[robertpaulsen]

"What qualifies you to speak on this topic?"

To speak? I'm probably as qualified to speak on the subject as anyone else on this forum.

As far as what qualifies me to be taken seriously -- I post the facts. I can back up those facts with links to sources which can then be examined and debated. If my source is biased or wrong, I welcome a correction.

I came to this thread invited. Other times I just show up. I don't bother posting unless I see something that's misleading, dishonst, or an out-and-out lie. For example, the article mentions that this amendment failed last year. True, but not the whole truth. It also failed in 2004 and in 2003. I think that's relevant. I mentioned it.

[Beckwith]

"What qualifies you to speak on this topic?" To speak? I'm probably as qualified to speak on the subject as anyone else on this forum.

As far as what qualifies me to be taken seriously -- I post the facts.

OK, what are those qualifications of which you speak?

Otherwise, just say it's none of my business and I'll write you off as an overly-impassioned crusader.

I posted a response to you that contained my bona fides, where's yours.

By the way, one of the facts you posted was that the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 made Marijuana illegal. It didn't.

Saying something is a fact and linking to some like-minded hysteric doesn't make it a fact and the impression that I get from your posts is someone in a dark cellar surfing the net on a Cannabis Jihad.

[Beckwith]

And about your "About Page?"

I wish I had taken more psych courses.

[tpaine]

As far as what qualifies me to be taken seriously -- I post the facts. I can back up those facts with links to sources which can then be examined and debated.

Here's a 'bold' fact you can't back up.

Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen