hi annebernadette, I'm really sorry i did not know you have both MS and PD. I can see the whole debate around Sativex must be a nightmare for you. Even though i don't have MS only PD, i still asked my neuro for sativex as they can make a case for you to have it, to the relevant NHS drugs panel? However he said he would be wasting his time because it costs to much. When i checked out the cost, it works out at £7 a day? I consider this to be a much better deal than the £465 a day gambling cost i incurred for more than 2 years whilst taking the cabergoline he prescribed me......
all the best
bluey
A member most in need of support,struggling with PD health issues.A ban is unjust despite the rules, they are guidelines not law and I agree absoluteley rules are needed in group interaction but not in this instance.A post by a moderator reminding members that it was not accceptable to the society would surely have been enough. A reminder would have been appropriate not punishment .This is like secret policing not moderation and a gross injustice to the poor individual involved
hi Ray,
Ok point taken i shall leave you to continue your debate on this thread regarding editing and censorship. However i part with one final thought; what is to be gained by imposing a ban on someone who relies on the forum as a lifeline and who is in need of help and support, not punishment and banning? It shows a real lack of understanding concerning PD and also lacks any empathy on the part of those who govern this forum.
regards
bluey
Ok point taken i shall leave you to continue your debate on this thread regarding editing and censorship. However i part with one final thought; what is to be gained by imposing a ban on someone who relies on the forum as a lifeline and who is in need of help and support, not punishment and banning? It shows a real lack of understanding concerning PD and also lacks any empathy on the part of those who govern this forum.
regards
bluey
Hi.
I think every one of us feels deeply for the person concerned, and the whole episode is very regrettable. I share everyone's worries for the individual.
However the forum is open to 7 billion potential browsers, and if just one of them were to make a public complaint that a registered member of a charity-funded forum was asking for information about where they could buy some cannabis, PUK's credibility would suffer greatly (IMHO).
I think the decision is balanced just about right, albeit unfortunate.
Censorship, however, may be less easy to be consistent about. Under the previous version of the Rules I believe the Moderator was obliged to provide the person posting with details of what they'd done wrong, what had been changed, and any punishment.
However the current Rules seem to give the moderators much more draconian powers than they had before, whilst allowing them - if they wish - to act and remain in total silence, informing nobody of anything. These extra powers may, in their opinions, have been necessary once, but I believe they have now caused the see-saw to tip too far to the right.
Notwithstanding all that I give my full vote of confidence to Ezinda, who I believe has been the fairest and most consistent Moderator for a long time.
Ray.
I think every one of us feels deeply for the person concerned, and the whole episode is very regrettable. I share everyone's worries for the individual.
However the forum is open to 7 billion potential browsers, and if just one of them were to make a public complaint that a registered member of a charity-funded forum was asking for information about where they could buy some cannabis, PUK's credibility would suffer greatly (IMHO).
I think the decision is balanced just about right, albeit unfortunate.
Censorship, however, may be less easy to be consistent about. Under the previous version of the Rules I believe the Moderator was obliged to provide the person posting with details of what they'd done wrong, what had been changed, and any punishment.
However the current Rules seem to give the moderators much more draconian powers than they had before, whilst allowing them - if they wish - to act and remain in total silence, informing nobody of anything. These extra powers may, in their opinions, have been necessary once, but I believe they have now caused the see-saw to tip too far to the right.
Notwithstanding all that I give my full vote of confidence to Ezinda, who I believe has been the fairest and most consistent Moderator for a long time.
Ray.
And finally.....
We all love [name removed] to bits, and know that she is probably the least malicious person in the UK. We also know that she would not deliberately submit a post which she knew to be illegal, or which could be perceived as Conspiracy. We further know how her day-to-day life revolves around this forum - it's her world.
And much as many of us may have dabbled with cannabis in the past, and would enjoy swapping notes, this thread isn't the place for such a debate. Nor is anywhere else on the forum, as the rules clearly ban any discussion on the subject at all. Furthermore I'd opine that anyone who realistically believes that in these present times they might be able to persuade PUK to invest charity funds into investigating the pros and cons of medicinal marijuana may have had one blast too many already!
