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Soouthchurch59 says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
not sure mrs asbo's does ethnic
Ha! Is that what she told you?
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: not sure mrs asbo's does ethnic[/p][/quote]Ha! Is that what she told you? Soouthchurch59

11:10pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Alekhine says...

E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.
So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon.

To date he hasn't been able to do so.
While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....
You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable..

Do you believe man walked on the moon?
Who cares, you're not interested.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.[/p][/quote]So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon. To date he hasn't been able to do so.[/p][/quote]While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....[/p][/quote]You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable.. Do you believe man walked on the moon?[/p][/quote]Who cares, you're not interested. Alekhine

11:11pm Thu 4 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Camp Incontinent wrote:
As soon as the pubs turn out Asbo's about. What was your tipple this evening ? Hand shandy ?
how's your twin roy whiting white van man?
[quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: As soon as the pubs turn out Asbo's about. What was your tipple this evening ? Hand shandy ?[/p][/quote]how's your twin roy whiting white van man? beyond the valley of the asbos

11:15pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Soouthchurch59 says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
with the very greatest of respect
Save it for Mrs asbo, if you *really* think she deserves it. Ha!
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: with the very greatest of respect[/p][/quote]Save it for Mrs asbo, if you *really* think she deserves it. Ha! Soouthchurch59

11:15pm Thu 4 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
not sure mrs asbo's does ethnic
Ha! Is that what she told you?
denial. not just a river in egypt!
[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: not sure mrs asbo's does ethnic[/p][/quote]Ha! Is that what she told you?[/p][/quote]denial. not just a river in egypt! beyond the valley of the asbos

11:20pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Truth Will Prevail wrote: Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !) . NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites that are full of unsubstantiated schoolboy LIES. Will you never learn? Nah.
Landed on the moon..blah blah blah, Nasa said blah blah blah, Nasa showed blah blah blah, funky Nasa blah blah blah.. Change the record and show the IND proof not what Captain Pugwash said about his ship.
YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING FANTASTIC CLAIMS SO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVIDE PROOF ... WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? YOU HAVEN'T GOT A GRAIN OF VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE HAVE YOU?
.
YOU CLAIM WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY IN THE 60s/70s BUT DOZENS OF MISSIONS SAY WE DID SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG!
.
YOU CLAIM WE COULDN'T PASS THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELT BUT IT IS CLEAR WE DID EXACTLY THAT MANY TIMES SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG!
.
TRUTH IS NO PROOF WOULD SATISFY YOU SHORT OF FIRING YOU UP THERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FIXATED WITH YOUR CHILDISH FANTASY. NOT THE MARK OF A MAN WHO CLAIMS HE IS MORE INTELLIGENT THAN ANYONE ELSE ON HERE.
No no no...ole man pond skater...you stated man landed on the moon and i asked for independent proof of that and yet to date you havent even attempted to give that proof...Why not 'ole man landing skid'


No technology to land on and then depart the moon.

"NOT THE MARK OF A MAN WHO CLAIMS HE IS MORE INTELLIGENT THAN ANYONE ELSE ON HERE."

The fact that was never claimed and whats more everyone knows that, including you, it would seem you are rather confused about things you saw and read with your own eyes less than a month ago...how much more must you be with your 'lucky bag' telescope all those years ago...are you sure you are not mixing all this up with Loss in space?

BTW...your shouting...you'll scare the cat!
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !) . NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites that are full of unsubstantiated schoolboy LIES. Will you never learn? Nah.[/p][/quote]Landed on the moon..blah blah blah, Nasa said blah blah blah, Nasa showed blah blah blah, funky Nasa blah blah blah.. Change the record and show the IND proof not what Captain Pugwash said about his ship.[/p][/quote]YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING FANTASTIC CLAIMS SO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVIDE PROOF ... WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? YOU HAVEN'T GOT A GRAIN OF VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE HAVE YOU? . YOU CLAIM WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY IN THE 60s/70s BUT DOZENS OF MISSIONS SAY WE DID SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG! . YOU CLAIM WE COULDN'T PASS THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELT BUT IT IS CLEAR WE DID EXACTLY THAT MANY TIMES SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG! . TRUTH IS NO PROOF WOULD SATISFY YOU SHORT OF FIRING YOU UP THERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FIXATED WITH YOUR CHILDISH FANTASY. NOT THE MARK OF A MAN WHO CLAIMS HE IS MORE INTELLIGENT THAN ANYONE ELSE ON HERE.[/p][/quote]No no no...ole man pond skater...you stated man landed on the moon and i asked for independent proof of that and yet to date you havent even attempted to give that proof...Why not 'ole man landing skid' No technology to land on and then depart the moon. "NOT THE MARK OF A MAN WHO CLAIMS HE IS MORE INTELLIGENT THAN ANYONE ELSE ON HERE." The fact that was never claimed and whats more everyone knows that, including you, it would seem you are rather confused about things you saw and read with your own eyes less than a month ago...how much more must you be with your 'lucky bag' telescope all those years ago...are you sure you are not mixing all this up with Loss in space? BTW...your shouting...you'll scare the cat! E -Type

11:26pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.
So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon.

To date he hasn't been able to do so.
While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....
You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable..

Do you believe man walked on the moon?
Who cares, you're not interested.
Yes i am...do you think man walk on the moon?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.[/p][/quote]So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon. To date he hasn't been able to do so.[/p][/quote]While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....[/p][/quote]You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable.. Do you believe man walked on the moon?[/p][/quote]Who cares, you're not interested.[/p][/quote]Yes i am...do you think man walk on the moon? E -Type

11:34pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Soouthchurch59 says...

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote:
beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
not sure mrs asbo's does ethnic
Ha! Is that what she told you?
denial. not just a river in egypt!
Nice of you to explain your position alongside a little bit of Geography...
[quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beyond the valley of the asbos[/bold] wrote: not sure mrs asbo's does ethnic[/p][/quote]Ha! Is that what she told you?[/p][/quote]denial. not just a river in egypt![/p][/quote]Nice of you to explain your position alongside a little bit of Geography... Soouthchurch59

11:43pm Thu 4 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

E -Type wrote:
Camp Incontinent wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote:
But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?
Judging by his evasiveness during the interview I think he probably did.
Did Jim ever fix you?
you know what they say about the cycle of depravity...
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Camp Incontinent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: But, did Blackburn know, Savile was a Bacon Bonce?[/p][/quote]Judging by his evasiveness during the interview I think he probably did.[/p][/quote]Did Jim ever fix you?[/p][/quote]you know what they say about the cycle of depravity... beyond the valley of the asbos

11:48pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Alekhine says...

E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.
So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon.

To date he hasn't been able to do so.
While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....
You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable..

