Still can't believe what happened to marquis

[Insomniac]

suicidal people toxic trait: being stuck in denial and never admitting that something bad happened. Inability to move on.

I still can't believe that pro lifers blackmailed the co creator of this website and he had to leave in order to protect his personal identity.

I still can't believe this shit happened. I'm forever suspended in disbelief.

And that's the issue it me is that I just can't let go.

I also can't let go of the fact that we can't talk freely about method sources anymore.

Once upon a time on this website, we used to be free.

 

[FuneralCry]

We should be able to talk freely about suicide on here, to me it is wrong to not let people talk about sources. Stopping people doing that is just making the website more confusing with all the acronyms and it is making it harder for people to find ways to die. Suicidal people are already suffering enough and many are very desperate to leave. I cannot stand pro lifers, sometimes I even see pro lifers post on this website. There is no escape from them. I just hate how we live in a world where it is so difficult to die, there is nothing wrong with suicide and it should be easier. Forcing people to live is cruel.

 

[rationaltake]

We should be able to talk freely about suicide on here, to me it is wrong to not let people talk about sources. Stopping people doing that is just making the website more confusing with all the acronyms and it is making it harder for people to find ways to die. Suicidal people are already suffering enough and many are very desperate to leave.

Mentioning sources results in them being shut down. Which means people have even fewer options.

 

[Julgran]

Mentioning sources results in them being shut down. Which means people have even fewer options.

This stance doe make sense, but I see members sending PMs to new members with sources. Any one of those new members could be a law enforcement officer who could try to shut down those sources. The conclusion is that we can't trust anyone, so how would we share any sources then..?

 

[rationaltake]

This stance doe make sense, but I see members sending PMs to new members with sources. Any one of those new members could be a law enforcement officer who could try to shut down those sources. The conclusion is that we can't trust anyone, so how would we share any sources then..?

True. None of us can ever be sure about anyone. That's why some people on here are wary of new members who immediately ask for sources.

 

[HoneyandGlass]

True. None of us can ever be sure about anyone. That's why some people on here are wary of new members who immediately ask for sources.

How long would someone need to be on here to get sources?

 

[locked*n*loaded]

This stance doe make sense, but I see members sending PMs to new members with sources. Any one of those new members could be a law enforcement officer who could try to shut down those sources. The conclusion is that we can't trust anyone, so how would we share any sources then..?

YES! THIS! I HOPE EVERYONE READING THIS UNDERSTANDS THIS! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOU ARE TALKING TO! LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS!

sorry for the yelling, but i think it's important for people to start realizing this.

Everything someone needs to know about methods has already been covered on this site. If you search you can find what you need and NOT need to REPOST things that have already been discussed about sources and things like that.

 

[theboy]

What happened?

 

[Julgran]

YES! THIS! I HOPE EVERYONE READING THIS UNDERSTANDS THIS! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOU ARE TALKING TO! LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS!

sorry for the yelling, but i think it's important for people to start realizing this.

Everything someone needs to know about methods has already been covered on this site. If you search you can find what you need and NOT need to REPOST things that have already been discussed about sources and things like that.

I do agree, but what's the purpose of the sources, then, if no one will be able to find out what they are..? Searching for the full name of SN using a search engine doesn't necessarily provide you with any good results, since the concentrated version seems to be blacklisted, so you only find very mild versions, in certain countries.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Searching for the full name of SN using a search engine doesn't necessarily provide you with any good results

That's how I found it. You can use the chemical name, too. Sources were many pages into the results. I can't speak to what you may be finding in your country, if it's different than the US.

I don't have a good answer about the posting of sources in threads or even PMing newbie users with the info. We all know LE is on this site. For all anyone knows, you may be talking to LE in a PM. It might not make any difference. I'm sure they know the sources. At least one would think so. It's difficult to shut down a website that is doing nothing wrong by selling a legal product. Still, need to be careful what you say on here, and how you say it. LE could be trying to make cases for aiding suicides.

 

[Julgran]

That's how I found it. You can use the chemical name, too. Sources were many pages into the results. I can't speak to what you may be finding in your country, if it's different than the US.

So far, I have only been able to find a mild version containing a small percentage of the actual substance, using a search engine.

I don't have a good answer about the posting of sources in threads or even PMing newbie users with the info. We all know LE is on this site. For all anyone knows, you may be talking to LE in a PM. It might not make any difference. I's sure they know the sources. At least one would think so. It's difficult to shot down a website that is doing nothing wrong by selling a legal product. Still, need to be careful what you say on here, and how you say it.