It's no good complaining that if we're supposed to be a user-led group, the moderators shouldn't get involved at all. If anything illegal is posted on an anonymous forum the users obviously can't be held to account, so the PUK has to carry the can as host provider (and charity funding recipient).
Nor is there a lot of point in comparing GPs' daily medication costs with one's own daily gambling losses whilst under DAs. Fun, though!
The only issues left for the Mod to consider in [name removed]'s case, then (IMHO) were:-
1. The need to drum it home to [name removed] to tread carefully & beware legal issues;
2. The need to set an example to others;
3. To make [name removed] aware that her "suspension count" is rising;
4. To demonstrate to outsiders (eg auditors) that the Mods are responsible.
I believe that overall Ezinda has dealt with the matter well. On a personal level I would be able to see sufficient room for manoeuvre (purely as a gesture of goodwill and not to be cited as a precedent), to reduce [name removed]'s suspension by a week, given her unique personal circumstances. However that's Ezinda's decision.
We all love [name removed] to bits, and know that she is probably the least malicious person in the UK. We also know that she would not deliberately submit a post which she knew to be illegal, or which could be perceived as Conspiracy. We further know how her day-to-day life revolves around this forum - it's her world.
And much as many of us may have dabbled with cannabis in the past, and would enjoy swapping notes, this thread isn't the place for such a debate. Nor is anywhere else on the forum, as the rules clearly ban any discussion on the subject at all. Furthermore I'd opine that anyone who realistically believes that in these present times they might be able to persuade PUK to invest charity funds into investigating the pros and cons of medicinal marijuana may have had one blast too many already!
It's no good complaining that if we're supposed to be a user-led group, the moderators shouldn't get involved at all. If anything illegal is posted on an anonymous forum the users obviously can't be held to account, so the PUK has to carry the can as host provider (and charity funding recipient).
Nor is there a lot of point in comparing GPs' daily medication costs with one's own daily gambling losses whilst under DAs. Fun, though!
The only issues left for the Mod to consider in [name removed]'s case, then (IMHO) were:-
1. The need to drum it home to [name removed] to tread carefully & beware legal issues;
2. The need to set an example to others;
3. To make [name removed] aware that her "suspension count" is rising;
4. To demonstrate to outsiders (eg auditors) that the Mods are responsible.
I believe that overall Ezinda has dealt with the matter well. On a personal level I would be able to see sufficient room for manoeuvre (purely as a gesture of goodwill and not to be cited as a precedent), to reduce [name removed]'s suspension by a week, given her unique personal circumstances. However that's Ezinda's decision.
Ray, at times you seem to reside over this forum like some sort of "Lord Chief Justice" who passes his judgement on everyone and everything. Firstly my views and opinions are my own and i am entitled to them! Furthermore they were not subject to me having taken cannabis or any other illegal highs, as your last post suggested. For the record Ray i have never taken cannabis or any other non prescribed drugs in 52 years, so i reject your inference that i may have.
Its funny how you don't think PUK should fight our corner, so that PwP be given access to a legally approved drug called sativex. You say it would harm the image of the charity? Yet you clearly want the charity to fight your corner when it comes down to OCD and dopamine agonists? Also i find it somewhat "double standards" that you expect people to show compassion and understanding when its your own behaviour that's brought in to question? However when someone else steps out of line, your quick to judge them and only offer them crocodile tears.
I stand by what i said, [name removed] should not have been banned. By all means delete the said offending post, but to then punish someone who is clearly struggling, is just plain crazy. It feels like a Victorian Asylum approach to dealing with matters rather than a 21st century forum.
bluey
note for moderator, please do not delete or edit my post, it has not broken any rules. Thank you.
Its funny how you don't think PUK should fight our corner, so that PwP be given access to a legally approved drug called sativex. You say it would harm the image of the charity? Yet you clearly want the charity to fight your corner when it comes down to OCD and dopamine agonists? Also i find it somewhat "double standards" that you expect people to show compassion and understanding when its your own behaviour that's brought in to question? However when someone else steps out of line, your quick to judge them and only offer them crocodile tears.