Do you believe man walked on the moon?
Who cares, you're not interested.
Yes i am...do you think man walk on the moon?
All right, i,m not interested. This is, after all, a cannabis string. Should'nt you be abusing somebody?
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.[/p][/quote]So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon. To date he hasn't been able to do so.[/p][/quote]While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....[/p][/quote]You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable.. Do you believe man walked on the moon?[/p][/quote]Who cares, you're not interested.[/p][/quote]Yes i am...do you think man walk on the moon?[/p][/quote]All right, i,m not interested. This is, after all, a cannabis string. Should'nt you be abusing somebody? Alekhine

11:56pm Thu 4 Oct 12

E -Type says...

Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.
So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon.

To date he hasn't been able to do so.
While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....
You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable..

Do you believe man walked on the moon?
Who cares, you're not interested.
Yes i am...do you think man walk on the moon?
All right, i,m not interested. This is, after all, a cannabis string. Should'nt you be abusing somebody?
So soooo obvious...you dont believe it...why not?
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.[/p][/quote]So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon. To date he hasn't been able to do so.[/p][/quote]While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....[/p][/quote]You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable.. Do you believe man walked on the moon?[/p][/quote]Who cares, you're not interested.[/p][/quote]Yes i am...do you think man walk on the moon?[/p][/quote]All right, i,m not interested. This is, after all, a cannabis string. Should'nt you be abusing somebody?[/p][/quote]So soooo obvious...you dont believe it...why not? E -Type

12:01am Fri 5 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

ET YOU CLAIM WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY IN THE 60s/70s BUT DOZENS OF MISSIONS SAY WE DID SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG!
.
YOU CLAIM WE COULDN'T PASS THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELT BUT IT IS CLEAR WE DID EXACTLY THAT MANY TIMES SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG!
.
YOU CLAIM THE MOON ROCK WAS FAKE. THEN YOU PROVIDE ONE PROPER PEER REVIEWED REPORT THAT CONFIRMS THAT (Nature, New Scientist, Science Today etc etc etc). YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE, JUST SCHOOLBOY CLAIMS ON FUNNY WEBSITES.
.
YOU WANT MORE PROOF OF THE SIX LANDINGS? GO LOOK AT THE NASA PHOTOS IN WHICH YOU CAN EVEN SEE THE FOOTPRINT TRAILS. YES, NASA, WHO ELSE COULD DO THIS? YES THE CHINESE, INDIANS AND JAPS HAVE PICS TOO BUT THEY DIDN'T GET AS CLOSE AS NASA.
.
YOUR CONTINUAL REFUSUAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE CONFIRMS YOU ARE ONE THICK BOZO.
ET YOU CLAIM WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY IN THE 60s/70s BUT DOZENS OF MISSIONS SAY WE DID SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG! . YOU CLAIM WE COULDN'T PASS THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELT BUT IT IS CLEAR WE DID EXACTLY THAT MANY TIMES SO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG! . YOU CLAIM THE MOON ROCK WAS FAKE. THEN YOU PROVIDE ONE PROPER PEER REVIEWED REPORT THAT CONFIRMS THAT (Nature, New Scientist, Science Today etc etc etc). YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE, JUST SCHOOLBOY CLAIMS ON FUNNY WEBSITES. . YOU WANT MORE PROOF OF THE SIX LANDINGS? GO LOOK AT THE NASA PHOTOS IN WHICH YOU CAN EVEN SEE THE FOOTPRINT TRAILS. YES, NASA, WHO ELSE COULD DO THIS? YES THE CHINESE, INDIANS AND JAPS HAVE PICS TOO BUT THEY DIDN'T GET AS CLOSE AS NASA. . YOUR CONTINUAL REFUSUAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE CONFIRMS YOU ARE ONE THICK BOZO. Truth Will Prevail

12:15am Fri 5 Oct 12

E -Type says...

You are using the hearsay of the event as evidence that it happened LOL....LOL......LOL.
...deep breath.....LOL....LO
L...

Have you any proof man passed through this Belt? Again using the hearsay!

There is nothing to say they couldn't with the right equipment, but there doesn't seem to be any independent proof they did.

Oh dear... peer reviewed peer reviewed, you're like a parrot "bottle of beer bottle of beer"

All the peers that are peering at the rock are not independent are they?

Holland got lumbered with a fake rock handed over by Woody Armstrong and Buzz Lightyear...

Ah Nasa pictures...now there is a bottle of moon air waiting to be opened.

BTW you havent explained how they got out of the lander with those back packs on or indeed out into it...
You are using the hearsay of the event as evidence that it happened LOL....LOL......LOL. ...deep breath.....LOL....LO L... Have you any proof man passed through this Belt? Again using the hearsay! There is nothing to say they couldn't with the right equipment, but there doesn't seem to be any independent proof they did. Oh dear... peer reviewed peer reviewed, you're like a parrot "bottle of beer bottle of beer" All the peers that are peering at the rock are not independent are they? Holland got lumbered with a fake rock handed over by Woody Armstrong and Buzz Lightyear... Ah Nasa pictures...now there is a bottle of moon air waiting to be opened. BTW you havent explained how they got out of the lander with those back packs on or indeed out into it... E -Type

1:14am Fri 5 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

"You are using the hearsay of the event"
.
HOW WOULD YOU KNOW, YOU HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT THE PILES OF EVIDENCE STUPID. We saw every single probe, orbiter and lander live as it happened, every one was major news and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people much, much more intelligent and qualified than you scrutinised every step. And you think you know better than all of them? Oh boy, you have really lost it.
.
"Have you any proof man passed through this Belt".
.
HAVE YOU ANY PROOF THEY DIDN'T?
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !) . Every single one of these flights plus all the manned lunar orbiters that preceded them had to pass through the VAB twice.
NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites. CHECK YOUR FACTS!
.
You still don't understand the concept of Peer Reviews do you? Are you thick or something? It means all claims are scrutinised rigourously by a selection of the best acknowledged independent proven experts in the field before they can be published. THERE IS NO BETTER WAY TO JUDGE CLAIMS.
.
CHECK THE FACTS! THEN BE A MAN AND ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE VAN ALLEN BELT, WRONG ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY AND WRONG TO SAY WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON SIX TIMES.
"You are using the hearsay of the event" . HOW WOULD YOU KNOW, YOU HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT THE PILES OF EVIDENCE STUPID. We saw every single probe, orbiter and lander live as it happened, every one was major news and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people much, much more intelligent and qualified than you scrutinised every step. And you think you know better than all of them? Oh boy, you have really lost it. . "Have you any proof man passed through this Belt". . HAVE YOU ANY PROOF THEY DIDN'T? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !) . Every single one of these flights plus all the manned lunar orbiters that preceded them had to pass through the VAB twice. NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites. CHECK YOUR FACTS! . You still don't understand the concept of Peer Reviews do you? Are you thick or something? It means all claims are scrutinised rigourously by a selection of the best acknowledged independent proven experts in the field before they can be published. THERE IS NO BETTER WAY TO JUDGE CLAIMS. . CHECK THE FACTS! THEN BE A MAN AND ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE VAN ALLEN BELT, WRONG ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY AND WRONG TO SAY WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON SIX TIMES. Truth Will Prevail

8:41am Fri 5 Oct 12

Alekhine says...

