Unbelievable. SMHSure it was. I know what you said and what you meant, and it was exactly in my comment towards you. Maybe you need to re-read my quote, or better yet have someone read it back to you..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unbelievable. SMHSure it was. I know what you said and what you meant, and it was exactly in my comment towards you. Maybe you need to re-read my quote, or better yet have someone read it back to you..
Unbelievable. SMH
This has been my sentiment for a while.Unbelievable. SMH
"It's un-American that any consumer would be penalized for writing an honest review," Swalwell said. "I'm introducing this legislation to put a stop to this egregious behavior so people can share honest reviews without fear of litigation."
...
Yelp called the California law a victory for free speech in a blog post last Wednesday, and the Web-based consumer-review company backs the federal legislation bill as well.
"We are supportive of [Swalwell's] effort and the efforts of other lawmakers to make it explicitly clear under law that non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts violate the core tenets of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," said Yelp's head of public affairs, Laurent Crenshaw.
"This law would say you cannot contract away a person's freedom of speech," said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D.-Calif.), who is sponsoring the bill.
Swalwell is introducing the Consumer Review Freedom Act on Tuesday in an effort to prevent businesses from taking legal action against those who publish online reviews.
"Right now, with the advent of more and more platforms to review businesses and services, we don't want to see frankness and honesty and candor stymied by businesses that are afraid of having the truth get out there," Swalwell said.
Funny, your comment was just a subtle way of being a smartass towards me. I guess you can do that on an uncensored forum.
you guys do realize you are encouraging IM to be a prick , you banter back and forth with him making him the center of attention , that is exactly what he wants , he is so ignorant that by acting like a big dick he thinks he is important because of the attention he is getting , the best thing to do is let this thread go dead without the attention he will leave, no one likes this jackass and if no one replies to his posts he will go be a dick somewhere else,,,
As I stated and your Leader Millard stated you will not find a lab to give individuals quantitative results. Labs that test schedule 1 drugs are licensed by DEA and DEA says no results will be given unlesss you are a entity legally needing this inf, lawyer, doc, etc. If you have info to the contrary post one up and you will have actually contributed a worthy post for once. Going over the same shit again with you is a waste of life.And yet you keep replying, don't you?
Regardless, you are the one posting on a forum where you're a laughingstock. So who's looking for attention? LMFAO
I see you ignored the challenge I issued to you. You know? The challenge to cite your evidence for your statement that "no licensed lab in the (lowercase T in "the," GM) continental USA ( I guess you're not claiming it applies to the non-continental US) will give quantitative (that's quantitative, not quantative, GM) DATA (I assume you meant data)." Since you have no proof, you're full of shit - AS USUAL.
Don't you get tired of being humiliated, Gman? I've never seen ANYONE that was such a glutton for punishment. Your rebuttals to everyone's posts have consisted of nothing more than weak flames. Honestly, you don't even make it fun. In fact, you put up so little fight, I'm starting to feel a little guilty. What's worse is you don't even seem aware.
Well, you would be wrong, why do you think he has to creep on boards, scared to post, and get his info from others?Now I know you are lying. NO ONE thinks Johnny of all people is a dick. He's one of the nicest and most helpful guys here - except when it comes to you and that other clown, Gman. Now, if you said it was me or a couple of others, it would have been more believable. If you want to lie about someone, the lie first needs to fit the person.
As I stated and your Leader Millard stated you will not find a lab to give individuals quantitative results. Labs that test schedule 1 drugs are licensed by DEA and DEA says no results will be given unlesss you are a entity legally needing this inf, lawyer, doc, etc.
If you have info to the contrary post one up and you will have actually contributed a worthy post for once. Going over the same shit again with you is a waste of life.
I don't even want to talk with you but I actually feel bad for you, jumping around like a excited little puppy craving my attention. So I throw your nerd ass a bone every now n then by acknowledging you exist. Now go away lest I roll up a newspaper and swat you little boy. You remind me of Sheldon on the Big bang theory, a dork.
Well, you would be wrong, why do you think he has to creep on boards, scared to post, and get his info from others?
Your true sides come out with time on every forum , then you're run off.
you guys do realize you are encouraging IM to be a prick , you banter back and forth with him making him the center of attention , that is exactly what he wants , he is so ignorant that by acting like a big dick he thinks he is important because of the attention he is getting , the best thing to do is let this thread go dead without the attention he will leave, no one likes this jackass and if no one replies to his posts he will go be a dick somewhere else,,,
Consider this (another) formal challenge: Name one other forum from which I, Johnny or Brutus have been run off.
You should definitely know better paul. It is not just me and IM that hink this way, it's the entire mature community. Don't make this out as it's just us 2, you can see how boards feel about them , all 3 by how unwelcome they are. They have to creep forums or have ''friends'' tell them what's going on. I have a very strong hunch who the 2 talkers are , time will tell, it usually brings all things out .You hit nail on the head. That is what this is about, a difference in etiquette. IM and GM feel differences should be settled on the sources terms JB and Brutus on the buyers. That's how it started, it's much more than that now. Now it's personal and really has little to do with the original diagreement.
The lesson we can take from this is to not start a feud with any them.
Yeah, everyone keeps saying that but no one has provided any evidence to support it other than the following quote from Ecstasydata:
"The DEA has made an unpublished administrative rule that licensed labs are not allowed to provide quantitative data to the public, reportedly for fear of providing 'quality control' to dealers and suppliers of black market products."
Plug that quote into Google and you'll see it goes back years and has been posted all over the net - VERBATIM.
I think it's urban legend.
BTW, I know for a fact that Millard is NOT saying unequivocally that "you will not find a lab to give individuals quantitative results" because of some unwritten DEA rule. The reason I know that is he has NO proof. And Millard does not expect nor ask anyone to take his word for anything he can't prove. Millard is a man that places the truth above all else. That sentiment is something many of us on Meso have in common.
Oh, no. It doesn't work that way, chum. The burden of proof is always on the person asserting a claim, not person criticizing the assertion. You're promoting an argument from ignorance, Gman. Naughty, naughty.
Keep deflecting with personal attacks. It just proves you're FOS and hasn't gone unnoticed - both here and elsewhere.
Consider this (another) formal challenge: Name one other forum from which I, Johnny or Brutus have been run off.
Sounds here like he agreesI wouldn't be so sure. After SRCS, I don't think there is any accredited, US lab that will publicly release such information on AAS as a public service on an ongoing basis.
If they hold the licensing, they make the rules, lawyers or laws don't matter. There is no legal justification for anyone minus legal parties in a court case, dr's., companies with a legit need etc, to have access to schedule 1 substances.I tend to think it's BS. The unwritten rule Ecstacydata.org/DDL cite for not releasing quantitative data doesn't make any legal sense. An "unwritten rule" is a rule that doesn't exist - at least as far as the law and courts are concerned. It's seems far more likely that the DEA strongly urged DDL to withhold quantitative data and DDL complied, citing an unwritten rule as their reason.
^^ThisYou are probably right. For DDL to say they caved into pressure from the DEA doesn't sound as good as saying they complied with an unwritten, administrative DEA rule. All the DEA needed to say was 'look what we did to SRCS' and hold the CS permit as a carrot.
If they hold the licensing, they make the rules, lawyers or laws don't matter. There is no legal justification for anyone minus legal parties in a court case, dr's., companies with a legit need etc, to have access to schedule 1 substances.