Sure, it might not be illegal to sell SN, but they will probably find some way of closing down sources if they try hard enough. It's enough to see how anti-choice the general public is when it comes to people ending their lives.

LE could be trying to make cases for aiding suicides.

I wonder what could be their argument. I mean, if they only see the sharing of sources as aiding suicides, or if they also see supporting conversations here as aiding it as well.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

So far, I have only been able to find a mild version containing a small percentage of the actual substance, using a search engine.

It took me some time to find them, too.

I wonder what could be their argument. I mean, if they only see the sharing of sources as aiding suicides, or if they also see supporting conversations here as aiding it as well.

Well, I don't see it being too much of a leap considering that at least a couple people have been prosecuted simply for texting perceived "words of encouragement" to someone threatening suicide, found guilty, and have received prison sentences.

 

[Julgran]

It took me some time to find them, too.

That's interesting. I thought that they had gotten the search engine to hide certain search results.

Well, I don't see it being too much of a leap considering that at least a couple people have been prosecuted simply for texting perceived "words of encouragement" to someone threatening suicide, found guilty, and have received prison sentences.

I see. Are there any sources for this? I do believe you, but I would like to see what those people said. For example, there are many replies that say "I support whatever you decide to do", meaning that the person supports the person in either recovering or going through with their plan. Could that also be seen as that type of encouragement?

I can imagine that being prosecuted for such a reply will make people more suicidal...

 

[locked*n*loaded]

That's interesting. I thought that they had gotten the search engine to hide certain search results.

Try one that doesn't censor results.

I see. Are there any sources for this?

They made a movie out of one of them called "Conrad And Michelle"

Here's another:

Go kill yourself

Here's an article about Conrad & Michelle:

Conrad & Michelle

Connecticut Encouraging Suicide Law:

Connecticut Encouraging Suicide Law

 

[waitingforrest]

YES! THIS! I HOPE EVERYONE READING THIS UNDERSTANDS THIS! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOU ARE TALKING TO! LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS!

sorry for the yelling, but i think it's important for people to start realizing this.

Everything someone needs to know about methods has already been covered on this site. If you search you can find what you need and NOT need to REPOST things that have already been discussed about sources and things like that.

Agreed.
With enough effort you can find whatever information you could ever want. It just takes the right search terms and time to dig through. Search engines do censor seach results (Such as sites about ctb) but you can eventually gather enough info.

---

*time for some fun unsolicited search engine tips with gramatical errors* search without qoutations except for using tip number 1.

1.Use qoutation marks for key phrases for results that have so include said phrase. Ex: "Tallest free standing building"

2.Order of key search terms matters. Try to put the most important terms first when being specific.

3.Try using - and + to filter results. Ex: "Trees +oak" "Trees -pine"
Or go crazy specific: "trees -branches -pine -green + bird + fish"

3.5 Use ~instead for words of same meaning. Ex: "books ~antique" will get results for old, vintage, used, preowned books. Or * for fill in the blank mad lib style.

4.Wayback Machine. A site that lets you find archived internet sites that may be gone.

5.Use advanced search/Reverse image search

6.Google can search results for a specific site using "site:"
Ex: "Cute dogs wearing hats site:youtube.com"

6.5 Or try using "related:" for sites of simliar type. Ex: "related:ebay.com. gives results from other online auction sites. (You can also use "link:" for links.) Or use "AROUND(#)" to look for terms nearby. Ex: "Fish AROUND(19) ice in sodas" for results within 19 words.

7.Search social media by @(social media site). Ex: "Rainbow trout@twitter"

8.Google scholar/Semantic scholar for educational/research/law articles. Medical studies/cases can be found this way.

9.Set number ranges by ... Ex: "tacos $100...€300" "Fishes in pond 1000...2000"

10.Try using "OR" for split results. "Apple pie recipes OR Domestic cats"

11.For file types use "filetype:pdf" "filetype:jpg" "filetype:(insert type here)"

12.Use wiki/article/online encyclopedia citations to find more info

---

As sad as it is, there are eyes on this website that do not have suicidal people's best interests at heart. They aren't here for genuine reasons, just here to to gather 'evidence' to use as ammo to shoot the site down, people that are obssessed with playing hero.

Posting sources is giving those people more ammo.

 

[Julgran]

Try one that doesn't censor results.


They made a movie out of one of them called "Conrad And Michelle"

Here's another:

Go kill yourself

Here's an article about Conrad & Michelle:

Conrad & Michelle

Connecticut Encouraging Suicide Law:

Connecticut Encouraging Suicide Law

Well, having read about that case now, I would say that it contained a lot of abuse and is far from the quite innocent comments that usually show up here.