E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
E -Type wrote:
Alekhine wrote: You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.
So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon. To date he hasn't been able to do so.
While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....
You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable.. Do you believe man walked on the moon?
Who cares, you're not interested.
Yes i am...do you think man walk on the moon?
All right, i,m not interested. This is, after all, a cannabis string. Should'nt you be abusing somebody?
So soooo obvious...you dont believe it...why not?
Are your sure America exists. Maybe Columbus just went round the isle of wight in a dingy.
[quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E -Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: You are wasting your time TWP. ET does not have a real opinion on the lunar landings and would not care if a lump of moonrock fell out of the sky and hit him on the head.[/p][/quote]So you believe it too? perhaps you would like to do ole man moon walk a favour and post up any independent evidence of man walking on the moon. To date he hasn't been able to do so.[/p][/quote]While i have no interest in what you believe, you could have a think about why moonrock is different from earthrock and why it can't be knocked out with 1 of cement and 5 of sand....[/p][/quote]You are of course aware much of the moon rock that was given out was found to be fake! Who is to say the rest that is kept locked up from view and safe from testing is any more reliable.. Do you believe man walked on the moon?[/p][/quote]Who cares, you're not interested.[/p][/quote]Yes i am...do you think man walk on the moon?[/p][/quote]All right, i,m not interested. This is, after all, a cannabis string. Should'nt you be abusing somebody?[/p][/quote]So soooo obvious...you dont believe it...why not?[/p][/quote]Are your sure America exists. Maybe Columbus just went round the isle of wight in a dingy. Alekhine

11:40am Fri 5 Oct 12

Soouthchurch59 says...

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.

Buddha
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha Soouthchurch59

12:03pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

And the Truth Will Prevail.
.
Except in the minds of people like ET who is totally convinced he is right and unable to reassess his opinions in the light of new evidence - actually the definition of dementia!
.
In my experience most people judge the world by their own standards by which I mean that, for example, honest people tend to think most people are honest, dishonest people tend to think that most people are dishonest and so on. If ET thinks NASA and the rest of the scientific world is dishonest and scheming that says a lot more about him than it says about the scientific community.
And the Truth Will Prevail. . Except in the minds of people like ET who is totally convinced he is right and unable to reassess his opinions in the light of new evidence - actually the definition of dementia! . In my experience most people judge the world by their own standards by which I mean that, for example, honest people tend to think most people are honest, dishonest people tend to think that most people are dishonest and so on. If ET thinks NASA and the rest of the scientific world is dishonest and scheming that says a lot more about him than it says about the scientific community. Truth Will Prevail

12:38pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Alekhine says...

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
What you believ is real (Take That!)
.
When asked about the tooth, Venerable Shi Fazhao (the abbot of the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple) said: 'To me, it has always been real and I have never questioned its authenticity.' As for the dental experts' assessment (that it could not have come from a human), he said: 'They can say all they want, I don't care what they say. If you believe it's real, then it's real.'
[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha[/p][/quote]What you believ is real (Take That!) . When asked about the tooth, Venerable Shi Fazhao (the abbot of the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple) said: 'To me, it has always been real and I have never questioned its authenticity.' As for the dental experts' assessment (that it could not have come from a human), he said: 'They can say all they want, I don't care what they say. If you believe it's real, then it's real.' Alekhine

12:48pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
"You are using the hearsay of the event"
.
HOW WOULD YOU KNOW, YOU HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT THE PILES OF EVIDENCE STUPID. We saw every single probe, orbiter and lander live as it happened, every one was major news and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people much, much more intelligent and qualified than you scrutinised every step. And you think you know better than all of them? Oh boy, you have really lost it.
.
"Have you any proof man passed through this Belt".
.
HAVE YOU ANY PROOF THEY DIDN'T?
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !) . Every single one of these flights plus all the manned lunar orbiters that preceded them had to pass through the VAB twice.
NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites. CHECK YOUR FACTS!
.
You still don't understand the concept of Peer Reviews do you? Are you thick or something? It means all claims are scrutinised rigourously by a selection of the best acknowledged independent proven experts in the field before they can be published. THERE IS NO BETTER WAY TO JUDGE CLAIMS.
.
CHECK THE FACTS! THEN BE A MAN AND ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE VAN ALLEN BELT, WRONG ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY AND WRONG TO SAY WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON SIX TIMES.
Everything you saw you saw via NASA...dont you get it? It was not independent...

You have been asked to provide a source that is independent of the moon landing and walk...to date you havent although you think the astronauts and Nasa saying they did is independent proof. You fall down time and again on that yet you still offer "they said"


There tons of proof many didn't walk on the moon all independent of each other and yet there is no independent proof they did. ON BALANCE and to any right thinking person that should suggest one thing...now swop you penny telescope for a pair of reading glasses and try accessing the internet. There you will find all the independent proof you need that you have been sold a duck as a race horse.

Quack Quack. Woa boy Woa..
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: "You are using the hearsay of the event" . HOW WOULD YOU KNOW, YOU HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT THE PILES OF EVIDENCE STUPID. We saw every single probe, orbiter and lander live as it happened, every one was major news and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people much, much more intelligent and qualified than you scrutinised every step. And you think you know better than all of them? Oh boy, you have really lost it. . "Have you any proof man passed through this Belt". . HAVE YOU ANY PROOF THEY DIDN'T? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ALL LANDED ON THE MOON. Apollo 13 had to abort so Tom Hanks didn't make it as you'd know from your "history sources" (Ha ha !) . Every single one of these flights plus all the manned lunar orbiters that preceded them had to pass through the VAB twice. NASA employed over 35,000 people at the time of the Apollo landing plus sub contracters, 400,000 people in all. That is an awful lot of people to fool and NONE of them have ever cried hoax except in your imagination and on your fairy tale funny websites. CHECK YOUR FACTS! . You still don't understand the concept of Peer Reviews do you? Are you thick or something? It means all claims are scrutinised rigourously by a selection of the best acknowledged independent proven experts in the field before they can be published. THERE IS NO BETTER WAY TO JUDGE CLAIMS. . CHECK THE FACTS! THEN BE A MAN AND ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE VAN ALLEN BELT, WRONG ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY AND WRONG TO SAY WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON SIX TIMES.[/p][/quote]Everything you saw you saw via NASA...dont you get it? It was not independent... You have been asked to provide a source that is independent of the moon landing and walk...to date you havent although you think the astronauts and Nasa saying they did is independent proof. You fall down time and again on that yet you still offer "they said" There tons of proof many didn't walk on the moon all independent of each other and yet there is no independent proof they did. ON BALANCE and to any right thinking person that should suggest one thing...now swop you penny telescope for a pair of reading glasses and try accessing the internet. There you will find all the independent proof you need that you have been sold a duck as a race horse. Quack Quack. Woa boy Woa.. E.-Types