I stand by what i said, [name removed] should not have been banned. By all means delete the said offending post, but to then punish someone who is clearly struggling, is just plain crazy. It feels like a Victorian Asylum approach to dealing with matters rather than a 21st century forum.
bluey
note for moderator, please do not delete or edit my post, it has not broken any rules. Thank you.
Ray, at times you seem to reside over this forum like some sort of "Lord Chief Justice" who passes his judgement on everyone and everything.
I spend a lot of time in here, pass comments frequently, and suggest viable solutions where I can (as opposed to just moaning for the sake of it like many do). Is that a bad thing?
Firstly my views and opinions are my own and I am entitled to them!
I agree 100%, and would fight to the death for your right to express them.
Furthermore they were not subject to me having taken cannabis or any other illegal highs, as your last post suggested.
At no time did I accuse you of anything, or suggest any such misdeeds. I merely intended to acknowledge that my (our?) generation was/is considerably more enlightened and informed about cannabis than those before me/us.
For the record, Ray, I have never taken cannabis or any other non-prescribed drugs in 52 years, so I reject your inference that I may have.
I made no such inference. You say you have never taken any non-prescribed drugs in 52 years, I commend you. that's a long time to go without so much as an aspirin, I wish I could say the same.
It's funny how you don't think PUK should fight our corner, so that PwP be given access to a legally approved drug called sativex. You say it would harm the image of the charity?
I merely opined that in the current financial climate, for PUK to raise the prority to such matters might be counter-productive. I didn't say that we should NEVER do anything on these fronts.
Yet you clearly want the charity to fight your corner when it comes down to OCD and dopamine agonists?
I am obviously interested in the DA/OCD issue due to how it's wrecked my life - as it has yours and hundreds of others'. I believe PUK also considers it a top priority issue, and has set up a group specifically to maintain its forefront position. If your priorities are different, and you believe the cannabis issue is more important, that's your entitlement.
Also I find it somewhat "double standards" that you expect people to show compassion and understanding when its your own behaviour that's brought in to question? However when someone else steps out of line, you're quick to judge them and only offer them crocodile tears.
I don't even understand most of that. If you're implying that my respect for the moderators' position, the rules and the law somehow suggests that my affection for [name removed] and desire to see her fairly treated has declined, I refute this vehemently. I frequently explain things to her "off-line"; we are good mates, and have been for a long time.
I stand by what I said, [name removed] should not have been banned. By all means delete the said offending post, but to then punish someone who is clearly struggling, is just plain crazy. It feels like a Victorian asylum approach to dealing with matters rather than a 21st century forum.
Fair enough. We've all voiced our opinions and given our reasons. Some of us disagree. So what? It's called democracy.
Over to the Executive, in this case the Moderator.
Ray.
p.s. If it's just a matter of you disliking me or my manner, I can live with that.
Pistols at dawn?
I spend a lot of time in here, pass comments frequently, and suggest viable solutions where I can (as opposed to just moaning for the sake of it like many do). Is that a bad thing?
Firstly my views and opinions are my own and I am entitled to them!
I agree 100%, and would fight to the death for your right to express them.
Furthermore they were not subject to me having taken cannabis or any other illegal highs, as your last post suggested.
At no time did I accuse you of anything, or suggest any such misdeeds. I merely intended to acknowledge that my (our?) generation was/is considerably more enlightened and informed about cannabis than those before me/us.
For the record, Ray, I have never taken cannabis or any other non-prescribed drugs in 52 years, so I reject your inference that I may have.
I made no such inference. You say you have never taken any non-prescribed drugs in 52 years, I commend you. that's a long time to go without so much as an aspirin, I wish I could say the same.
It's funny how you don't think PUK should fight our corner, so that PwP be given access to a legally approved drug called sativex. You say it would harm the image of the charity?
