Please encourage the use of child safety bottles only
- Thread starter Rhamzha
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
kristin says:
I argued with people about the article? (I'm guessing you mean the first one.) I asked for feedback, discussed and debated and ultimately took a lot of the advice, but 99% of the article was my own.
Well I suppose if you don't count the errors that were left out but even at that 99% is an exaggeration.
Just because I had some of my own opinions and convictions, that is a bad thing?
Well I could asked the same question and your answer has been loud and clear - Yes! But no, opinions and convictions aren't a bad thing intrinsically - it's what those opinions and convictions are. And in your case your 'arguments' for imposing regulations on vendors and appeasing the FDA (almost a verbatim quote) are 'bad things'.
And I'm not sure what you mean that it "made no sense" or that it was filled with misinformation and fabrications?
Your insistence that there was an actual ban for one thing. There were others. Anyone interested can look it up if the original thread exists. I point out a few and others point out others. It's really all there for people to see. And you didn't take the criticism well at all. There have been other times when jokes were taken seriously even when they had smileys attached.
I could have just published the article without any feedback or input from the vaping community, but I wanted to make sure people had input first.
And you would have made a fool of yourself - much like you're doing now. But go right ahead.
Anything that was pointed out that I had wrong, I changed. And I acknowledged many times thanks for all of the help I got - but I think people knew I was doing FOR them, as well.
It was mainly for you and it paid off. Now with your appeasements it isn't helping anyone and the end effect vendors and customers will pay more. Who do you think is paying for the child proof caps that some vendors have now starting to carry? Won't you please in your position on whatever BS board you now sit on make a case for us who don't want or need them to not have us pay for those who either can't take responsibility themselves or simply want everyone else to pay for their own irresponsibility? Can you, would you do that? FOR US, as you say?
I collected the FAQs because people were complaining that new members had no way to get them and kept asking the same questions over and over. You make it sound like I was trying to to take credit for other people's ideas and I don't think most people took it that way.
Right. Most people thought you come up with it. Just what can get someone elected.
It's not like I copied and pasted everything as my own ideas - I linked to the original posts.
Hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
Exactly - someone who claims they are 'for the community' in order to enhance their personal position, while in fact reducing the choice for the individuals in the community and making people who don't want something pay for those who do. That is the height of hypocrisy.
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Again, saying that you 'care for the community' while imposing regulations on the vendors and expenses on the community. To socialize what you think is 'right' instead of paying for it yourself.
It is not an insult, it's what I believe you are being in this instance.
Yeah... your first '.... in' post we were rude.... to a poster who wanted all of us to follow their advice on child proofing. I'll say what I said to him:
If YOU want child proof caps, YOU buy them and YOU retrofit them on your bottles and leave us the f alone.
So first it's "rude", then when someone doesn't agree with you they're a "hypocrite" and horrible and only cares about themselves (while you're 'looking out for the community' - yeah right) what next? Racist, bigot, homophobe? Murderer of children?
My own opinion and it doesn't really affect you anyhow. I don't believe you would stand by your statements if you were on the other end of things. You don't care what iIbelieve, so what does it matter.
It matters when it ends up with how much something costs either a vendor or the customer. I'll stand by any of my statements. including that one.
The irony of all of this, is that I agree with you to a certain extent.
I know there is that side of you. I've seen it, but not lately. And I've acknowledge it when I've seen it on other threads.
I don;t assume I'm right, but I have the right to argue my point until I feel I'm proven wrong. If I am, I will admit it. I just don't believe I am in this case.
This isn't about any 'right to argue your point'. If you didn't think I'd agree with that you simply haven't been listening. And by 'proclaiming it' you insinuate that I am trying to hinder that, which I'm not. And of course you believe you're right or you wouldn't still be here. Nor would I if it weren't the case with me.
You're right, it absolutely is a slippery slope. I just don't believe it's as slippery as you are making it out.
A compromise between poison and food and poison wins every time. A compromise with evil (in the sense that the FDA wants to stop an action that it by all evidence 'life saving' rather than 'life endangering' is evil)... a compromise with evil and good begets evil. And I don't care how little evil it is. In the beginning it never looks as bad as 'some people say it is' and in the end, those people were right. Nazi Germany is a fine example and I don't mean to compare you to them, only that the slippery slope didn't look too slippery to many people in the early to mid 30's and it looked like a cliff shortly after.
or it is at least more controllable. I don't believe the founding fathers never meant that everyone should do as they wish.