12:53pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
And the Truth Will Prevail.
.
Except in the minds of people like ET who is totally convinced he is right and unable to reassess his opinions in the light of new evidence - actually the definition of dementia!
.
In my experience most people judge the world by their own standards by which I mean that, for example, honest people tend to think most people are honest, dishonest people tend to think that most people are dishonest and so on. If ET thinks NASA and the rest of the scientific world is dishonest and scheming that says a lot more about him than it says about the scientific community.
Aren't you convinced you are right?

So if someone considers themselves to be they thats wrong but if you consider yourself to be right thats right...what does that say about you?

Re: Honest and dishonest----and the naive think think all others are as nieve as they...good logic.

You would seem to forget that the majority of people now believe the moon landing to be fake. Welcome to the world of the minority...brother! LOL..

The landing were a fake and anyone with an ounce of sense in their heads would know that...have you weighed yours lately?
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: And the Truth Will Prevail. . Except in the minds of people like ET who is totally convinced he is right and unable to reassess his opinions in the light of new evidence - actually the definition of dementia! . In my experience most people judge the world by their own standards by which I mean that, for example, honest people tend to think most people are honest, dishonest people tend to think that most people are dishonest and so on. If ET thinks NASA and the rest of the scientific world is dishonest and scheming that says a lot more about him than it says about the scientific community.[/p][/quote]Aren't you convinced you are right? So if someone considers themselves to be they thats wrong but if you consider yourself to be right thats right...what does that say about you? Re: Honest and dishonest----and the naive think think all others are as nieve as they...good logic. You would seem to forget that the majority of people now believe the moon landing to be fake. Welcome to the world of the minority...brother! LOL.. The landing were a fake and anyone with an ounce of sense in their heads would know that...have you weighed yours lately? E.-Types

12:53pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
And the Truth Will Prevail.
.
Except in the minds of people like ET who is totally convinced he is right and unable to reassess his opinions in the light of new evidence - actually the definition of dementia!
.
In my experience most people judge the world by their own standards by which I mean that, for example, honest people tend to think most people are honest, dishonest people tend to think that most people are dishonest and so on. If ET thinks NASA and the rest of the scientific world is dishonest and scheming that says a lot more about him than it says about the scientific community.
Aren't you convinced you are right?

So if someone considers themselves to be they thats wrong but if you consider yourself to be right thats right...what does that say about you?

Re: Honest and dishonest----and the naive think think all others are as nieve as they...good logic.

You would seem to forget that the majority of people now believe the moon landing to be fake. Welcome to the world of the minority...brother! LOL..

The landing were a fake and anyone with an ounce of sense in their heads would know that...have you weighed yours lately?
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: And the Truth Will Prevail. . Except in the minds of people like ET who is totally convinced he is right and unable to reassess his opinions in the light of new evidence - actually the definition of dementia! . In my experience most people judge the world by their own standards by which I mean that, for example, honest people tend to think most people are honest, dishonest people tend to think that most people are dishonest and so on. If ET thinks NASA and the rest of the scientific world is dishonest and scheming that says a lot more about him than it says about the scientific community.[/p][/quote]Aren't you convinced you are right? So if someone considers themselves to be they thats wrong but if you consider yourself to be right thats right...what does that say about you? Re: Honest and dishonest----and the naive think think all others are as nieve as they...good logic. You would seem to forget that the majority of people now believe the moon landing to be fake. Welcome to the world of the minority...brother! LOL.. The landing were a fake and anyone with an ounce of sense in their heads would know that...have you weighed yours lately? E.-Types

12:54pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Alekhine wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
What you believ is real (Take That!)
.
When asked about the tooth, Venerable Shi Fazhao (the abbot of the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple) said: 'To me, it has always been real and I have never questioned its authenticity.' As for the dental experts' assessment (that it could not have come from a human), he said: 'They can say all they want, I don't care what they say. If you believe it's real, then it's real.'
So what do you think is real in regards to the 'moon landings' You still havent answered that question!
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha[/p][/quote]What you believ is real (Take That!) . When asked about the tooth, Venerable Shi Fazhao (the abbot of the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple) said: 'To me, it has always been real and I have never questioned its authenticity.' As for the dental experts' assessment (that it could not have come from a human), he said: 'They can say all they want, I don't care what they say. If you believe it's real, then it's real.'[/p][/quote]So what do you think is real in regards to the 'moon landings' You still havent answered that question! E.-Types

1:27pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Alekhine says...

E.-Types wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote: Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
What you believ is real (Take That!) . When asked about the tooth, Venerable Shi Fazhao (the abbot of the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple) said: 'To me, it has always been real and I have never questioned its authenticity.' As for the dental experts' assessment (that it could not have come from a human), he said: 'They can say all they want, I don't care what they say. If you believe it's real, then it's real.'
So what do you think is real in regards to the 'moon landings' You still havent answered that question!
Did you forget to change your logon account?

I have already told you that i am not interested. Believe what you want. That is what the keeper of Buddha's tooth says.
[quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha[/p][/quote]What you believ is real (Take That!) . When asked about the tooth, Venerable Shi Fazhao (the abbot of the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple) said: 'To me, it has always been real and I have never questioned its authenticity.' As for the dental experts' assessment (that it could not have come from a human), he said: 'They can say all they want, I don't care what they say. If you believe it's real, then it's real.'[/p][/quote]So what do you think is real in regards to the 'moon landings' You still havent answered that question![/p][/quote]Did you forget to change your logon account? I have already told you that i am not interested. Believe what you want. That is what the keeper of Buddha's tooth says. Alekhine

1:46pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Alekhine says...

"The landing were a fake and anyone with an ounce of sense in their heads would know that...have you weighed yours lately?"

The porduction company outtakes must be worth a fortune. I wonder why Neol Edmunds has'nt got hold of them.

"One giant St....oh bugger that last step is a doozy.. CUT.

"one giant St.....woof wooof CUT.

