I find it curious that someone thought he needed to reveal a member's alleged MJ use.

Objectively, was there really a "need" to reveal this,  to supposedly "warn" others?

It's part of being on a forum to figure out if posts are correct or incorrect. And we can probably also determine if the poster was baked or plastered at the time he wrote the post. And if not, then it's just another post, no?

Sick cartoons bro.

Your wording makes me wonder if I've been talking to you in some of the flat Earther live debates

Lunar Module is a Meth Heads Tree Fort

 LOL 

2min 15sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QQgIoNtjQzSH/

I have to say, and this is not to brag because I am a clueless numbscull in so many ways, but I was young enough to not be afraid to ask questions during the 70's about this.

When watching the footage on tv I kept asking my Dad, "Who is filming them while they are landing on the moon?"

and

"How do they get enough power to get back to earth when they needed a huge blast to get to the moon?"

and

"Why is the rocket taking off from earth curving?  How will that get them to the moon.  Shouldn't they be going straight up?"

and on and on...

My Dad was suspicious and said that I'm asking all the right questions...

but there was no internet then to do any research into this and meet like minded people who were asking the same questions.

From what I hear, kids these days aren't buying it.

Millennials have grown up with far better CGI!

Motivation is an incredibly important thing we need to think about before we speak. 

No need to argue about whether a certain previously mentioned fault was hidden or not. 

Detraction is defined as the sin of making known the hidden faults of another without a good reason.
 
If your motivation for revealing a fault is to put someone down because you don't like them or disagree with an unrelated thing they are saying, you might want to... not do that... lol.

However, if you legitimately believe that you are helping others by warning them, and your warning is truthful to the very best of your understanding (as well as topical) then you are acting out of charity. 

Not knowing any of you personally, it is impossible to accurately judge which of these categories you fall into when you post. That being said, it is in your best interests to judge your own character, and to do so honestly. We will all be judged for our actions in the end. 

That is not to say that anyone here has committed detraction. Again, I cannot judge intentions of people I do not intimately know. However, it did come up, so this seemed relevant. 

Stanley has been banned for his disrespectful outburst against the moderator of the forum. Even his "fellow teammates" on Team Globe Earth haven't had a problem keeping a modicuм of respect for the Moderator, even as the content of their posts contradicts him pretty much 100% of the time. No matter. They manage to control their emotions.

He is so wrapped up in proving the mainstream globe earth "outer space" paradigm, that he lowered himself to the tactic of the Liberals "I'm offended by that -- on behalf of those people" when it doesn't affect you at all.

A comedian was joking about prosthetic legs, and a lady came up to him after the show saying she was offended by that "bit" in his act. He asked if she had a family member with a prosthetic leg. No. He asked a few more questions -- no, she had no reason to be offended. She was just offended FOR them. Then an English guy came up to the comedian, pulled up his pantleg showing his prosthetic leg, and said "That bit about the prosthetics? Bloody brilliant!"

Why would Stanley fall for this obvious error? This behavior that every CathInfo member hates, and we criticize all the time when liberals do it? Because "roscoe" seemed to be coming into the debate on his side. It's a team sport for him. I guess it's not about getting to the truth, having an open mind? It's all "Rah Rah My Team".

Plenty of people on this forum have had issues keeping a "modicuм of respect" for the other posters on this forum, including you, the moderator.

Stanley went off in response to your post to him, which insulted his Catholic faith. I cannot blame him for that at all, considering that many people go off because you won't believe their opinions on a YouTube video where some rando is claiming he's done the math to prove the shape of the earth.

He could have been a lot more charitable, which is part of why I posted above, but the thing is what he was saying was right and it was in direct response to an insult that you had sent his way first.

As far as him defending roscoe on not having his smoking being aired on the forum... That's not a bad thing for him to want to be careful about. Detraction is a sin that is very hard to make amends for. How do you restore someone's good name? Even if he was wrong on this point (and I am not totally convinced he was) it seemed that he had reasonably good intentions and was asking a good question. Most people won't question you simply because you are the mod. I know someone who was afraid to reply to you or downvote you because you could just chose to ban them. Pathetic! People on this forum insult each other all the time. You do as well. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. That position would be far more defensible.

He insulted you in defense of his own character, and he spoke the truth. It was rough, but he was truthful.

If you notice his more recent posts, he seems to have been trying to be a lot more civil to people. I believe you are the only recent person to have set him off. Perhaps he has been working on charity and that's why he was concerned about the issue of detraction.

Stanley was a good poster, and very smart. He was one of the more interesting people on the GE side of things, and has contributed some very interesting things to the discussion recently. His banning is a total disappointment in this regard as well. I hope that the FE/GE equation didn't seriously factor into this decision. Somehow I feel that it is part of what caused you to dislike him in the first place.

If I get banned for this, whatever. People can see that I have always tried to be charitable to others. I may not have many posts yet, but that's because I always try to have something quality to contribute. If you chose this as a reason to ban me (she was new and confused) I think people will see the truth. In this case, the truth is what matters. This was a decision motivated by pride, and if it wasn't, then there are several other members who have been equally uncharitable to each other and this sets the goalpost for taking them offline as well. I'm not asking for that mind you. But it is definitely convenient that the only person being banned today is being banned for a tiff with the mod.

Matthew, PLEASE think on this. I am actually praying for you.

Marion, Dankward, roscoe, Quo Vadis Domine, etc. are still here. Your argument is invalid.

Actually that plays directly into my argument. Again, you are only banning people for going off on you, not each other. But again, you have no issues throwing insults to people. Clearly it is not an issue that Stanley was being mean, just that he was mean to you. Why is that? Again, you insulted him first. He responded. Before that, the discussion was entirely on the subject matter and not personal. 

By the way, Stanley questioning the morality of my "bringing to CathInfo's attention roscoe's long history of posts about Marijuana" is NOT exactly Flat Earth subject matter. He wasn't sticking to the subject at all. He steered the conversation -- off the rails, if you ask me -- to "questioning Matthew's personal morality".

Anyhow, Dingbat, you're just going to have to come to accept Stanley's banning, because I'm not going to argue with you about it. It's my forum and I set the rules.

At the risk of walking into the “beaten zone”*** of someone else's firefight, I'll point out that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the medical benefits of marijuana.

Risk? As it has been increasingly legalized, it is no longer a "gateway [to the criminal world] drug." There are some reports that some heart attacks occur within an hour of ingestion, but so far I have seen no confirmation of causality. While enemies of MJ correctly note the presence of carcinogens in MJ smoke (but not vapor), they are confounded because MJ smokers have lower rates of cancer than non-smokers. With "vaping" and "edibles" there is no smoke involved.

Benefits are legion: pain, nausea,  seizures, cancer, spasticity, bone density, inflammatory bowel disease, auto-immune disorders… etc.

Our inherent endocannabinoid system is quite interesting and helps explain the pharmacologic effects of phytocannabinoids.

Yes, the loss of inhibition is a potential [dose-related] and serious problem. Risk and benefit must be carefully weighed as Catholics have done for two millennia in the case of alcohol.

Lest anyone get suspicious or cast accusations—I am NOT an MMJ patient or recreational user, but I do advocate its appropriate use.


***Machine gunners here know that the "beaten zone" is the impact area of the machine gun’s cone of fire.

Although this is off topic, it seems there are contradictory views for many reasons:

Recreational use of Marijuana