Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Stifle eCig Marketing
- Thread starter ctkid57
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Durbin said, “E-cigarette makers are adopting the deplorable marketing tactics once used by tobacco companies to entice children and teenagers into using their addictive product. With fruit and candy flavors and glossy celebrity ads, e-cigarettes makers are undeniably targeting young people. Unfortunately, it’s working. We must take action now to prevent a new generation from walking down the dangerous path towards nicotine addiction.”
Yes indeed. The 'celebrity ads' are working! Causing politicians who cannot accomplish ANY "good" to waste taxpayer time by scribbling-out idiotic legislation on a daily basis. Definitely 'working'.
"“tobacco companies advertising e-cigarettes – with flavors like bubblegum and strawberry – are clearly targeting young people with the intent of creating a new generation of smokers, and those that argue otherwise are being callously disingenuous,” Blumenthal said. “This legislation would prevent tobacco companies from advertising to young people, helping to ensure they are not lured down a path of nicotine addiction and premature death. I’m proud to join Senator Boxer in this effort to keep young people tobacco free.”
I like STRAWBERRY .......so am I an "almost 50" and a kid again? Oh Ms. Boxer you CAN work miracles! I want to be "lured", but she sure does not do the job.
"Electronic cigarettes, also called e-cigarettes and e-cigs, are battery-operated products that simulate traditional cigarettes by converting cartridges of liquid typically filled with addictive nicotine, other additives, and flavorings into vapor inhaled by the user."
"...addictive nicotine and the men with big muscles force me to add various amounts to EVERY jug-o-juice' I order? Bullies!
"The Protecting Children from Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act would permit the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to determine what constitutes marketing e-cigarettes to children, and would allow the FTC to work with states attorneys general to enforce the ban."
Yea right. "What constitutes marketing..."........ sure. Start with bans on "words"...... then "lifestyles"? I'll watch out for MY grandkids so they never learn to believe politicians have their best interest at heart!
"Of the people, by the People and for the People".......... shall surely pass from this earth if these 'leaders' have anything to say!
Government ........... such a farce in 2014.
Tom
Yes indeed. The 'celebrity ads' are working! Causing politicians who cannot accomplish ANY "good" to waste taxpayer time by scribbling-out idiotic legislation on a daily basis. Definitely 'working'.
"“tobacco companies advertising e-cigarettes – with flavors like bubblegum and strawberry – are clearly targeting young people with the intent of creating a new generation of smokers, and those that argue otherwise are being callously disingenuous,” Blumenthal said. “This legislation would prevent tobacco companies from advertising to young people, helping to ensure they are not lured down a path of nicotine addiction and premature death. I’m proud to join Senator Boxer in this effort to keep young people tobacco free.”
I like STRAWBERRY .......so am I an "almost 50" and a kid again? Oh Ms. Boxer you CAN work miracles! I want to be "lured", but she sure does not do the job.
"Electronic cigarettes, also called e-cigarettes and e-cigs, are battery-operated products that simulate traditional cigarettes by converting cartridges of liquid typically filled with addictive nicotine, other additives, and flavorings into vapor inhaled by the user."
"...addictive nicotine and the men with big muscles force me to add various amounts to EVERY jug-o-juice' I order? Bullies!
"The Protecting Children from Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act would permit the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to determine what constitutes marketing e-cigarettes to children, and would allow the FTC to work with states attorneys general to enforce the ban."
Yea right. "What constitutes marketing..."........ sure. Start with bans on "words"...... then "lifestyles"? I'll watch out for MY grandkids so they never learn to believe politicians have their best interest at heart!
"Of the people, by the People and for the People".......... shall surely pass from this earth if these 'leaders' have anything to say!
Government ........... such a farce in 2014.
Tom
Well why not? It's "coated" for "bold flavor" you know!!!My neighbor kid Loves it!(jk)
I've been thinking about how to use 'their' own words... 'they' being every advocate of social nannyism and bit of coercive legislation that is promoted by the anything that includes the word children.
With that in mind, I am revising an earlier offering (headline / bumper sticker / press release / etc):
"Democrats actions killing Children's parents - causing Children to become homeless, and Children to live in poverty and hunger"
"Local City Council enacts ban on e-cigs - children homelessness, poverty & hunger to increase to worst levels since the Great Depression"
Possibilities are endless...