They didn't and to even suggest that is such a diversion to what they did mean - that people could do as they wish - only if by doing so didn't violate the rights of others. (specific rights - not some made up united nations BS rights which are in fact merely 'wishes'). And that meant an actual violation or the 'clear and present danger' of a violation where it was eminent - not what some worrywart could 'imagine' might happen or even what was 'likely' to happen. The responsibility was left to the individual and caveat emptor ruled. That in itself makes individuals smarter in the market place by necessity and learning by the mistakes they make instead of being subsidized for being stupid!
And they weren't exactly perfect in their creation - they forgot to include a large segment of the population in those "freedoms" they wrote about.
They didn't 'forget about' anything with regards to slavery for example. They made compromises like you suggest actually - in order to form the United States. Were it not for those compromises there would likely be a North US and a South US and frankly I could live with that. But don't think each and everyone of them 'forgot anything'. Read some history and you would know that. If you just take the indoctrination and propaganda (and you seem to be susceptible to that) then you're going to think they 'forgot'.
All I've ever done here is try to help.
Not really, you've called people rude for responding to a poster (obvious to me now - a troll as well - hmmm where'd they go? - I know, you'll say we 'scared them away' - so be it! ) who was asking for community help among a bunch of individuals. You've argued with people that tried to help you that really should have just let you be, imho now.
If I was misguided or wrong in some of those attempts, I apologize to everyone who feels that way. I have no alterior motives. I guess I'm wrong to want to try to protect people from others who wish them harm.
This is so typical - NOW you're a victim! You bad mouth everyone who didn't agree with you and once you're intentions and actions and reasoning and appeasements are pointed out, rather than simply admit it, you play the victim card and of course now I'm the aggressor. You first come on call us rude, me a hypocrite and say that I don't care for anyone in the community but only myself - despite ample evidence otherwise I might point out - and now I'm the bad guy and you're the innocent victim.
You're right - it's not my job. But I can;t help but believe that the world would be much worse off if everyone took that attitude.
Actually the world was much better off when people had that attitude to take responsibility for themselves and their own. It was only when people who either didn't have anything better to do or wanted to gain some power came along a said 'save the children' - you should do this and you should do that and when people said get out of my face they found a way they could impose their wishes on everyone else and gain a position of 'status' and perhaps even make some money in the process. No people were MUCH better off with being responsible for themselves that having some know it all think they are responsible for them as a collective. The dustbins of history are strewn with examples that make my case and make yours look laughable it weren't for all the misery that your attitude can eventually cause IF given the power to do so.
My only goal is what I stated earlier, to make sure PVs continue to be available. I didn't ask to serve on the CASAA board. As a matter of fact, I was hoping I didn't get voted in.
At least we agree on something.
There are a lot more qualified people than I to be there.
Again agreement!
If people think I should step down, I'll be happy to do so.
Ah, the sympathy ploy. Hold me back before I do something stupid.... hold me back dammit!
And I'm not being dramatic or manipulative - I mean it.
You know what the biggest red flag for a troll is? It's when they state what they're not doing. "I don't want to open a can of worms, but....blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah!" "I hope you don't take this the wrong way but ....etc." "I don't mean to offend anyone but..." Same here.
This is getting old but if you insist, I'll reply... surprised it wasn't moved to 'issues' from the very first post.
I argued with people about the article? (I'm guessing you mean the first one.) I asked for feedback, discussed and debated and ultimately took a lot of the advice, but 99% of the article was my own.
Well I suppose if you don't count the errors that were left out but even at that 99% is an exaggeration.
Just because I had some of my own opinions and convictions, that is a bad thing?
Well I could asked the same question and your answer has been loud and clear - Yes! But no, opinions and convictions aren't a bad thing intrinsically - it's what those opinions and convictions are. And in your case your 'arguments' for imposing regulations on vendors and appeasing the FDA (almost a verbatim quote) are 'bad things'.
And I'm not sure what you mean that it "made no sense" or that it was filled with misinformation and fabrications?
Your insistence that there was an actual ban for one thing. There were others. Anyone interested can look it up if the original thread exists. I point out a few and others point out others. It's really all there for people to see. And you didn't take the criticism well at all. There have been other times when jokes were taken seriously even when they had smileys attached.
I could have just published the article without any feedback or input from the vaping community, but I wanted to make sure people had input first.
And you would have made a fool of yourself - much like you're doing now. But go right ahead.
Anything that was pointed out that I had wrong, I changed. And I acknowledged many times thanks for all of the help I got - but I think people knew I was doing FOR them, as well.
It was mainly for you and it paid off. Now with your appeasements it isn't helping anyone and the end effect vendors and customers will pay more. Who do you think is paying for the child proof caps that some vendors have now starting to carry? Won't you please in your position on whatever BS board you now sit on make a case for us who don't want or need them to not have us pay for those who either can't take responsibility themselves or simply want everyone else to pay for their own irresponsibility? Can you, would you do that? FOR US, as you say?