Sorry Buzz, I know you are miffed at not getting the lead role but Neil is the star.
"The landing were a fake and anyone with an ounce of sense in their heads would know that...have you weighed yours lately?" The porduction company outtakes must be worth a fortune. I wonder why Neol Edmunds has'nt got hold of them. "One giant St....oh bugger that last step is a doozy.. CUT. "one giant St.....woof wooof CUT. Sorry Buzz, I know you are miffed at not getting the lead role but Neil is the star. Alekhine

2:29pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

ET, every history book, every western government, every official body says we did go to the moon SIX times and there is not a single article in any peer reviewed publication, which means Doctorate Thesises, Nature, New Scientist, Science Today etc which has refuted the landing SO WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
.
YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING FANTASTIC CLAIMS SO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVE THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG AND YOU ARE RIGHT. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF???
.
Once again ET, the moronic mouse who claims to be more intelligent than anyone else claims he is right and everyone else is wrong. does he never learn?
ET, every history book, every western government, every official body says we did go to the moon SIX times and there is not a single article in any peer reviewed publication, which means Doctorate Thesises, Nature, New Scientist, Science Today etc which has refuted the landing SO WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? . YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING FANTASTIC CLAIMS SO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVE THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG AND YOU ARE RIGHT. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF??? . Once again ET, the moronic mouse who claims to be more intelligent than anyone else claims he is right and everyone else is wrong. does he never learn? Truth Will Prevail

4:54pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Alekhine wrote:
E.-Types wrote:
Alekhine wrote:
Soouthchurch59 wrote: Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
What you believ is real (Take That!) . When asked about the tooth, Venerable Shi Fazhao (the abbot of the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple) said: 'To me, it has always been real and I have never questioned its authenticity.' As for the dental experts' assessment (that it could not have come from a human), he said: 'They can say all they want, I don't care what they say. If you believe it's real, then it's real.'
So what do you think is real in regards to the 'moon landings' You still havent answered that question!
Did you forget to change your logon account?

I have already told you that i am not interested. Believe what you want. That is what the keeper of Buddha's tooth says.
Not a case of being interested is it?

The question is do you believe man walked on the moon...its simply a yes-no answer..or cant you bring yourself to disagree with one of your allies on here...
[quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alekhine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote: Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha[/p][/quote]What you believ is real (Take That!) . When asked about the tooth, Venerable Shi Fazhao (the abbot of the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple) said: 'To me, it has always been real and I have never questioned its authenticity.' As for the dental experts' assessment (that it could not have come from a human), he said: 'They can say all they want, I don't care what they say. If you believe it's real, then it's real.'[/p][/quote]So what do you think is real in regards to the 'moon landings' You still havent answered that question![/p][/quote]Did you forget to change your logon account? I have already told you that i am not interested. Believe what you want. That is what the keeper of Buddha's tooth says.[/p][/quote]Not a case of being interested is it? The question is do you believe man walked on the moon...its simply a yes-no answer..or cant you bring yourself to disagree with one of your allies on here... E.-Types

4:58pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
ET, every history book, every western government, every official body says we did go to the moon SIX times and there is not a single article in any peer reviewed publication, which means Doctorate Thesises, Nature, New Scientist, Science Today etc which has refuted the landing SO WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
.
YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING FANTASTIC CLAIMS SO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVE THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG AND YOU ARE RIGHT. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF???
.
Once again ET, the moronic mouse who claims to be more intelligent than anyone else claims he is right and everyone else is wrong. does he never learn?
It would seem you cant even lie convincingly!

Now put your teeth in as im sure you have spat them out again shouting at the screen.


All the books are based on the evidence of those making the claim.

Agreeing with a one source cannot be considered robust investigation....try typing in moon hoax and be prepared to have your childish beliefs in fairies dunked in the sea for good...
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: ET, every history book, every western government, every official body says we did go to the moon SIX times and there is not a single article in any peer reviewed publication, which means Doctorate Thesises, Nature, New Scientist, Science Today etc which has refuted the landing SO WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? . YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING FANTASTIC CLAIMS SO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVE THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG AND YOU ARE RIGHT. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF??? . Once again ET, the moronic mouse who claims to be more intelligent than anyone else claims he is right and everyone else is wrong. does he never learn?[/p][/quote]It would seem you cant even lie convincingly! Now put your teeth in as im sure you have spat them out again shouting at the screen. All the books are based on the evidence of those making the claim. Agreeing with a one source cannot be considered robust investigation....try typing in moon hoax and be prepared to have your childish beliefs in fairies dunked in the sea for good... E.-Types

5:40pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

What do you mean that all the books are based on the evidence of those making the claim? So every doctorate, every science "trade journal", effectively every scientist and academic in the world is wrong and you are right? Are you completely out of your mind? Every single one of the sources I mentioned - Doctorates, Nature, NS, ST etc are completely independent you cretinous moron. If you had got past Junior School, which you didn't, the first thing every undergraduate (do you even know what that means?) is taught is be sure of your sources and the Peer Reviewed journals are quite simply THE best sources in the world.
.
I see you are also trying to squirm out of your errors now and changing the question. Right at the start you claimed that we couldn't have gone to the moon because we didn't have the technology and man can't travel through the VAB. That means you claim that every single probe, orbiter and lander we sent to the moon, around 40 of them altogether if you count the Russians, must have lied along with the 400,000 people who worked on them! That is self evidently nonsense so ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG YOU EGOTISTICAL BRAINLESS TVRD!
What do you mean that all the books are based on the evidence of those making the claim? So every doctorate, every science "trade journal", effectively every scientist and academic in the world is wrong and you are right? Are you completely out of your mind? Every single one of the sources I mentioned - Doctorates, Nature, NS, ST etc are completely independent you cretinous moron. If you had got past Junior School, which you didn't, the first thing every undergraduate (do you even know what that means?) is taught is be sure of your sources and the Peer Reviewed journals are quite simply THE best sources in the world. . I see you are also trying to squirm out of your errors now and changing the question. Right at the start you claimed that we couldn't have gone to the moon because we didn't have the technology and man can't travel through the VAB. That means you claim that every single probe, orbiter and lander we sent to the moon, around 40 of them altogether if you count the Russians, must have lied along with the 400,000 people who worked on them! That is self evidently nonsense so ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG YOU EGOTISTICAL BRAINLESS TVRD! Truth Will Prevail

5:51pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

Now we know why you thought you could get away with building on green belt land, ho ho ho!
Now we know why you thought you could get away with building on green belt land, ho ho ho! Truth Will Prevail

6:57pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
What do you mean that all the books are based on the evidence of those making the claim? So every doctorate, every science "trade journal", effectively every scientist and academic in the world is wrong and you are right? Are you completely out of your mind? Every single one of the sources I mentioned - Doctorates, Nature, NS, ST etc are completely independent you cretinous moron. If you had got past Junior School, which you didn't, the first thing every undergraduate (do you even know what that means?) is taught is be sure of your sources and the Peer Reviewed journals are quite simply THE best sources in the world.
.
I see you are also trying to squirm out of your errors now and changing the question. Right at the start you claimed that we couldn't have gone to the moon because we didn't have the technology and man can't travel through the VAB. That means you claim that every single probe, orbiter and lander we sent to the moon, around 40 of them altogether if you count the Russians, must have lied along with the 400,000 people who worked on them! That is self evidently nonsense so ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG YOU EGOTISTICAL BRAINLESS TVRD!
All the books written on the moon landing are based on the information given from Nasa...what is it you dont understand about that?

never mind what they contain they start off with the premises the moon was walked by man? Do you understand that?