I can't see inside the Dems' brains, but I can read pieces in the media.
The mainstream media has transitioned from expressing/reporting "fears" that PVs may be being marketed to minors to ... self-righteous moral outrage at the (alleged) fact that PVs are being marketed to minors.
(Does it matter when I "stopped beating my spouse?")
Whatever their purpose in filing this bill may have been ... at least this one effect is a done deal for the time being.
Perhaps some member of congress should submit a bill that requires federally-funded Tobacco Control organizations to stop all activities intended to discourage smokers from using vaping as a cessation or THR tool. That would include media contacts, lobbying state and local jurisdictions, and attempting to otherwise influence the public. (And no: I don't think they have a First Ammendment "right" to do that, unless they act as private citizens. After all, they're using the government's money to speak on behalf of the government.)
Not that I'm holding my breath. But it might be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot.
Last edited:
Frankly I don't care who says something positive about vaping. If we had to choose between Fox and MSNBC, I'd take Fox any day because of its larger audience. (Granted I don't like Fox. But I'm pragmatic
That said, do you genuinely believe that Fox would be in favor of vaping if the liberal Dems were? (You know who owns Fox, and you know who runs it.) Ditto Limbaugh.
What about all those Repubs who voted against the harsher anti-vaping laws proposed in OH, OR, and OK (just to name a few states that begin with "O" ... there are others of course
At least half of them if not more automatically voted against what the Dems proposed because they wanted to oppose what they construed as the Dem party position. If the shoe were on the other foot, most those pols on both sides would have voted the opposite way. Both MSNBC and Fox would trade places as well. Do you think Roger Ailes (or Murdoch for that matter) gives a hoot about vaping and vapers? I don't. Steve Forbes goes in that pile, too.
Ask the folks in some of these small towns that are falling all over themselves to pass anti-vaping laws whether they even know any Democrats. I bet they don't. Certainly not on their city or county councils. Sure, NYC and Chicago are dominated by Democrats. What about Frisco, TX? Manketo or Sleepy Eye ND? We hear about the big cities because they're big.
Few of these folks give a lick about the science, or about public health. They're just doing what they think they oughta do. And that includes the Dems who have somehow convinced themselves that this is a war on BT. BTW why aren't there any national GOP politicians standing up for vapers (even Ron and Rand Paul - am I missing something?). Hmm, maybe a whole lot of them on both sides of the line take plenty of BP dough.
Please look closely at the evidence. And then tell me if this is just about those terrible liberals. Like the ones in ND or UT. Or AR for that matter - not exactly a friendly place for Dems of late, but another "early adopter" state for anti-vaping laws.
It's a matter of tribalism, of knee-jerk reactions to issues, based on preconceived biases. Even the Libertarians are mostly pro-vaping because they don't like government regulation, period. (Which is least a perfectly consistent position, as far as it goes. But it isn't motivated principally by a concern for public health or the integrity of the science.)
If every vaper was magially cured of diabetes, high blood pressure, and every other chronic condition imagineable after two puffs, these Dems would still be against it. And if every vaper dropped dead after two puffs, most of the pols who vote in favor of vaping (or the media outlets or the think tanks) wouldn't change their position, either.
It's got nothing to do with vaping as such, nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with public health.
I'm all for bashing stupidity. But I'm also all for basing my conclusions on the evidence.
I just clicked your link and signed up for CASAA. I'm also going to be sure to vote this year in NC and try to get Kay Hagan out. I'm am so sick of government trying to regulate my life and sticking it's hands in my pockets to do so!!!!
I'm beginning to truly believe that the Libertarians have had it right all this time!!!
Frankly I don't care who says something positive about vaping. If we had to choose between Fox and MSNBC, I'd take Fox any day because of its larger audience. (Granted I don't like Fox. But I'm pragmatic
That said, do you genuinely believe that Fox would be in favor of vaping if the liberal Dems were? (You know who owns Fox, and you know who runs it.) Ditto Limbaugh.
What about all those Repubs who voted against the harsher anti-vaping laws proposed in OH, OR, and OK (just to name a few states that begin with "O" ... there are others of course
At least half of them if not more automatically voted against what the Dems proposed because they wanted to oppose what they construed as the Dem party position. If the shoe were on the other foot, most those pols on both sides would have voted the opposite way. Both MSNBC and Fox would trade places as well. Do you think Roger Ailes (or Murdoch for that matter) gives a hoot about vaping and vapers? I don't. Steve Forbes goes in that pile, too.