I merely opined that in the current financial climate, for PUK to raise the prority to such matters might be counter-productive. I didn't say that we should NEVER do anything on these fronts.
Yet you clearly want the charity to fight your corner when it comes down to OCD and dopamine agonists?
I am obviously interested in the DA/OCD issue due to how it's wrecked my life - as it has yours and hundreds of others'. I believe PUK also considers it a top priority issue, and has set up a group specifically to maintain its forefront position. If your priorities are different, and you believe the cannabis issue is more important, that's your entitlement.
Also I find it somewhat "double standards" that you expect people to show compassion and understanding when its your own behaviour that's brought in to question? However when someone else steps out of line, you're quick to judge them and only offer them crocodile tears.
I don't even understand most of that. If you're implying that my respect for the moderators' position, the rules and the law somehow suggests that my affection for [name removed] and desire to see her fairly treated has declined, I refute this vehemently. I frequently explain things to her "off-line"; we are good mates, and have been for a long time.
I stand by what I said, [name removed] should not have been banned. By all means delete the said offending post, but to then punish someone who is clearly struggling, is just plain crazy. It feels like a Victorian asylum approach to dealing with matters rather than a 21st century forum.
Fair enough. We've all voiced our opinions and given our reasons. Some of us disagree. So what? It's called democracy.
Over to the Executive, in this case the Moderator.
Ray.
p.s. If it's just a matter of you disliking me or my manner, I can live with that.
Pistols at dawn?
Ray
Your opinions are your own and you are entitled to express them, however I, and i suspect others are reluctant to post for fear of having their, equally valid views vilified and belittled.
I rarely post these days because of this.
I am sorry to be harsh but that is my opinion and i am entitled to it as well.
Caroline
Your opinions are your own and you are entitled to express them, however I, and i suspect others are reluctant to post for fear of having their, equally valid views vilified and belittled.
I rarely post these days because of this.
I am sorry to be harsh but that is my opinion and i am entitled to it as well.
Caroline
The only thing you ever got for seeing the other mans point of view is .... nothing.
If you`re right.....fight.
If you`re right.....fight.
Hi Caroline.
Blueeyes said
"My views and opinions are my own and I am entitled to them!"
And I replied
"I agree 100%, and would fight to the death for your right to express them.
Debate is a good thing and if we disagree, and a robust discussion follows, hopefully bringing out all the pros and cons of all viewpoints, that's great.
I don't belittle people, nor deny them their right to disagree (see above), but I'll fight my corner, as will others.
Ray.
Blueeyes said
"My views and opinions are my own and I am entitled to them!"
And I replied
"I agree 100%, and would fight to the death for your right to express them.
Debate is a good thing and if we disagree, and a robust discussion follows, hopefully bringing out all the pros and cons of all viewpoints, that's great.
I don't belittle people, nor deny them their right to disagree (see above), but I'll fight my corner, as will others.
Ray.
I just finished my 'Free the Forum 1" and "[name removed] is innocent" T-shirts when I realised they aren't much use in a forum.
Where do those smiley face things come from - can we add our own graphic.
[::FreeForum1::] Hope this works.
The censorship practice in this forum is bizarre. I had a huge swathe of text removed because a word was too contentious, correct but contentious. I'll give you the word in a separate post in case this is all canned because of it.
[name removed]'s question was rhetorical. That much should be obvious to anyone. If she asked if anyone in the forum knew of anyone who delivered in her area, then take action.
So far banning and censorship, has as usual, prompted even more discussion on the topic being censored than the original post ever would have. Proof that the mod has got it all wrong - again.
If it is rules they are after, the forum hosts should include in its t's & c's a line similar to that taken in the bible, where questioning what a priest says is punishable by stoning.
That way anyone going against the t's & c's (the bible) or mod (high priest(ess)) will be stoned ... oh no, that's torn it, I'll see you all if I'm ever released.
[name removed] should be released and given an apology.
[[:FreeForum1::] If this doesn't work on your browser, it should look like a sad wee face poking out between some vertical bars.
Where do those smiley face things come from - can we add our own graphic.