Have you googled moon hoax yet? Or are your frightened to?

Man did not have the tech to land on the moon nor go through the VAB...thats why they didn't...you see, simple isn't it. Those that say they did at that time are using the claim they did as the proof they did...wake up.

For the last time we are talking about manned craft not unmanned...can you get that nicety into your head? MANNED not UNMANNED...lol please try to concentrate.
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: What do you mean that all the books are based on the evidence of those making the claim? So every doctorate, every science "trade journal", effectively every scientist and academic in the world is wrong and you are right? Are you completely out of your mind? Every single one of the sources I mentioned - Doctorates, Nature, NS, ST etc are completely independent you cretinous moron. If you had got past Junior School, which you didn't, the first thing every undergraduate (do you even know what that means?) is taught is be sure of your sources and the Peer Reviewed journals are quite simply THE best sources in the world. . I see you are also trying to squirm out of your errors now and changing the question. Right at the start you claimed that we couldn't have gone to the moon because we didn't have the technology and man can't travel through the VAB. That means you claim that every single probe, orbiter and lander we sent to the moon, around 40 of them altogether if you count the Russians, must have lied along with the 400,000 people who worked on them! That is self evidently nonsense so ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG YOU EGOTISTICAL BRAINLESS TVRD![/p][/quote]All the books written on the moon landing are based on the information given from Nasa...what is it you dont understand about that? never mind what they contain they start off with the premises the moon was walked by man? Do you understand that? Have you googled moon hoax yet? Or are your frightened to? Man did not have the tech to land on the moon nor go through the VAB...thats why they didn't...you see, simple isn't it. Those that say they did at that time are using the claim they did as the proof they did...wake up. For the last time we are talking about manned craft not unmanned...can you get that nicety into your head? MANNED not UNMANNED...lol please try to concentrate. E.-Types

7:21pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
Now we know why you thought you could get away with building on green belt land, ho ho ho!
I think you will find there was no building on GBL the same way there was no man walking or pretending to jump, skip and leap frog on the moon. Im sure those who perpetrated the fraud cant believe there are still luna freaks who believe it...LOL....spaceman
!


Have you googled moon hoax yet? if not why not?
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: Now we know why you thought you could get away with building on green belt land, ho ho ho![/p][/quote]I think you will find there was no building on GBL the same way there was no man walking or pretending to jump, skip and leap frog on the moon. Im sure those who perpetrated the fraud cant believe there are still luna freaks who believe it...LOL....spaceman ! Have you googled moon hoax yet? if not why not? E.-Types

7:24pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Minceir. says...

Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.
Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably. Minceir.

7:40pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Minceir. wrote:
Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.
Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality.

You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you.
[quote][p][bold]Minceir.[/bold] wrote: Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.[/p][/quote]Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality. You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you. E.-Types

7:51pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

All the info came from NASA? What about astronomers, Doctors, materials scientists etc and all the specialists involved but not employed by NASA?
.
If you google "moon hoax" all you will get is imbeciles like you who know nothing about this subject, every schoolchild knows that. Why don't you check out the proper bona fide sources like the peer reviewed journals, oh yes, you wouldn't understand all the big words would you?
.
Manned/unmanned whats the difference, the technology to get them there is almost the same, just add life support systems the same as subs. high altitude planes etc. Dumbo.
.
I find it hard to believe that any adult on earth can be as stupid and as gullible as you are, been quite an eye opener.
All the info came from NASA? What about astronomers, Doctors, materials scientists etc and all the specialists involved but not employed by NASA? . If you google "moon hoax" all you will get is imbeciles like you who know nothing about this subject, every schoolchild knows that. Why don't you check out the proper bona fide sources like the peer reviewed journals, oh yes, you wouldn't understand all the big words would you? . Manned/unmanned whats the difference, the technology to get them there is almost the same, just add life support systems the same as subs. high altitude planes etc. Dumbo. . I find it hard to believe that any adult on earth can be as stupid and as gullible as you are, been quite an eye opener. Truth Will Prevail

7:58pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Pi Quai says...

E.-Types wrote:
Minceir. wrote:
Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.
Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality.

You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you.
Quite right too !

Why do you find the need to use multiple accounts though ?
[quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minceir.[/bold] wrote: Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.[/p][/quote]Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality. You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you.[/p][/quote]Quite right too ! Why do you find the need to use multiple accounts though ? Pi Quai

9:18pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Pi Quai wrote:
E.-Types wrote:
Minceir. wrote:
Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.
Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality.

You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you.
Quite right too !

Why do you find the need to use multiple accounts though ?
Its quite clear son of a...stropmag...Gina the weaner...Call me Clint...mincier and many more... that you are the pathetic little toad that needs this sort of support or will be left looking like the disturbed little person you are.
[quote][p][bold]Pi Quai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minceir.[/bold] wrote: Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.[/p][/quote]Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality. You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you.[/p][/quote]Quite right too ! Why do you find the need to use multiple accounts though ?[/p][/quote]Its quite clear son of a...stropmag...Gina the weaner...Call me Clint...mincier and many more... that you are the pathetic little toad that needs this sort of support or will be left looking like the disturbed little person you are. E.-Types

9:23pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
All the info came from NASA? What about astronomers, Doctors, materials scientists etc and all the specialists involved but not employed by NASA?
.
If you google "moon hoax" all you will get is imbeciles like you who know nothing about this subject, every schoolchild knows that. Why don't you check out the proper bona fide sources like the peer reviewed journals, oh yes, you wouldn't understand all the big words would you?
.
Manned/unmanned whats the difference, the technology to get them there is almost the same, just add life support systems the same as subs. high altitude planes etc. Dumbo.
.
I find it hard to believe that any adult on earth can be as stupid and as gullible as you are, been quite an eye opener.
keep it to the one post...now your eyes are opened ( or as opened as they ever will be) look in the mirror as see the most gullible person you will ever see...you!
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: All the info came from NASA? What about astronomers, Doctors, materials scientists etc and all the specialists involved but not employed by NASA? . If you google "moon hoax" all you will get is imbeciles like you who know nothing about this subject, every schoolchild knows that. Why don't you check out the proper bona fide sources like the peer reviewed journals, oh yes, you wouldn't understand all the big words would you? . Manned/unmanned whats the difference, the technology to get them there is almost the same, just add life support systems the same as subs. high altitude planes etc. Dumbo. . I find it hard to believe that any adult on earth can be as stupid and as gullible as you are, been quite an eye opener.[/p][/quote]keep it to the one post...now your eyes are opened ( or as opened as they ever will be) look in the mirror as see the most gullible person you will ever see...you! E.-Types

9:27pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Pi Quai says...

