R
Rachel
Student
- Aug 30, 2018
- 106
Apparently there have been former members who have made comments along that line.Has this place ever been described as "pro-suicide" by any member? That seems kinda fishy, though it's probably this site nonetheless.
How interesting...
Hm. Good point. If they used publicly accessible details though, they don't really need the site's permission.is it ethical to conduct studies w/o first asking for permission from at least the site?
Gotta spend that govt money somehowWas this made by Captain Obvious or something? How was this needed in any way?
This is why you shouldn't name sources... Always remember this is a public forum than can and will be accessed by anyone for any purpose.
I agree with this. This is exactly why sources shouldn't be mentioned here.This is why you shouldn't name sources... Always remember this is a public forum than can and will be accessed by anyone for any purpose.
This is why you shouldn't name sources... Always remember this is a public forum than can and will be accessed by anyone for any purpose.
Is this lil guy working out or just fighting his SI while trying to ctb by mousetrap?
SN* ... identified as sodium nitrate. Interesting.
Energy waster trying to reason with outsiders' preconceived ideas about this forum.If they studied this forum i really dislike they call it a pro-suicide forum. This is a pro-choice forum. There is a big difference.
I've suggested many times to add a signature to messages that can be used by people that are trying to bring SS down, but no one thought that it's worth doing it. The signature should write that partial or complete reproduction of the message is forbidden and it can be pursued by law.is it ethical to conduct studies w/o first asking for permission from at least the site?