Quote:

---

You can believe in fairy tales like mental illness all you want.

---

Quote:

---

I never turned no one except the mentally ill away.

---

?

And what is wrong with that?

Lot's of people claimed depression, bi-polar and other labels not found in the pathology books.

Sorry I said.

Ya got to have something I believe I can find in a pathology book.

The DSM IV did not count at the Manitoba Compassion Club.


Can I make it any plainer than that?

My misunderstanding. You are talking 'forms' and the space filled out as a reason to obtain cannabis from you. I thought it inconsistent but I realize that if you do not believe in mental illness then of course, how could you approve the form? My first thought was you believed in it enough as a reason to decline. My error.

Of course I would never think to 'jump thru a hoop' for 'legitimate' access to cannabis as it is a natural right in my opinion. It's a plant, I can legally grow all manner of toxic plants...

Quote:

---

I don't know how I could have made the "medicinal purposes" defense without those applications. How did you do it?

I plead guilty so there was no need for witnesses. The only question was how long was I going away for.

---

I was held, but not charged, for about 90 days, so even if there were enough similaritys between U.S. and Canada jurisprudence I couldn't really help.

But here in the U.S. The vast majority of cases are solved in a plea bargain.
And a significant percentage of cases that do go to trial do not end in conviction with a jury (something you will NEVER see on court shows nor cop shows.). So any one with even a half decent lawyer will know to not even look at any plea bargain except dismissal before they are actually interviewing potential jurors.
And never, ever, tell them ANYTHING that you do not want them know.

Quote:

---

And you are wrong again Wodan. There were HIV cases with the club and I didn't care how they contracted it.

With only 33 members here in Winnipeg there was no Hep-C person. I never turned no one except the mentally ill away.

---

In another thread you stated that you would not accept people who had illnesses like Hep-C because they were transmitted by drug users, which were morally sick.
But I'll chalk that up to heat of the moment.
In truth the fact that you took such risks at all deserves credit, and the legal difference between our nations may give some weight to your reasoning for trying to get others to incriminate themselves in your defense.

Quote:

---

1) Sure addiction exists. It is not a medical malady, it is a spiritual malady. Lust for pleasure and being a glutton about it, which leads to spiritual death.

---

This is where the whole base of your arguments are as twisted as your bigotry and moral degenerations.

Physical addiction and the consequences caused by withdrawal symptoms are NOT a psychatric issue, they are a medical issue. Some of which affect the brain, some which affect specific body functions such as liver and endocrine, some which affect every single cell in the body in a negative impact (such as acute continous alchohol intoxification.).

Stop following Ssazs's sophmoric attempts at manipulating the facts away from the truth and into the realm of fantasy.
Because

Quote:

---

2) Then just like being a glutton with food or any other chemical substance there will be biological consequences where by even death could occur. Try drinking about 40 glassess of water and see what happens. You will die.

---

It leads to ridiculous propositions such as this.

Circular reasoning is one of the easiest rationals to manipulate and can ALWAYS be either disproved or proven to be circumstantial.

I once had a puppy when I was 6.
Ted Bundy had a puppy when he was 6.
Ted Bundy grew up be a serial killer.
I grew up.

Therefore I must be a serial killer.


Stick to facts Chris, and when you find a philosophy that sounds incredibly and simply attractive, just like any con.
Research it. If you had researched Ssasz objectively before you dived in to his preaching you would have seen how much he resembles those late night tv ads pushing Jamaican fortune tellers who will solve your problems for $3.99 a minute.

Quote:

---

Physical addiction and the consequences caused by withdrawal symptoms are NOT a psychatric issue, they are a medical issue. Some of which affect the brain, some which affect specific body functions such as liver and endocrine, some which affect every single cell in the body in a negative impact (such as acute continous alchohol intoxification.).

---

Why wouls any of that be a medical problem?


It's like saying quiting smoking is a medical problem.

It is not. Quiting smoking or doing drugs is a moral problem.

And very few would be so far gone as to need medical attention. Tobacco users and so-called meth users are gathered up everyday and forced to quit when they are put in Headingly jail. They have no choice, there just are no smokes and very little drugs as far as I could tell.

They don't have any doctors or anything else. Just bars and that is that. People quit until they get out and have acess again. People go back to drug use, not because there are still chemical reactions going on but because there is the will to use drugs.

http://www.schaler.net/libertyrobot.html

You, robot

By Jeffrey A. Schaler

Excerpt.

Today, the dominant explanatory paradigm for human behavior is based in mechanistic philosophy. Proponents posit that human beings are ultimately reducible to chemical and electrical interactions—man is considered a machine, an incredibly complex machine, but a machine nevertheless. This view is scientifically valid when it comes to understanding the human body and disease; however, it is unscientific when it comes to understanding mind and behavior. For example, brains become diseased, whereas, minds become diseased in a metaphorical sense only. Some people are invested in obscuring that difference.

Psychiatrists and psychologists are among the worst when it comes to peddling science fiction as fact, despite (or perhaps because of) their interest in “humanizing” people. They frequently argue that behavior is caused (machines don’t choose). This thinking underpins the insanity defense and involuntary commitment to prisons called mental hospitals. It’s an integral part of justifying drug prohibition (illegal drugs turn users into machine-like zombies) specifically, and the therapeutic state (anti-depressant prescription drugs help people to “become themselves”) generally. Clearly, illegal drugs are bad and dangerous. Prescription drugs are good and safe. The distinction is socially constructed, not the result of chemical analysis. Drugs are neither safe nor dangerous, good nor bad—it’s all a matter of how one uses them.

end excertp

Conclusion

Desire, aversion, angst, love, despair, courage, selfishness and altruism—all the things that we consider uniquely human—are now construed by experts as mechanical secretions of the brain. And this dehumanizing view of human nature is heavily influencing clinical, legal, and public policy, as well as the structure of society. The brain “acts.” That represented by the pronoun “I” is simply a ghost in the machine. And who believes in ghosts, anyway?

The revenge of the robot makers is upon us.

end Schaler.


You see to me these guys make more sense than anything you have yet to produce.

Never once have you mention the name of the person who proved the addictions theory holds water.

People are more than just mechanical secretions of the brain.

Maybe it is you who ought to put down the Bible and read what a skeptic might have to say since it is obvious the idea that you may just be wrong never seems to have entered your head.

How do drugs get into a person's system?

1) People choose to use them

2) External forces get a hold of people and force them to use drugs against their will?

I pick answer 1 because it is true.

I would like your explaination as to how drugs get in people's system if not by choice.

Ed Schreyer NDP candidate for the Selkirk-Interlake riding used to be our Premier here in Manitoba and he was the govonor heneral.

Schreyer made statements about homosexuals been "afflicted" back in 1987.

The Wikipedia record on Schreyer made no mention of that.

So included the fact with a link to a recent CKY interview.

I'm willing to bet the Editors at Wikipedia do not stand for that.

In fact it will simply be a matter of hours if not minutes before it is gone.

I'll have more to say once Wikipedia Editors take action to protect their beloved left-wing politicans.

I really wonder why my remarks here at an obsure Forum board were meritorious of a Wikipedia entry, yet Ed Schreyer's public comments from 1987, were not evident.

Wikipedia gets uglier at ever turn. They think nothing of slagging anyone on the right and they defend politicians on the left.

It's all done subliminally. They do not think they are biased, but they are. Here is living proof.

Nature study covered side-by-side comparison of scientific topics

CNN News


Thursday, December 15, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.

Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found -- including misinterpretations of important concepts -- four came from each source, the journal reported.

"We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," said Jimmy Wales, who founded St. Petersburg, Florida-based Wikipedia in 2001.

Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tend to have more collective expertise in such areas, he said.

The site tends to lag when it comes to topics touching on the humanities, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature for a particular year, Wales said.

Next month, Wikipedia plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles. The group also is working on ways to make its review process easier to use by people who have less familiarity with computers and the Internet.

Encyclopedia Britannica officials declined to comment on the findings because they haven't seen the data. But spokesman Tom Panelas said such comparisons, assuming they're conducted correctly, are valuable "because they tell us things you wouldn't know otherwise."

While some Britannica officials have publicly criticized Wikipedia's quality in the past, Panelas praised the free service for having the speed and breadth to keep up on topics such as "extreme ironing." The sport, in which competitors iron clothing in remote locations, is not covered in Britannica.

Britannica researchers plan to review the Nature study and correct any errors discovered, Panelas said.

Unlike Britannica, which charges for its content and pays a staff of experts to research and write its articles, Wikipedia gives away its content for free and allows anyone -- amateur or professional, expert or novice -- to submit and edit entries.

Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the 37th most visited Web site on the Internet, according to the research service Alexa.

The article base on Law, Geography, History, Arts would compare very favorably as well. Even Biography would be good, recent notorious problems notwithstanding.

I note RJ. Currie has taken to putting smart remarks taking a dig at me in the Ed Schreyer history page. Very professional of him to use Wikipedia as his own little "dig" board.

Is that stuff encouraged at Wikipedia? I'll ask the management.


Which simply makes the point that Wikipedia is indeed axestogrind.com. I got a real big axe to grind. And not only do they allow me to grind it, they sharpen up the blade. By the time I'm through, every person page will have their opinions of homosexuals front and center like me and Ed Schreyer.

Unbecoming of an encylopedia of record, in my humble opinion.

I bet the Encyclopedia Brittianica does not stoop to such a base level.

I sent a copy of this post to state my case at info-en@wikimedida.org

Or something similar.

An even better idea just struck me.


I can edit every entry with an end sentence saying, "his/hser opinion of homosexuals is unknown at this time please edit in if you know!"

It could get quite ridiculous.

And where are all the detractors now?

Shouldn't David Malmo-Levine and Chris Bennett et al be sending Jack Layton an e-mail questioning his having a "homophobic" like former Governor General and and former Manitoba Premier Ed Schreyer on the ticket?

Who cares if Ed might be able to surmount the 7000 votes the Conservative candidate won by.

Standards is standards right guys. And if I'm not fit for representing this movemnet as I have heard a number of times, well than is Ed Schreyer any more fit?