"I don't want to change this thread from a Fill the Hill thread into another Cannasat and GW/Bayer thread."
Then you shouldn't have brought it up. I'm not going to let you tell tall tales about Cannasat in this or any other thread.
"And I don't want to start another boring argument thread with you David. It would just alienate support for Fill the Hill."
Too late. And besides, this issue is more important than "Fill The Hill" - all the clubs in Canada may get shut down over it - if activists play it the wrong way.
They [Cannasat] did join with (or "aggree with") PPS to threaten to sue Philippe Lucas of Canadians for Safe Access for publishing research into the Heavy metal, bacterial, cannabinoid and irradiated qualities of the PPS weed:
"Cannasat is a minority owner of PPS. So Cannasat can not control what PPS does, or what PPS lawyers do. Where does Cannasat say that they agree with these PPS threats to sue?"
Cannasat contacted Philippe a few days after PPS did to echo their sentiments. Ask Philippe if you don't believe me.
"And Canadians for Safe Access have nothing to fear if they can back up their claims with facts."
I guess you've never heard of a SLAPP suit before. Here, let me inform you how corporations work ... they care very little about "facts":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
"If they exaggerated their claims, then they are in trouble, and PPS has a right to threaten a libel or slander lawsuit."
They didn't exaggerate. Funny how you give the corporations the benifit of the doubt without bothering to read the research.
"The truth has nothing to fear. If Cannasat turns to the dark side of the force, then I also will expose it."
They already have. How many activists do they have to threaten to sue before you notice it. If CSA was wrong, they could have made public the information that proves CSA was wrong. No lawsuit is required. So far, the only people that have made their information public is CSA.
"There are many documented problems with PPS cannabis. There is no need to exaggerate."
Point out one exaggeration.
"There is no need to pile on Jody Pressman either."
I think the "proprietary" and "intellectual property rights" mentality should be piled on at every opportunity.
"Or to exaggerate anything."
Where do I exaggerate? You sure like to throw that word around without examples.
"He has done many good things"
On his own or with Marc's money?
"..., and I enjoyed reading his descriptions of what was going on in Parliament meetings. I am sure he still has friends, and so attacking him unmercifully without also praising him will only alienate support for Fill the Hill."
I rather doubt it.
"I edited this message and toned it down a lot."
It doesn't show.
"I ask the moderators to keep this thread on topic for the sake of Fill the Hill, and coalition building."
Pritty hipocritical, bringing in Cannasat and then telling others they can't comment. Then you go on and on and on about how CSA is exaggerating - providing no examples - and then AGAIN saying how other people shouldn't respond to you.
This is a DISCUSSION FORUM. This is for two-way communication. If you want to lecture us, make a show for Pot TV.
"I have noticed David that you no longer directly assassinate and libel the character of luminaries like Alan Young, Hilary Black, and Alison Myrden."
I tell the truth and expose lies, period. I don't bring up the topic myself unless there's new news, but if anyone starts calling Cannasat an ethical operation I feel compelled to remind them of the recent history.
"Because Marc Emery threatened to ban you from the forums for doing so. Now you just suggest things without proof."
Marc would be very foolish to ban me over something so obviously in my mandate as a cannabis activist - it would only draw more attention to the issue - something a Cannasat supporter wouldn't want.
You keep hyping Cannasat, and I'll keep providing the facts - with or without Marc's blessing.