Ask the folks in some of these small towns that are falling all over themselves to pass anti-vaping laws whether they even know any Democrats. I bet they don't. Certainly not on their city or county councils. Sure, NYC and Chicago are dominated by Democrats. What about Frisco, TX? Manketo or Sleepy Eye ND? We hear about the big cities because they're big.
Few of these folks give a lick about the science, or about public health. They're just doing what they think they oughta do. And that includes the Dems who have somehow convinced themselves that this is a war on BT. BTW why aren't there any national GOP politicians standing up for vapers (even Ron and Rand Paul - am I missing something?). Hmm, maybe a whole lot of them on both sides of the line take plenty of BP dough.
Please look closely at the evidence. And then tell me if this is just about those terrible liberals. Like the ones in ND or UT. Or AR for that matter - not exactly a friendly place for Dems of late, but another "early adopter" state for anti-vaping laws.
It's a matter of tribalism, of knee-jerk reactions to issues, based on preconceived biases. Even the Libertarians are mostly pro-vaping because they don't like government regulation, period. (Which is least a perfectly consistent position, as far as it goes. But it isn't motivated principally by a concern for public health or the integrity of the science.)
If every vaper was magially cured of diabetes, high blood pressure, and every other chronic condition imagineable after two puffs, these Dems would still be against it. And if every vaper dropped dead after two puffs, most of the pols who vote in favor of vaping (or the media outlets or the think tanks) wouldn't change their position, either.
It's got nothing to do with vaping as such, nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with public health.
I'm all for bashing stupidity. But I'm also all for basing my conclusions on the evidence.
Roger, your comments are starting to sound like something out of Cass Sunstein's cognitive infiltration. They're all 'pragmatists' too
You don't have any evidence on Ailes, Murdock or Forbes. The few states that passed laws only on minor sales don't really count. most here have no objection to that (me excluded). In Ohio, the Dems voted against it because it didn't go far enough. That doesn't really stack up as 'evidence' to be a negative on the Republicans involved. And there are 'Republicans' and Rinos at all levels of gov't. But there doesn't seem to be many DINO's - they're all in lockstep when it come to more regulations for ecigs to big Gulps, trans fats, and much more.
And the whole 'save the kids' thing comes out of your camp - although it is effective on the not-quite-bright council members and State legislators who should be used to the 'your killing the kids, poor and elderly' lines by now - but that's effective on some. You should be proud of that! rather than proud of being a pragmatist. Those who know, know the origins and history of pragmatism in gov't. It's not pretty.
For those who don't know, read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg (not invoking Nazis here - just fascism as a governmental system that started way before that). You'll understand how we went from a principled government to the 'pragmatic' one we have now, where 'rights' are no longer natural rights, but only something that is granted by government - a government that was created to uphold rights held by all, before any gov't was established.
Yes, I do believe they would remain positive about vaping. Especially John Stossel and Gutfeld. Both of these commentators (as well as Bill O'Reilly) have agreed with Democrats on some issues. But in the case of vaping, they simply see the logic and common sense about it and strongly support it. If national Republicans were against vaping, they would be just as scathing against them.
Let's call it as it is and don't make up {MODERATED} that isn't real on this issue. The FACT of the matter is, national liberals want vaping killed. Everyone else just leaves it alone, which is what we want. There is a "sickness" in that side of the political spectrum infecting this country and trying to kill vaping is one more example of that sickness.
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger, your comments are starting to sound like something out of Cass Sunstein's “cognitive infiltration”. They're all 'pragmatists' too
You don't have any evidence on Ailes, Murdock or Forbes. The few states that passed laws only on minor sales don't really count. most here have no objection to that (me excluded). In Ohio, the Dems voted against it because it didn't go far enough. That doesn't really stack up as 'evidence' to be a negative on the Republicans involved. And there are 'Republicans' and Rinos at all levels of gov't. But there doesn't seem to be many DINO's - they're all in lockstep when it come to more regulations for ecigs to big Gulps, trans fats, and much more.
