RE: banned

RE: banned (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

sirsholly -> RE: banned (10/9/2009 6:15:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail all heineously funny and entertaining shit, until somebody puts an eye out. Ron with the knife in their ass? Damn...i would almost want to see that!!

slutslave4u -> RE: banned (10/9/2009 6:32:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tammystarm quote: ORIGINAL: NormalOutside That's a really lame thing to be banned for, or even disciplined at all. It's a joke, and a funny one at that. Even if it wasn't a joke, who the fuck cares? Laaaaame. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaharThorne You dared to mention illegal drugs. You solicited a possible buyer and someone objected and forward the transcript to a mod. Honey you are not thinking at all, just like a typical stoner. You fried your brain as it is. Consider it a lesson and get off the crap. You're a nasty person. I hope you get your head out of your ass, wow. while i do not touch the stuff i know very highly successful business people who smoke it religiously, and they are fine. hell my own literature professor in college told me he stayed stoned and it helped him understand the writting, he was seen as brilliant by most. i have a pain condition and if i could i would try and take a thc pill. So "STONERS DONT FRY THEIRS BRAINS" not unless they stay in that state contantly. It is safer than alcohol by any means. ive never heard of a story where someone got stoned and went and robbed something, or killed someone, or drove high and wrecked and killed. But alcohol !!!!! To OP, yeah ya gotta be careful this coming from queen of fuck ups on threads..... try begging for forgiveness, it probably wont work but keep trying. You could start fresh as well with a new profile and behave. best of luck stoner! smiles You have never heard of anyone getting stoned (on anything) and going out and doing anything illegal? such as robbing someone, or beating someone, or high speed car chases, or bad domestic situations, fighting the police and taking days to come down from being stoned in jail or a hospital asking what it was that they did to get there? If you have never seen anything like any of that from someone being simply "stoned" instead of drunk, then I want to live in your world..... I am an ex police officer of near 20 years. I'd rather deal as a police officer, with an alcoholic than someone under the influence of PCP or Meth or even weed for that matter depending on situation at the time....especially if the drug gives them the strength of 10 men. I have seen it, I have worked the wrecks, I have gone to parents and family members and told them their loved ones were not coming home because of it. I have worked countless traffic accidents from it, pulled bodies out of wrecks.....many with the very one's that are under the influence of whatever it may be at the time, begging me not to let them die............ He read the TOS when he made his account ( or should have ) , they made reference to illegal activities....Collarme HAS to protect itself....deal in illegal activities, or even jokingly done here, face up to what comes your way....I have no problems in him getting banned for it. Perhaps they will ban him forever, perhaps they will simply teach him a lesson and then allow him back at some other time down the road, either way....HARD LESSON LEARNED!

sirsholly -> RE: banned (10/9/2009 6:36:37 PM)
quote: I am an ex police officer of near 20 years. I'd rather deal as a police officer, with an alcoholic than someone under the influence of PCP or Meth or even weed for that matter depening on situation at the time....especially if the drug gives them the strength of 10 men. I have seen it, I have worked the wrecks, I have gone to parents and family members and told them their loved ones were not coming home because of it. I have worked countless traffic accidents from it, pulled bodies out of wrecks.....many with the very one's that are under the influence of whatever it may be at the time, begging me not to let them die............ wow....that's the stuff nightmares are made of. Powerful post.

slutslave4u -> RE: banned (10/9/2009 6:55:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: I am an ex police officer of near 20 years. I'd rather deal as a police officer, with an alcoholic than someone under the influence of PCP or Meth or even weed for that matter depening on situation at the time....especially if the drug gives them the strength of 10 men. I have seen it, I have worked the wrecks, I have gone to parents and family members and told them their loved ones were not coming home because of it. I have worked countless traffic accidents from it, pulled bodies out of wrecks.....many with the very one's that are under the influence of whatever it may be at the time, begging me not to let them die............ wow....that's the stuff nightmares are made of. Powerful post. It needed said I do believe....I have been out of police work for some time now, yet I still have nightmares/dreams of many of those wrecks/situations and still live with them to this day....to those that do that, see that, work those situations daily, and deal with the families afterwards, it never goes away....they are ALL still with you.