I collected the FAQs because people were complaining that new members had no way to get them and kept asking the same questions over and over. You make it sound like I was trying to to take credit for other people's ideas and I don't think most people took it that way.
Right. Most people thought you come up with it. Just what can get someone elected.
It's not like I copied and pasted everything as my own ideas - I linked to the original posts.
Hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
Exactly - someone who claims they are 'for the community' in order to enhance their personal position, while in fact reducing the choice for the individuals in the community and making people who don't want something pay for those who do. That is the height of hypocrisy.
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Again, saying that you 'care for the community' while imposing regulations on the vendors and expenses on the community. To socialize what you think is 'right' instead of paying for it yourself.
It is not an insult, it's what I believe you are being in this instance.
Yeah... your first '.... in' post we were rude.... to a poster who wanted all of us to follow their advice on child proofing. I'll say what I said to him:
If YOU want child proof caps, YOU buy them and YOU retrofit them on your bottles and leave us the f alone.
So first it's "rude", then when someone doesn't agree with you they're a "hypocrite" and horrible and only cares about themselves (while you're 'looking out for the community' - yeah right) what next? Racist, bigot, homophobe? Murderer of children?
My own opinion and it doesn't really affect you anyhow. I don't believe you would stand by your statements if you were on the other end of things. You don't care what iIbelieve, so what does it matter.
It matters when it ends up with how much something costs either a vendor or the customer. I'll stand by any of my statements. including that one.
The irony of all of this, is that I agree with you to a certain extent.
I know there is that side of you. I've seen it, but not lately. And I've acknowledge it when I've seen it on other threads.
I don;t assume I'm right, but I have the right to argue my point until I feel I'm proven wrong. If I am, I will admit it. I just don't believe I am in this case.
This isn't about any 'right to argue your point'. If you didn't think I'd agree with that you simply haven't been listening. And by 'proclaiming it' you insinuate that I am trying to hinder that, which I'm not. And of course you believe you're right or you wouldn't still be here. Nor would I if it weren't the case with me.
You're right, it absolutely is a slippery slope. I just don't believe it's as slippery as you are making it out.
A compromise between poison and food and poison wins every time. A compromise with evil (in the sense that the FDA wants to stop an action that it by all evidence 'life saving' rather than 'life endangering' is evil)... a compromise with evil and good begets evil. And I don't care how little evil it is. In the beginning it never looks as bad as 'some people say it is' and in the end, those people were right. Nazi Germany is a fine example and I don't mean to compare you to them, only that the slippery slope didn't look too slippery to many people in the early to mid 30's and it looked like a cliff shortly after.
or it is at least more controllable. I don't believe the founding fathers never meant that everyone should do as they wish.
They didn't and to even suggest that is such a diversion to what they did mean - that people could do as they wish - only if by doing so didn't violate the rights of others. (specific rights - not some made up united nations BS rights which are in fact merely 'wishes'). And that meant an actual violation or the 'clear and present danger' of a violation where it was eminent - not what some worrywart could 'imagine' might happen or even what was 'likely' to happen. The responsibility was left to the individual and caveat emptor ruled. That in itself makes individuals smarter in the market place by necessity and learning by the mistakes they make instead of being subsidized for being stupid!
And they weren't exactly perfect in their creation - they forgot to include a large segment of the population in those "freedoms" they wrote about.
They didn't 'forget about' anything with regards to slavery for example. They made compromises like you suggest actually - in order to form the United States. Were it not for those compromises there would likely be a North US and a South US and frankly I could live with that. But don't think each and everyone of them 'forgot anything'. Read some history and you would know that. If you just take the indoctrination and propaganda (and you seem to be susceptible to that) then you're going to think they 'forgot'.
All I've ever done here is try to help.
Not really, you've called people rude for responding to a poster (obvious to me now - a troll as well - hmmm where'd they go? - I know, you'll say we 'scared them away' - so be it! ) who was asking for community help among a bunch of individuals. You've argued with people that tried to help you that really should have just let you be, imho now.
If I was misguided or wrong in some of those attempts, I apologize to everyone who feels that way. I have no alterior motives. I guess I'm wrong to want to try to protect people from others who wish them harm.
This is so typical - NOW you're a victim! You bad mouth everyone who didn't agree with you and once you're intentions and actions and reasoning and appeasements are pointed out, rather than simply admit it, you play the victim card and of course now I'm the aggressor. You first come on call us rude, me a hypocrite and say that I don't care for anyone in the community but only myself - despite ample evidence otherwise I might point out - and now I'm the bad guy and you're the innocent victim.