And the whole 'save the kids' thing comes out of your camp - although it is effective on the not-quite-bright council members and State legislators who should be used to the 'your killing the kids, poor and elderly' lines by now - but that's effective on some. You should be proud of that! rather than proud of being a pragmatist. Those who know, know the origins and history of pragmatism in gov't. It's not pretty.
For those who don't know, read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg (not invoking Nazis here - just fascism as a governmental system that started way before that). You'll understand how we went from a principled government to the 'pragmatic' one we have now, where 'rights' are no longer natural rights, but only something that is granted by government - a government that was created to uphold rights held by all, before any gov't was established.
Libertarians are at least consistent ... I have no argument with that level of consistency. I do have an argument with people who want to ban the morning after pill, or let the teacher lead prayers in a primary school for the "students who want to pray." Again, Libertarianss don't believe in public schools, so I can't accuse you of inconsistency. But the statist repubs are not that way.
My mention of ND, UT, and AR was not in ref. to minor sales bans - it was to clean air act extensions that prohibit even oudoor vaping. They passed those things years ago, before there was any kind of national cleavage on the issue. Probably because the statist Repubs didn't like smoking or anything that looked like smoking. We are also talking at cross purposes on the other states-in-Q: Dems were for extensions to the clean air act. They voted against minor sales bans because they didn't think those went far enough. At least some Statist Repubs voted against the clean air act extensions because they thought Dems were for them. Put those people in UT or ND two or three years ago, and they would've been on the other side (because there were no democrats to speak of in those states' legislatures).
Oh let's see, go back a decade or so ... remember that flap about internet porn? Wasn't Dems who were leading the charge there. And who was it who came up w/ that kooky idea about a flag-burning ammendment to the constitution? Not us. For that matter, what about all that crap we were hearing about gay schoolteachers back in the 80s? That was also about "protecting the children" if I recall correctly.
For yet another switch, try the laws on you-know-what. (That green, herbal substance.) At least I admit there's hipocrasy.
Roger Ailes is a GOP party operative, who puts out MoTD ("message of the day" missives) for Fox. That's just a fact. Why did he write a memo for Bush after he was elected to his second term (or whenever, I forget the date). Where did the "War on Christmas" come from? Or the allegation that Obama was a Muslim? That stuff was beyond ridiculous
But it did serve a very focused and entirely partisan objective.Murdoch has principlles? Oh, please. He's lucky Rebecca what's-her-name didn't turn state's evidence on him for the phone hacking thing. The man obviously has no morals at all. He practically bought several governments in a row over in the UK (both major parties).
As far as Forbes goes, you're right - I can't think of anything off the top of my head although I suspect that he was probably a good little statist Repub who stood up and cheered for G.W. Bush when he brought up the flag-burning ammendment. I don't know what Forbes' position was on gay schoolteachers back in the 80s. Or school prayer. Do you really want me to look? C'mon
I don't doubt for a minute that they do similar things at MSNBC, BTW - at least as far as messaging goes (This is rather like the rest of our discussion. I don't see the world as a conflict between the Shining Saints of Absolute Good versus The Demonic Forces of Pure Evill and Facism.)
We can have a larger discussion about libertarianism in wsome other context. But anti-vaping ordinances and legislation are and have been driven just as much by statist Repubs in red states and red jurisdictions where there are essentially no democrats (along with all the other "hot-button" social issues that they pushed over the years.)
And BTW I think this whole "principled gov't" stuff about the Halcyon Days of Yore is a myth - no more plausible in my eyes than Mary Poppins. Wealthy farmers, industrialists, financiers and the like have always run this country for their own selfish interests. They were quite capable of hiring thugs to deal with the "little people" who got in their way, and then paying off all the politicians and judges that they needed to, whenever it served their purposes ... and they often did. Except that the people who have run communist, monarchist, and feudal societies are even worse.
Which is rather like what I was saying before about good vs. evil. For me, hipocrasy is everywhere, and so are dreadful motives. The only question is where the evils are less. That's why I prefer quasi-robber-baron capitalism in a nominal democracy to monarchism, or feudalism, or communism or (real) facism
.