[::FreeForum1::] Hope this works.
The censorship practice in this forum is bizarre. I had a huge swathe of text removed because a word was too contentious, correct but contentious. I'll give you the word in a separate post in case this is all canned because of it.
[name removed]'s question was rhetorical. That much should be obvious to anyone. If she asked if anyone in the forum knew of anyone who delivered in her area, then take action.
So far banning and censorship, has as usual, prompted even more discussion on the topic being censored than the original post ever would have. Proof that the mod has got it all wrong - again.
If it is rules they are after, the forum hosts should include in its t's & c's a line similar to that taken in the bible, where questioning what a priest says is punishable by stoning.
That way anyone going against the t's & c's (the bible) or mod (high priest(ess)) will be stoned ... oh no, that's torn it, I'll see you all if I'm ever released.
[name removed] should be released and given an apology.
[[:FreeForum1::] If this doesn't work on your browser, it should look like a sad wee face poking out between some vertical bars.
I used the word 'Gomeral', adjective - meaning: someone who is never going to get it.
Shocking I know. I should have been stoned - Doh! (a la Homer Simpson)
Shocking I know. I should have been stoned - Doh! (a la Homer Simpson)
Ray, I'm glad you are also so passionate about an individuals right to express our opinions on this forum. Pity [name removed] had those rights removed and has been put into solitary confinement for 3 weeks as a punishment. Furthermore if the 3 week ban is defined to be a fitting punishment for her so called crime, then should we also not be banning people who breech forum rules by registering under multiple usernames?
all the best
bluey
all the best
bluey
I should qualify IT as in 'never going to get IT'.
The IT refers to an argument or fact, no matter how simple and obviously true, the recipient is not going to comprehend'.
IT does not mean class b or c drugs, prescribed or otherwise.
The IT refers to an argument or fact, no matter how simple and obviously true, the recipient is not going to comprehend'.
IT does not mean class b or c drugs, prescribed or otherwise.
1. [name removed] is a smashing girl and we love her dearly, I as much as anyone.
2. We're all modern & forward-thinking, so like to think cannabis is the answer.
3. Everyone feels powerless in life, so we all enjoy having a pop at authority.
None of this unfortunately alters the facts. Some kind of action was necessary, and the system empowers the moderator to decide what.
You wouldn't be worried if it were ME being suspended, would you?
2. We're all modern & forward-thinking, so like to think cannabis is the answer.
3. Everyone feels powerless in life, so we all enjoy having a pop at authority.
None of this unfortunately alters the facts. Some kind of action was necessary, and the system empowers the moderator to decide what.
You wouldn't be worried if it were ME being suspended, would you?
ECK, i agree with you.
The moderators have got it wrong. Talk about using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It makes my blood boil and feels like we are being treated as the inmates at some sort of out dated Victorian asylum! An asylum where the inmates are handed out severe punishment if they step out of line.
The moderators have got it wrong. Talk about using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It makes my blood boil and feels like we are being treated as the inmates at some sort of out dated Victorian asylum! An asylum where the inmates are handed out severe punishment if they step out of line.
Exactly blueeyes47, as I was just saying to blueeyes46 just yesterday, WTF (what the fancy).
How is 3 weeks in the wilderness going to help. What is 3 weeks going to stop, that removing the offending sentence with a sharp rebuke, wouldn't. Except to get everyone's back up.
[::FreeTheForum1::]
How is 3 weeks in the wilderness going to help. What is 3 weeks going to stop, that removing the offending sentence with a sharp rebuke, wouldn't. Except to get everyone's back up.
[::FreeTheForum1::]
Is that how low you've got to sink, bluey, rather than allow me the right to a different point of view to yours? You have a lot of hostility bubbling away in there my friend, and I'm sure I'm not the cause of it all.
[name removed] has been suspended before, as have I. What do you EXPECT them to do with repeat offenders?
If you don't like it, use other forums. We all know of other forums [name removed] belongs to, as do many of us. You can talk to her in there if you want to, any time you like.