Statement from Totally Wicked
- Thread starter lordbarby
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- provari totally wicked
- Status
Don't go there. You fail to understand what freedom of speech is, and it actually does not apply on internet forums. Much like it would not apply in my house or your house. The first amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT.
Did you honestly expect anything else?
You, sir, are a sequential living in a hive!
No, Sir off course not, if it was not so serious it would be funny. TW dont like to listen do they? Their forum, their prerogative I suppose, it a shame that it works one way.
The testing is an ongoing process of examination of members e-liquid products for things that shouldn't be there (diactyl and DEG to name but two) as well as checking that nicotine levels are correct. It's also worth pointing out that non members have also put samples into our testing process, as they share our belief that it is important to know what is in there. The testing is a requirement for members, and the results are supplied to them, but they are under no obligation to make them public - it is entirely up to them (arguably, testing is a legal requirement for all EU vendors, to demonstrate GPSR compliance). The testing is carried out by blinding the samples (they are assigned a date, sample number and transferred into sample vials so the lab has no preconceived idea of the contents) before sending them to a UK public analyst for testing (Testing is qualitative for contaminants and uses isotope dilution analysis for nicotine quantification).
Some members samples are submitted by them, others are randomly selected during the auditing process.
Fees have very recently gone up, and one of the reasons is to try and fund some actual research, to run alongside the testing program. There's a lot I (and the community, I'm sure) would like to know more about. There has already been some interesting research done, but most of it would bear repeating - a classic case is the very intriguing clearstream study recently published (beginning of this month, as I recall). There is also more that needs doing (and probably always will be
)There is no such thing as too much knowledge.
Last edited:
Did you honestly expect anything else?
You, sir, are a sequential living in a hive!
It's enough to bring this sequential out in hives. But yeah, it's their house so you play by their rules. I soon realised that not only did I not want to, I just couldn't. So I found another house, and it was more like Cheers.
I really should post a sticky in the new members forum on "How to get banned on ECF". It is pretty easy if you really want to be banned. But for the most part people, way underestimate what it takes for a reasonable person to get banned here
I can guarantee you, in my house, freedom of speech is alive and well!
Agreed, they govern their own forum however they seem fit, as it should be.
I would like to take this opportunity to shamelessly reiterate my previous statement in the hopes that rolygate or another admin reads this:
Please consider putting into place the exact same measures they are legally requesting from UKV here on ECF as well.
Thank you. But I'm completely fazed as to why you would think it a bit snarky. I think I'm being civil, inquisitive but civil.
I think all of this is relevant and many of my questions remain unanswered. I have a few more.
I do politely suggest you take down the lawyers letter though. Clearly states on TW's website about copyright and ownership of all materials published. Just saying you don't want to go there
Oldsoldier - I know you are a forum manager. But you sure jumped on me pretty quick. I've checked all my posts and I don't see any that are disruptive. Chill Fella
I loved your entire post. I gave it a like. I'd have given it 10 likes if I could.
But the comment about Coca Cola I cannot agree with. It is the nectar that sustains the life of the man known as WCSR.
I agree with this. Remove anything containing TW or JC. Also remove their subforum, mod abilities, and status as a forum supplier.
This, of course, would just merely be preemptive strike against any possible litigation.
Correct. All of our U.S. constitutional rights were originally designed to protect the people from the government...not from each other. Freedom of speech doesn't mean one can say what they want without penalty of civil litigation.
So you would allow someone to walk in and call you wife unmentionable names and insult you? My guess is you would ask them to leave.
Just saying...
My point is freedom off speech is guaranteed by the US Constitution to allow dissent in public. The intent is to allow criticism of the government, not incite riots, insult people, or commit fraud, etc. (I'd love to see the first amendment used as a defense in a fraud trial.)
It does not guarantee your right to say anything you want any place you want.
Anyhow back to the subject at hand
As it is in mine.
However, so is my right to hand someone their hat should they abuse their freedom of speech, and if their head should happen to be in that hat, so be it.
So you would allow someone to walk in and call you wife unmentionable names and insult you? My guess is you would ask them to leave.
Just saying...
My point is freedom off speech is guaranteed by the US Constitution to allow dissent in public. The intent is to allow criticism of the government, not incite riots, insult people, or commit fraud, etc. (I'd love to see the first amendment used as a defense in a fraud trial.)
It does not guarantee your right to say anything you want any place you want.
Anyhow back to the subject at hand
Gotcha. And agree with you 100%.
Love this comment. In my house, freedom of speech only applies to the people paying the bills in said house. All others are subject to penalty should they say the wrong thing.
So you would allow someone to walk in and call you wife unmentionable names and insult you? My guess is you would ask them to leave.
Just saying...
My point is freedom off speech is guaranteed by the US Constitution to allow dissent in public. The intent is to allow criticism of the government, not incite riots, insult people, or commit fraud, etc. (I'd love to see the first amendment used as a defense in a fraud trial.)
It does not guarantee your right to say anything you want any place you want.
Anyhow back to the subject at hand
It's contingent upon if whether or not what the person says holds truth. Blanket statements do not hold weight in any argument. If we had access to both sides, then a better decision could be made. However, the way that TW is acting does not line up with human decency.
Thank you. But I'm completely fazed as to why you would think it a bit snarky. I think I'm being civil, inquisitive but civil.
I think all of this is relevant and many of my questions remain unanswered. I have a few more.
I do politely suggest you take down the lawyers letter though. Clearly states on TW's website about copyright and ownership of all materials published. Just saying you don't want to go there
Oldsoldier - I know you are a forum manager. But you sure jumped on me pretty quick. I've checked all my posts and I don't see any that are disruptive. Chill Fella
The letter itself contains an explicit condition it be published as a true copy on a public website (UKV's). How can copyright or ownership rights possibly be asserted over it, under the circumstances, by simply posting a copy of it here as well?
- Status
Similar threads