Last edited:
Roger,
I'm not going to argue with someone that takes distortions from Media Matters about Ailes and Murdock, and parrots them online. And I don't find it odd that you don't think much of principled philosophy or the gov't that follows them. Your liberal professors have been preaching socialism for decades and have done everything possible to put the Founders of this country in the worst light as possible. No one is perfect but for the first time in the history of this planet our founders put into place a gov't that upheld the sovereignty of the individual over the sovereignty of the State or Church or the most deadly combination - both of them together.
And by allowing the free exchange of ideas and a free market, we made more progress than any other country in history. For all the conveniences that we have now is a direct result of what you call 'robber baron capitalism' - talk about biting the hand that feeds you - and what was in fact merely the free market at work. It took people who in any other country would have been destined to be peasants for the rest of their lives and lifted them into the middle class - something that didn't exist in other countries - and beyond. It was the politics of envy that attempted to degrade the titans of industry who are responsible for almost everything you use in daily life. And the propaganda regarding them that allows the regulations that the Dems have created for 50 years of control of both Houses until 1994, and the attack on the rich, has been very effective to the point that many have 'gone Galt' and we are seeing the effects of that now. We are now in the later chapters of Atlas Shrugged. The only thing is that there is no Galt's Gulch, although there may be 'retraining camps'. And it is this elitist 'we know what's best for you', that is driving it and something not seen in most Republicans and in no libertarians.
That's another thing, like many liberals, you don't know the difference between Republicans and libertarians - it's easier to lump them together. And when you don't know the difference, then you can't see what is consistent and what isn't. Those on this side don't have that problem for reasons I stated - you all think alike. Now at least. There used to be a civil libertarian strain with the Left (many of whom I admired) but political correctness and the global warming myth and false 'diversity' (for votes) have you all thinking together now.
We agree only that vaping should continue. How it continues may be a problem since I know you support some regulations, but for now, we'll have to go with what we have. If it changes dramatically, your side would have won. Since for a long time, I've thought this ballgame is over, I actually expect that outcome. And have prepared for it....
I'm not going to argue with someone that takes distortions from Media Matters about Ailes and Murdock, and parrots them online. And I don't find it odd that you don't think much of principled philosophy or the gov't that follows them. Your liberal professors have been preaching socialism for decades and have done everything possible to put the Founders of this country in the worst light as possible. No one is perfect but for the first time in the history of this planet our founders put into place a gov't that upheld the sovereignty of the individual over the sovereignty of the State or Church or the most deadly combination - both of them together.
And by allowing the free exchange of ideas and a free market, we made more progress than any other country in history. For all the conveniences that we have now is a direct result of what you call 'robber baron capitalism' - talk about biting the hand that feeds you - and what was in fact merely the free market at work. It took people who in any other country would have been destined to be peasants for the rest of their lives and lifted them into the middle class - something that didn't exist in other countries - and beyond. It was the politics of envy that attempted to degrade the titans of industry who are responsible for almost everything you use in daily life. And the propaganda regarding them that allows the regulations that the Dems have created for 50 years of control of both Houses until 1994, and the attack on the rich, has been very effective to the point that many have 'gone Galt' and we are seeing the effects of that now. We are now in the later chapters of Atlas Shrugged. The only thing is that there is no Galt's Gulch, although there may be 'retraining camps'. And it is this elitist 'we know what's best for you', that is driving it and something not seen in most Republicans and in no libertarians.
That's another thing, like many liberals, you don't know the difference between Republicans and libertarians - it's easier to lump them together. And when you don't know the difference, then you can't see what is consistent and what isn't. Those on this side don't have that problem for reasons I stated - you all think alike. Now at least. There used to be a civil libertarian strain with the Left (many of whom I admired) but political correctness and the global warming myth and false 'diversity' (for votes) have you all thinking together now.
We agree only that vaping should continue. How it continues may be a problem since I know you support some regulations, but for now, we'll have to go with what we have. If it changes dramatically, your side would have won. Since for a long time, I've thought this ballgame is over, I actually expect that outcome. And have prepared for it....
More good stuff from Greg Gutfeld tonight on Fox News "Red Eye". A guest Joanne? wasn't as enamored - 'looks silly' (not an exact quote) ... Greg defended that it has helped him quit. His 'co-host'? Andy Levy, also pro-vaping, came down on the anti's with stuff we have here - not a gateway, not for kids, etc. Greg mentioned he's been using ecigs for three months - pretty sure he said 'no cigs' during that time.... haven't seen a video yet.