Noah -> RE: banned (10/9/2009 9:25:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CalifChick Scroll down to People vs. Samuels in this article. Cali Thanks Cali. The article doesn't date People vs. Samuels though one can infer from one comment that the case dates back to the 1960s. Nor does the article indicate whether any subsequent cases have reinforced or reversed it. But if CM is to be guided by People vs. Samuels then it seems that there should be no discussion of bondage or sexual violence either here or in the chat rooms as both activities are illegal, even with the consent of the person on the receiving end. That is to say that to talk about sexual bondage or to talk about any S&M which could leave bruises--perhaps even some that didn't leave bruises--is just as much a TOS violation as joking about selling 30 lbs. of weed. I'm not trained in the law, though. I may have this all wrong. Does someone more skilled read this differently or have more light to shed on the question of the legality of consensual BDSM in California? Thanks.

CalifChick -> RE: banned (10/9/2009 9:46:30 PM)
It was just the first thing that came up on google. I found the reasoning to be interesting. I'm sure there's more stuff out there. Cali

DemonKia -> RE: banned (10/9/2009 10:46:20 PM)
FR, continuing read I suspect that the more relevant interpretation is how to read the TOS. & this would be my caveat: No illegal activities outside the realm of BDSM. & the line of reasoning I'm gonna use is this speculation. CM has hired & is willing to hire more lawyers who specialize in BDSM & free expressions thereof. Plus, if / when push comes to shove there are various national BDSM & pro-bono legal associations that can be tapped for further assistance -- on issues BDSM. Other sites do discussions about other quasi-legal activities (cannabis use, or whatever), because that's their focus. & they hire lawyers, yadda yadda yadda . .. . . Basically, CM is willing to go to bat over our free speech rights to discuss BDSM & other reasonably legal matters here, but not to get into legal pissing contests on other matters. I believe it's called 'picking your battles' . . . . . .

sirsholly -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 12:58:52 AM)
quote: Other sites do discussions about other quasi-legal activities Kia is one of the few people who can say "quasi" without sounding like a doofus.

cjan -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 5:00:44 AM)
OP(p), I agree that your private chat comment was in jest and small potatoes that shouldn't carry a life sentence. However, you should be banned for your spelling and carelessness for not even using spellcheck.

Justme696 -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 5:06:22 AM)
Thank you That I was looking for. So..is it illegal to talk about drugs in California? quote: Every little thing does not have to be spelled out in the TOS of any site. Perhaps....but a good TOS can prevent discussion about things that are unclear. But as it is their site..they can kick you out anyway. What is weird..that threads about downloading are never closed or whatever. That is illegal in the USA also not? Ofcourse drugs can be seen as more "ïllegal"

thishereboi -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 5:30:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slutslave4u You have never heard of anyone getting stoned (on anything) and going out and doing anything illegal? such as robbing someone, or beating someone, or high speed car chases, or bad domestic situations, fighting the police and taking days to come down from being stoned in jail or a hospital asking what it was that they did to get there? If you have never seen anything like any of that from someone being simply "stoned" instead of drunk, then I want to live in your world..... I am an ex police officer of near 20 years. I'd rather deal as a police officer, with an alcoholic than someone under the influence of PCP or Meth or even weed for that matter depending on situation at the time....especially if the drug gives them the strength of 10 men. I have seen it, I have worked the wrecks, I have gone to parents and family members and told them their loved ones were not coming home because of it. I have worked countless traffic accidents from it, pulled bodies out of wrecks.....many with the very one's that are under the influence of whatever it may be at the time, begging me not to let them die............ He read the TOS when he made his account ( or should have ) , they made reference to illegal activities....Collarme HAS to protect itself....deal in illegal activities, or even jokingly done here, face up to what comes your way....I have no problems in him getting banned for it. Perhaps they will ban him forever, perhaps they will simply teach him a lesson and then allow him back at some other time down the road, either way....HARD LESSON LEARNED! You have seen people go off like this from smoking pot? Not smoking pot while taking other drugs, JUST smoking pot? Sorry but I find that really hard to believe. Maybe next time I cut the lawn, I should smoke a bowl. I never realized it would give me the strength of 10 men. WOW that is some good smoke there.

sirsholly -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 6:01:31 AM)
I have no idea what meth is, and i really don't know about pot, but i am pretty sure PCP can do that.