E.-Types wrote:
Pi Quai wrote:
E.-Types wrote:
Minceir. wrote:
Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.
Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality.

You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you.
Quite right too !

Why do you find the need to use multiple accounts though ?
Its quite clear son of a...stropmag...Gina the weaner...Call me Clint...mincier and many more... that you are the pathetic little toad that needs this sort of support or will be left looking like the disturbed little person you are.
I do believe we can now add paranoia to the list of your abnormalities.
Now, tell me, why do you feel the need to run multiple accounts ?
[quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pi Quai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minceir.[/bold] wrote: Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.[/p][/quote]Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality. You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you.[/p][/quote]Quite right too ! Why do you find the need to use multiple accounts though ?[/p][/quote]Its quite clear son of a...stropmag...Gina the weaner...Call me Clint...mincier and many more... that you are the pathetic little toad that needs this sort of support or will be left looking like the disturbed little person you are.[/p][/quote]I do believe we can now add paranoia to the list of your abnormalities. Now, tell me, why do you feel the need to run multiple accounts ? Pi Quai

10:00pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Pi Quai wrote:
E.-Types wrote:
Pi Quai wrote:
E.-Types wrote:
Minceir. wrote:
Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.
Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality.

You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you.
Quite right too !

Why do you find the need to use multiple accounts though ?
Its quite clear son of a...stropmag...Gina the weaner...Call me Clint...mincier and many more... that you are the pathetic little toad that needs this sort of support or will be left looking like the disturbed little person you are.
I do believe we can now add paranoia to the list of your abnormalities.
Now, tell me, why do you feel the need to run multiple accounts ?
We? It is clear you are one of the recently banned...you havent posted on here before with that name...as there are a few that were banned this last few days it is clear you are one of the multiple accounts... connected to son of a ..... (count the dots) stropmag, the little pathetic chappie who without "dada" has lots of little accounts to bost his weak little ego...aww the poor little cretin!
[quote][p][bold]Pi Quai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pi Quai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minceir.[/bold] wrote: Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.[/p][/quote]Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality. You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you.[/p][/quote]Quite right too ! Why do you find the need to use multiple accounts though ?[/p][/quote]Its quite clear son of a...stropmag...Gina the weaner...Call me Clint...mincier and many more... that you are the pathetic little toad that needs this sort of support or will be left looking like the disturbed little person you are.[/p][/quote]I do believe we can now add paranoia to the list of your abnormalities. Now, tell me, why do you feel the need to run multiple accounts ?[/p][/quote]We? It is clear you are one of the recently banned...you havent posted on here before with that name...as there are a few that were banned this last few days it is clear you are one of the multiple accounts... connected to son of a ..... (count the dots) stropmag, the little pathetic chappie who without "dada" has lots of little accounts to bost his weak little ego...aww the poor little cretin! E.-Types

10:22pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Pi Quai says...

E.-Types wrote:
Pi Quai wrote:
E.-Types wrote:
Pi Quai wrote:
E.-Types wrote:
Minceir. wrote:
Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.
Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality.

You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you.
Quite right too !

Why do you find the need to use multiple accounts though ?
Its quite clear son of a...stropmag...Gina the weaner...Call me Clint...mincier and many more... that you are the pathetic little toad that needs this sort of support or will be left looking like the disturbed little person you are.
I do believe we can now add paranoia to the list of your abnormalities.
Now, tell me, why do you feel the need to run multiple accounts ?
We? It is clear you are one of the recently banned...you havent posted on here before with that name...as there are a few that were banned this last few days it is clear you are one of the multiple accounts... connected to son of a ..... (count the dots) stropmag, the little pathetic chappie who without "dada" has lots of little accounts to bost his weak little ego...aww the poor little cretin!
The royal 'We'.
I most certainly have never received a ban from this or any other site.
Now, tell me, why do you feel the need to run multiple accounts ?
I've been following these threads on and off for some time now and you keep popping up under different names. One day it might be E Types, the next it might be E - Types or E. Types. Why do you do that ?
[quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pi Quai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pi Quai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minceir.[/bold] wrote: Will the real E.-Types / E -Type (who last posted at 12.15am Friday 5 Oct) please stand up? Something fishy going on here. Multiple accounts? Probably.[/p][/quote]Oh so obvious...you need your multiple accounts to support you pathetic personality. You are using a cultural name, be warned if you use libel or racial or offensive words/threats whilst using that name we will without a doubt take legal action against you.[/p][/quote]Quite right too ! Why do you find the need to use multiple accounts though ?[/p][/quote]Its quite clear son of a...stropmag...Gina the weaner...Call me Clint...mincier and many more... that you are the pathetic little toad that needs this sort of support or will be left looking like the disturbed little person you are.[/p][/quote]I do believe we can now add paranoia to the list of your abnormalities. Now, tell me, why do you feel the need to run multiple accounts ?[/p][/quote]We? It is clear you are one of the recently banned...you havent posted on here before with that name...as there are a few that were banned this last few days it is clear you are one of the multiple accounts... connected to son of a ..... (count the dots) stropmag, the little pathetic chappie who without "dada" has lots of little accounts to bost his weak little ego...aww the poor little cretin![/p][/quote]The royal 'We'. I most certainly have never received a ban from this or any other site. Now, tell me, why do you feel the need to run multiple accounts ? I've been following these threads on and off for some time now and you keep popping up under different names. One day it might be E Types, the next it might be E - Types or E. Types. Why do you do that ? Pi Quai

10:25pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

I dont...now try work it out..

Following the threads...yeah right...and now suddenly you felt compelled to post...you are one weak person little son of a.....stropmag
I dont...now try work it out.. Following the threads...yeah right...and now suddenly you felt compelled to post...you are one weak person little son of a.....stropmag E.-Types

10:29pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Pi Quai says...

E.-Types wrote:
I dont...now try work it out..

Following the threads...yeah right...and now suddenly you felt compelled to post...you are one weak person little son of a.....stropmag
Yep, that's paranoia. Classic example.
[quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: I dont...now try work it out.. Following the threads...yeah right...and now suddenly you felt compelled to post...you are one weak person little son of a.....stropmag[/p][/quote]Yep, that's paranoia. Classic example. Pi Quai

10:38pm Fri 5 Oct 12

E.-Types says...