Great show! I love it!
"She claims that there is no way of knowing whether e-cigs are harmful. - There IS, it's called science, you bozo!"
- they stand in the way of the first real progress in ending smoking for good
- it is like banning alcohol-free beer
- why don't you put a patch across their (those Democrats') mouth saying "second hand stupidity kills"
- it is supposed to be about public health, but they are actually enabling the death of people
I agree this has been one of the most civil political exchanges I have seen in a long time.
I even, very slowly and with much hesitation hit the like button on a couple of Roger's
And Kent, I put an order in for Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
Should fit nicely next to one of my all-time favorite authors, Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy
Query: is there an ECF sub where these topics are kicked around with the same degree of civility?
But in the meantime... we should wander back towards topic...
Last edited:
Great show! I love it!
"She claims that there is no way of knowing whether e-cigs are harmful. - There IS, it's called science, you bozo!"
- they stand in the way of the first real progress in ending smoking for good
- it is like banning alcohol-free beer
- why don't you put a patch across their (those Democrats') mouth saying "second hand stupidity kills"
- it is supposed to be about public health, but they are actually enabling the death of people
Who would have ever thought that, in our lifetimes, the entire cigarette smoking industry could possibly be decimated?
I really like this one... just need a graphics-type to work some creative magic:
... why don't you put a patch across their (those Democrats') mouth saying "second hand stupidity kills"
I could see that photo of the perpetrators Gutfeld uses on the screen, with the big red circle and captioned with Anjaffm's quote!
Thanks for the video link... gotta refill the coffee cup before hitting the play button...
The collective wondering about the motivations and the money was 'sad'... and it wasn't until the 6:20 time-mark that GQ guy finally hit it: the drug companies!!
What if Stossel got together with Gutfeld - Stossel for the investigative side, and Gutfeld for his totally no-holds-barred approach?
I love Stossel, but Gutfeld attacks it with total abandon... and armed with a complete set of facts (BP, BCrC (Big Corrupt Charities), BT, liberalism, etc) they could blow the lid off, and become modern day Woodward & Bernstein...
Sidebar: isn't the a possibility that this entire thing could evolve into the same situation as when the tobacco industry was found out to be doing what they did? This time though take down BP, BCrC, and lots and lots of politicians?
Vapegate, vaporgate, ... need a soundbite catchy term here...
As to the "vision of the anointed" - here is a good article on the subject:
Standing up to the new paternalists | Books & Essays | spiked
That is a must-read for anybody who naively believes that those in government have the best interest of the governed at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read for yourselves.
To any nanny-state attempts to protect the rabble "for their own good", I can only say:
Not as much as I know.
There is the sub-forum "OUTSIDE" - but if you are looking for any "degree of civility", then please do not go there.
(kind of OT: I was thrown into there once when - as a vaper new to ECF though not to vaping, and as a person from Europe - I opened a thread asking a question about civil rights in the US. Asking for information. Because I did not have that information, due to the fact that I live in Europe. - Well, the thread was moved to the "outside". Which may be forum policy. I do not question forum policy.
Be that as it may, with my asking-a-question-thread now being in the "outside", I was horrified at the people then coming into the thread and I was horrified at their open attacks on this new ECF member who had dared to ask a question. - It is a good idea not to go there. /end kind of OT)
yup
Standing up to the new paternalists | Books & Essays | spiked
That is a must-read for anybody who naively believes that those in government have the best interest of the governed at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read for yourselves.
To any nanny-state attempts to protect the rabble "for their own good", I can only say:
source (also a good read)
Not as much as I know.
There is the sub-forum "OUTSIDE" - but if you are looking for any "degree of civility", then please do not go there.
(kind of OT: I was thrown into there once when - as a vaper new to ECF though not to vaping, and as a person from Europe - I opened a thread asking a question about civil rights in the US. Asking for information. Because I did not have that information, due to the fact that I live in Europe. - Well, the thread was moved to the "outside". Which may be forum policy. I do not question forum policy.
Be that as it may, with my asking-a-question-thread now being in the "outside", I was horrified at the people then coming into the thread and I was horrified at their open attacks on this new ECF member who had dared to ask a question. - It is a good idea not to go there. /end kind of OT)
yup
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