CalifChick -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 9:18:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Justme696 That I was looking for. So..is it illegal to talk about drugs in California? It is illegal to offer to buy or sell drugs in California. And CJ!!!! Pimpdaddy! Smoochesssssssssssssss. Cali

Noah -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 10:57:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DemonKia FR, continuing read I suspect that the more relevant interpretation is how to read the TOS. & this would be my caveat: No illegal activities outside the realm of BDSM. And this might well be what's up. Though in fact, the site does actively prohibit mention of certain ranges of illegal activities within BDSM, as I think most of us would agree they should. quote: & the line of reasoning I'm gonna use is this speculation. CM has hired & is willing to hire more lawyers who specialize in BDSM & free expressions thereof. Plus, if / when push comes to shove there are various national BDSM & pro-bono legal associations that can be tapped for further assistance -- on issues BDSM. Other sites do discussions about other quasi-legal activities (cannabis use, or whatever), because that's their focus. & they hire lawyers, yadda yadda yadda . .. . . Basically, CM is willing to go to bat over our free speech rights to discuss BDSM & other reasonably legal matters here, but not to get into legal pissing contests on other matters. I believe it's called 'picking your battles' . . . . . . And picking your battles is a wise thing to do. Still, according to the best information shared in this thread (paltry though it is so far) a very large portion of what goes on here is a TOS violation on its face, pure and simple. Detailed descriptions and discussions of illegal-in-California activities, as well as solicitations for more of the same, appear here and on the other Other Side and presumably in chat (I wouldn't know) every day. Hence, the site seems to be systematically violating its own TOS. Many if not most of the members are habitually violating TOS as well, without so much as a warning from the owners. I note that so far, none of those who told the OP, in effect: "you broke TOS in chat so you have no right to be in chat" have volunteered to ban themselves from the message boards for their previous infractions of discussing (illegal in California) BDSM topics. None of them so far have come out and promised never again to discuss anything to do with bondage, sadism or masochism here. Of course they may have formed this intention in their minds. Time will tell whether their future behavior reveals this. I'm grateful for your take on things, DemonKia. So here is a question for discussion: If : A. your position is that the OP in this thread deserved his chat ban simply because he violated TOS, and B.given that discussion of or solicitation of bondage or S&M is to the best of our lnowledge also a violation of TOS, Do you feel that anyone who discusses or solicits bondage or "S" or "M" should be similarly banned from Collarme? If not, why not? If you say no, I'm with you, by the way. But I'm curious about the reasoning of those who support a strict enforcement of the TOS as it involves jokes about marijuana, say, but lax or no enforcement as it regards very serious discussions of much of kink.

thishereboi -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 2:28:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly I have no idea what meth is, and i really don't know about pot, but i am pretty sure PCP can do that. Yea, PCP can mess you up really bad. I think that is the one where the cops shoot the guy 50 times and he keeps going like the energizer bunny. Pot makes you stupid, slow and hungry, unless there is another drug added to it. Now I am sure there are people out there with a quirky chemical system, who react differently, But I have never seen or heard of anyone "going off" because they smoked a bowl.

GreedyTop -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 2:29:53 PM)
Holly.. meth is methamphetamine. (says the former truck driver,.... 'nuff said...)