You're right - it's not my job. But I can;t help but believe that the world would be much worse off if everyone took that attitude.
Actually the world was much better off when people had that attitude to take responsibility for themselves and their own. It was only when people who either didn't have anything better to do or wanted to gain some power came along a said 'save the children' - you should do this and you should do that and when people said get out of my face they found a way they could impose their wishes on everyone else and gain a position of 'status' and perhaps even make some money in the process. No people were MUCH better off with being responsible for themselves that having some know it all think they are responsible for them as a collective. The dustbins of history are strewn with examples that make my case and make yours look laughable it weren't for all the misery that your attitude can eventually cause IF given the power to do so.
My only goal is what I stated earlier, to make sure PVs continue to be available. I didn't ask to serve on the CASAA board. As a matter of fact, I was hoping I didn't get voted in.
At least we agree on something.
There are a lot more qualified people than I to be there.
Again agreement!
If people think I should step down, I'll be happy to do so.
Ah, the sympathy ploy. Hold me back before I do something stupid.... hold me back dammit!
And I'm not being dramatic or manipulative - I mean it.
You know what the biggest red flag for a troll is? It's when they state what they're not doing. "I don't want to open a can of worms, but....blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah!" "I hope you don't take this the wrong way but ....etc." "I don't mean to offend anyone but..." Same here.
This is getting old but if you insist, I'll reply... surprised it wasn't moved to 'issues' from the very first post.
Sun arrives and things change. Talk is cheap Sun. So is writing an article - or putting one together. And I'm not asking her to 'justify her actions' - She's doing that all by herself. I have not once asked her 'why she does such and such'. Just pointing out the effects of what using the same arguments as the FDA and then on top of that wanting to appease the FDA will have.
Looks like a lot of the earlier posters agreed on my point and little on hers - even you at one point! - you must have fell for the sympathy card - it's a strong one. Looks like it got Sun as well. Oh well. I'm probably toast here now, and that isn't 'playing the sympathy card' - just stating a reality - I've seen where this goes once a moderator gets involved. Just didn't think it would be Sun.
You are very mistaken. I can disagree with someone without attacking them personally. I can even like someone I have different views than. Heck, I can even respect someone I disagree with.
I've never said anything derogatory toward Kristin. I respect the things she's done. I just disagree with her on one issue. What's the big deal?
I wasn't playing the sympathy card. I was being genuine. But you won't believe that, because you claim I'm a self-serving troll. How can a troll be honest?
You know, I guess this is as good a time as any.
You're right. I'm not what I seem. I'm an undercover agent for the FDA and ASH, sent here to undermine the PV movement and remove all of your freedoms. I'm sitting in a concrete bunker, 2 miles underground, planning our next move to ban fruit flavored soda. I'm not even a woman - I'm an alien. Muuuwwwaahhhhhaaaa!!
I'm done. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
You know, I guess this is as good a time as any.
You're right. I'm not what I seem. I'm an undercover agent for the FDA and ASH, sent here to undermine the PV movement and remove all of your freedoms. I'm sitting in a concrete bunker, 2 miles underground, planning our next move to ban fruit flavored soda. I'm not even a woman - I'm an alien. Muuuwwwaahhhhhaaaa!!
I'm done. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Webby,
My main point is this. Earlier there was talk of 'rights to have a safe bottle' as if not having one is an impostion on them. You say 'the option should be yours' but if the industry standard is to offer the child proofing, then the costs of imposing and implementing that goes on the cost of the product even for those that don't want that option. So while one may still have the option of a non-proofed cap, one is made to pay for those that take the other option. Why should that be?
All I was saying was if you want that type of cap if you have children, the You should bear the cost of it, not me. Because I suggested that, then I'm painted as some selfish idiot that 'doesn't care about the community and wants children to die.' I happen to think that less children die when parents are falsely assured that things are safe when they really aren't and that many of the attempt at safety 'for the good of the community' - harm individuals and individual businesses.
You know what Ang, it was not a big deal until she called a bunch of people rude who disagreed with the OP and then said they only cared about themselves and no one else. Now, let me ask you, we've been on many threads together - similiar interests - would you think that describes me in any way? And this charge and some of the same comments were stated in her response that I was one of the one's (and I didn't think the only one) that she attacked.
I don't know about you but I do know this about kristin - is that when someone accuses me of something like that I respond as does she and in fact, she was the first to label rudeness and came into the thread leveling that charge.
Angus is right on point as usual. Kent, you attacked Kristin, rather then debating her--big difference. Kristin has stepped up to the plate many times around here and I see this frontal assult against her uncalled for. This thread is closed as the original intent of it has long been lost.
Thank You
Sun
- Status
Similar threads