Pi Quai wrote:
E.-Types wrote:
I dont...now try work it out..

Following the threads...yeah right...and now suddenly you felt compelled to post...you are one weak person little son of a.....stropmag
Yep, that's paranoia. Classic example.
Are you qualified in such or do you only think you are?

Why did you suddenly decide to post?

What other threads were you "following"

I ask to try fathom why this thread caused you to post? And not even on the thread issue or the unofficial issue...and so soon after a major banning session by the bored admin.

Paranoid nah...just obvious..
[quote][p][bold]Pi Quai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E.-Types[/bold] wrote: I dont...now try work it out.. Following the threads...yeah right...and now suddenly you felt compelled to post...you are one weak person little son of a.....stropmag[/p][/quote]Yep, that's paranoia. Classic example.[/p][/quote]Are you qualified in such or do you only think you are? Why did you suddenly decide to post? What other threads were you "following" I ask to try fathom why this thread caused you to post? And not even on the thread issue or the unofficial issue...and so soon after a major banning session by the bored admin. Paranoid nah...just obvious.. E.-Types

9:48pm Sat 6 Oct 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

If any of your so-called “emminent men and women” were the real deal (they’re probably my mate down the road!) they would publish their so-called “facts” in the right peer-reviewed journals because “publishing” makes their claims bona fide recognised fact the world over.
.
But peer reviewed journals only publish AFTER they have had articles/papers checked by a number of REAL proven independent experts from the same field, so if it’s the Van Allen Belt the experts would be people like senior University Professors and researchers specialising in space radiation etc, the sort of people who are ONLY interested in the real truth and will not be fooled by flimsy or fraudulant evidence.
.
So why is there nothing published in the PRJ’s that contradicts the history book version that we went to the Moon six times? Ah yes, you’ll be screeching conspiracy by now. Well if you’re right it would be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, involving everyone from the astronauts and 400,000 workers to completely independent Science journals and British University Professors. Fantastic.
.
The day that you or anyone else can produce anything published in a peer reviewed journal such as Nature, NS, ST etc that even vaguely questions the authenticity of the Lunar landings, I and a whole load of other people will take you very seriously indeed. Until then I blame the drink and the genes.
If any of your so-called “emminent men and women” were the real deal (they’re probably my mate down the road!) they would publish their so-called “facts” in the right peer-reviewed journals because “publishing” makes their claims bona fide recognised fact the world over. . But peer reviewed journals only publish AFTER they have had articles/papers checked by a number of REAL proven independent experts from the same field, so if it’s the Van Allen Belt the experts would be people like senior University Professors and researchers specialising in space radiation etc, the sort of people who are ONLY interested in the real truth and will not be fooled by flimsy or fraudulant evidence. . So why is there nothing published in the PRJ’s that contradicts the history book version that we went to the Moon six times? Ah yes, you’ll be screeching conspiracy by now. Well if you’re right it would be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, involving everyone from the astronauts and 400,000 workers to completely independent Science journals and British University Professors. Fantastic. . The day that you or anyone else can produce anything published in a peer reviewed journal such as Nature, NS, ST etc that even vaguely questions the authenticity of the Lunar landings, I and a whole load of other people will take you very seriously indeed. Until then I blame the drink and the genes. Truth Will Prevail

6:49pm Mon 8 Oct 12

E-Types,.. says...

Truth Will Prevail wrote:
If any of your so-called “emminent men and women” were the real deal (they’re probably my mate down the road!) they would publish their so-called “facts” in the right peer-reviewed journals because “publishing” makes their claims bona fide recognised fact the world over.
.
But peer reviewed journals only publish AFTER they have had articles/papers checked by a number of REAL proven independent experts from the same field, so if it’s the Van Allen Belt the experts would be people like senior University Professors and researchers specialising in space radiation etc, the sort of people who are ONLY interested in the real truth and will not be fooled by flimsy or fraudulant evidence.
.
So why is there nothing published in the PRJ’s that contradicts the history book version that we went to the Moon six times? Ah yes, you’ll be screeching conspiracy by now. Well if you’re right it would be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, involving everyone from the astronauts and 400,000 workers to completely independent Science journals and British University Professors. Fantastic.
.
The day that you or anyone else can produce anything published in a peer reviewed journal such as Nature, NS, ST etc that even vaguely questions the authenticity of the Lunar landings, I and a whole load of other people will take you very seriously indeed. Until then I blame the drink and the genes.
Well very honest of you to say perhaps you are befuddled by drink and genetics. as for "vaguely questions the authenticity of the Lunar landings"

Put your glass down and google moon hoax to find more than questioning but actual proof...
[quote][p][bold]Truth Will Prevail[/bold] wrote: If any of your so-called “emminent men and women” were the real deal (they’re probably my mate down the road!) they would publish their so-called “facts” in the right peer-reviewed journals because “publishing” makes their claims bona fide recognised fact the world over. . But peer reviewed journals only publish AFTER they have had articles/papers checked by a number of REAL proven independent experts from the same field, so if it’s the Van Allen Belt the experts would be people like senior University Professors and researchers specialising in space radiation etc, the sort of people who are ONLY interested in the real truth and will not be fooled by flimsy or fraudulant evidence. . So why is there nothing published in the PRJ’s that contradicts the history book version that we went to the Moon six times? Ah yes, you’ll be screeching conspiracy by now. Well if you’re right it would be the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, involving everyone from the astronauts and 400,000 workers to completely independent Science journals and British University Professors. Fantastic. . The day that you or anyone else can produce anything published in a peer reviewed journal such as Nature, NS, ST etc that even vaguely questions the authenticity of the Lunar landings, I and a whole load of other people will take you very seriously indeed. Until then I blame the drink and the genes.[/p][/quote]Well very honest of you to say perhaps you are befuddled by drink and genetics. as for "vaguely questions the authenticity of the Lunar landings" Put your glass down and google moon hoax to find more than questioning but actual proof... E-Types,..

4:19pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Aint it just the truth says...

Anything rather than admit you might be wrong eh E-Types? Not a sign of intelligence.
Anything rather than admit you might be wrong eh E-Types? Not a sign of intelligence. Aint it just the truth

5:34pm Tue 9 Oct 12

E-Types,.. says...

I see you have been removed...again!

Perhaps you showing where i am wrong by showing you are right might allow me to consider being wrong, as things stand, demanding that you are right and i am wrong doesn't mean that is the case. Isn't that a reasonable comment?
I see you have been removed...again! Perhaps you showing where i am wrong by showing you are right might allow me to consider being wrong, as things stand, demanding that you are right and i am wrong doesn't mean that is the case. Isn't that a reasonable comment? E-Types,..

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find