DemonKia -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 8:42:26 PM)
Coupla thoughts, Noah . . . . . First & foremost, from what I've seen, large swathes of consensual BDSM activities probably are not actionable & could be conducted in front of a cop & the cop wouldn't bother. Similar to how I can routinely drive 4 miles an hour over whatever the posted speed limit is & cops'll never stop me, at least not in the state of Cali . . . . . Laws are far from absolute containers of behavior, in my experience. While we can go on about how this or that act is illegal, most play in play parties is fairly mild &, like I said, I seriously doubt it's legally actionable. (I don't mean having sex in public, but in some kinda hypothetical if-a-cop-should-innocently-wander-into-the-dungeon kinda way . . . . & also keeping in mind that there are current & former LE amongst kinksters -- at the bondage workshop I facilitated today a retired LE gave a presentation about handcuff use . . . . . . ) Second, I'm going to very pragmatically side with the idea that CM has consulted lawyers who specialize in protected 1st Amendment speech around porn, consensual BDSM, & etc, & I'll bet that those lawyers understand the laws & precedents about this . . . . I also have a kinda background, contextual, historical understanding that police states are expensive affectations of empire. The more broadly focused the police state, the more ineffectively law is brought to people's lives, the more expensive. & humans show a slow but clear trend to choose to spend less & less on anything but focused law enforcement on increasingly narrow sets of aberrant behaviors. &, especially right now, my prediction is on divestment of a chunk of 'wasted' LE moneys away from stuff like the 'war on politically incorrect vegetables' & suppressing prostitution . . . . . . So, I don't spend a bunch of time worrying about imminent police state impositions. More like, fingers crossed that we're gonna see some big changes with this big economic thing we're going thru, maybe a coupla years down the road, when we're still quagmired in economic crud . .. . . . There's some other factors that play into my thinking. Sadomasochistic play is far from universal amongst kinksters, & sometimes I can be persuaded that 'weal twue masochists & sadists' are the minority, even amongst kinksters . . . . . . & those are the ones engaging in the most obviously potentially actionable behaviors . . .. . Similarly, those using bondage, I'm betting, are probably a minority amongst kinksters . . . .. . Possibly bare majorities, but not much more . . . . . & I'm really unclear on bondage being illegal when it occurs between consenting adults. Really? Maybe I just need reminding what's illegal about consensual bondage . . . . There's a significant contingent of power only people, too . . . .. Maybe as many as there are edge players . . . . scrapes brain That's all I can think of at the moment . . . . . These are all my purely subjective feelings about what I've observed, so far. It would be nice to have quality data on the subject, but that's what I think about most everything, lol . .. . . . & it leaves me with questions about which specific activities could be potentially legally actionable, outside of the obvious -- impact play. Decorative cutting? Needle play? It was mentioned at the munch today that candles specifically marketed for dripping on people were showing up at youth clothing / accessory stores in the local mall . ... . . Does that mean that wax play is in the groove to end up vanilla? This stuff changes & evolves . . . . . .

sunshinemiss -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 10:41:25 PM)
Dear Kia darling, Have you looked at my tag line recently? smooches!

Noah -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 10:57:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DemonKia ... Laws are far from absolute containers of behavior, in my experience. ... Word. Laws are enforced selectively, sometimes arbitrarily, even capriciously. Kind of like Terms of Service, no? That's not a complaint. "The quality of mercy is not strained..." etc. TOS enforcement here seems on average to be more selective than capricious and the selections as a rule seem fairly reasonable to me. As we have seen, noteworthy exceptions do occur.

DemonKia -> RE: banned (10/10/2009 11:09:27 PM)
Ah, another thought pries loose . . . . Criminal stuff is graduated: citations thru misdemeanors thru felonies. The priority is supposed to be about the worst first. Dealing 30 pounds of cannabis is a big hefty penalty, way felonious no matter what state . . . . . In California, assuming someone who does not have a medical recommend, possession of less than an ounce of cannabis is a citation (smoking a joint, for instance). Same level as a speeding ticket. & it's quasi-legal with a medical recommendation -- medical users can have something like a half a pound or a pound, I forget exactly which. They can transport their medicine. They can medicate reasonably discretely in public . . . &, basically, there's been a huge pull-back by LE on the ground with regard to low-level cannabis use kinds of stuff . . . . Anyways, CM's best use of resources is probably to focus on the most egregious & blatant stuff & let the presumably myriad little things slip by . . . .

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625