gustavs ban is exactly the type of unfair practices i was refering to in another thread. everyone that posted in the following thread should also be banned: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=109288
leopold99: You haven't said what exactly is supposed to be unfair about Gustav's ban, or why you think people should have been banned in the thread you linked to. Please explain. Gustav, by the way, is on 4 infraction points. I banned him for 1 week. Following the ban cycle, he could legitimately have been banned for 1 month. In other words, this is lenient.
I'm still waiting with baited breath to learn where in the recently-revised forum rules we can find the prohibition on "encouraging illegal activities." http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2796647&postcount=109
it isn't i find gustavs ban unfair, but the reasoning behind that ban should be applied equally, to all members. no, i am not defending gustav. i am certain though he is saying something along the lines of "hey, this guy gets by with it why can't i". edit: gustav could very well be able to get under your skin somehow. maybe that in itself explains a few things.
assault and battery is illegal. there is also the legal concept of "force against force". this concept states you cannot shoot a man for threatening you with a knife. you cannot stab an unarmed person. in reference to the above thread "acid in the eyes" is illegal against a threat of a knife, it might not be against a gun.
quadraphonics: I have responded to this query in the thread on the revised forum rules. Hope it unbaits your breath. leopold99: This kind of thing is always a judgment call. You can't really write a one-size-fits-all rule, which is one reason why we don't have one. We need to look at these things on a case-by-case basis. Maybe he'll explain what he was saying when he gets back. The fact that gustav got banned rather than warned here has a lot to do with his history of previous bans and warnings. He ought to have a fairly good idea by now of what is and isn't acceptable. If not, then he now has one more piece of information that will help him avoid making the same mistake again.
i understand that. to be honest i haven't been following his posts so i wouldn't know what he did. i know he likes to stick his thumb in your eye though.
encouraging illegal activities / advising criminals how to avoid prosecution how is helping others getting out of trouble a bannable offence? wow after reading waht that thread was over thats a crock of shit what i saw was use x spray but check to see if it is illegal in yo ur state or not.. so aparently this forum doesnt allow a woman to defend herself agianst a man, effective saying just get your ass beat sooo many things wrong wtih that
That is funny . Prohibition on helping to commit a crime . Aiding and a bedding comes to mind . Well We all do it to a degree . All part of living . All depends on the crime . If it is a legal crime ? then know worries ? Not necessarily. The public scrutiny has there own justice system
As I recall, you were the one advocating murder as an option, and you complained bitterly when I questioned the legality of such. Are you volunteering for a holiday?
No my point is Attorneys advise people on how to get off from there crimes . So how is advising someone on protecting them selves any different than legal sanctioned council. Should Gustav have posted " I am not an Attorney and this is not to be construed as legal advise . The point is that the gap stops in legal definition are ridiculous. To the point it inhibits direct communication of free speech. It makes freedom of though a sort of Taboo. It makes it so we as people can't come to the table with out fear of retribution . It closes off silo's of information that move at a trickle to start with and that my friend is what keeps people from knowing. I am on your side . I support Griz Stopper for ever Man woman and child . It works . After all it stops a Griz Note: This is not Legal advises . Check with legal counsel in your locality before proceeding. Griz stopper may not be legal in your state.
Moderator note: 28 off-topic posts on the subject of the legalities of self defence have been moved to a separate thread, here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=109385
There was another thread not too long ago ridiculing "Americans and their silly 2nd Amendment" and a certain mod/admin asked why people needed guns, didn't they trust their police officers to protect them? Of course, the problem is that police are most often reactive, that is, they respond after the crime is done, and someone is beaten, or there's a lifeless body. But then someone suggested why do you need guns, you can just spray some irritant in their eyes to incapacitate them. Now, apparently, even that's a dicey proposition. So what is it? Guns are stupid and unwarranted, and chemical sprays are illegal? So we just endure a crime and hope that cops come to the rescue before we die? Hope the justice system actually doles out justice? Hope the violence isn't being perpetrated by cops to begin with? Or some other government entity?
Heh... http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicago-Brothers-Allege-Police-Beating-128016038.html?dr Instructing someone on how to defend himself/herself is not illegal. Martial arts/self defense classes teach you how to beat the living crap out of someone, and gun ranges teach you to hit a target with a firearm. They are not illegal.
Sciforums is NOT the real world. It's the Real World[sup]TM[/sup] Don't fuck around.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Also talking about something isn't a crime (unless there is an action to indicate carrying out whatever was talked about, which frames under conspiracy to commit crime, which is bullshit imo, no such thing as thought crime). What is this, Canada? Wait...