 

[rationaltake]

Well, having read about that case now, I would say that it contained a lot of abuse and is far from the quite innocent comments that usually show up here.

I completely understand your point and most comments are innocent.

But yesterday I was reading a thread where some new members were discussing suicide which went something like:

1st person: I want to try x method.

2nd person: Try y method OP. It's better.

3rd person: No go for x method because of ABC.

Suggesting someone tries a particular method seems like a grey area to me.

To be fair I think the new members weren't aware of the rules and the reasons behind them. They were obviously happy to have found the site and to be able to talk freely at last. They weren't aware that's it's not a private space and that we have to be careful.

 

[Julgran]

I completely understand your point and most comments are innocent.

But yesterday I was reading a thread where some new members were discussing suicide which went something like:

1st person: I want to try x method.

2nd person: Try y method OP. It's better.

3rd person: No go for x method because of ABC.

Suggesting someone tries a particular method seems like a grey area to me.

To be fair I think the new members weren't aware of the rules and the reasons behind them. They were obviously happy to have found the site and to be able to talk freely at last. They weren't aware that's it's not a private space and that we have to be careful.

You are completely right! One must be careful, because anything that one says can be used against any person or this community as a whole.

 

[rationaltake]

One must be careful, because anything that one says can be used against any person or this community as a whole.

I totally agree. We know comments from here have been reposted on twitter by ft26.

 

[Insomniac]

Suggesting someone tries a particular method seems like a grey area to me.

and why? why suggesting methods that we think are safer would be in the grey are? Isn't it the whole point of this website? Not ending up a vegetable?

If it's a grey area to you that people don't want to end up paralyzed, if it's your opinion, then this is absolutely fair.

what's not fair is that you're still here.

 

[Ash’Girl]

I totally agree. We know comments from here have been reposted by ft26 on twitter.

Now that is just a shitty thing to do.

Then again on tinterwebs nothing really surprises me anymore.

 

[Julgran]

and why? why suggesting methods that we think are safer would be in the grey are? Isn't it the whole point of this website? Not ending up a vegetable?

If it's a grey area to you that people don't want to end up paralyzed, if it's your opinion, then this is absolutely fair.

what's not fair is that you're still here.

The problem is that outsiders may want to interpret our posts in ways that were not intended, in order to get this community into trouble.

 

[Insomniac]

The problem is that outsiders may want to interpret our posts in ways that were not intended, in order to get this community into trouble.

I'm really tired with justifying everything by "outsiders will think".

we have lost so much of our liberties using this argument. I'm genuinely sick to my stomach with the argument.

 

[rationaltake]

and why? why suggesting methods that we think are safer would be in the grey are? Isn't it the whole point of this website? Not ending up a vegetable?

If it's a grey area to you that people don't want to end up paralyzed, if it's your opinion, then this is absolutely fair.

what's not fair is that you're still here.

Here are the rules of this site:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/rules-and-faq.4/

It's nothing to do with my opinion. The rules clearly state:

"Do not encourage acts, ask for encouragement, or help anyone commit any acts.

Do not encourage, suggest, manipulate, coerce, or help users carry out acts of any nature whatsoever, including suicide; only provide factual information and emotional support to those who ask for it. Do not try to get the community to tell you what to do, only you can choose your path and actions."

We have these rules for good reason. We know law enforcement is on this site and so is the ft26 group who want to shut us down.

We have to operate within the law. It's not going to help any of us if the site gets shut down and members get prosecuted for encouraging people to commit suicide. Then nobody will have access to anything.

But don't despair! There are ways round it.

This is the conversation I quoted above:

1st person: I want to try x method.
2nd person: Try y method OP. It's better.
3rd person: No go for x method because of ABC.

I think this conversation is in the grey area when it comes to encouraging suicide. To stay within the rules I would suggest it could go:

1st person: I want to try x method.

2nd person: Here's a link to the suicide resources on this site so you can research other methods if you want to.

3rd person: Method x involves ABC.

It's because I don't want people to end up paralyzed that I'm careful not to get this site closed down.

what's not fair is that you're still here.

What does this mean? I don't understand it.

 

[Insomniac]

What does this mean? I don't understand it.

it's not fair because litteraly everywhere else, your opinion will be supported. and you still want to win in the only arena left.

you can't understand me because I've been on this website since Jan 2019. On and off. I know how it used to be. and comparing it to how it is now it's truly depressing.

I guess it's just following the rhythm of society. everything eventually gets stripped of the right to free speech.

now the worst is when people like you, who supposedly are pro choice, start to strip a pro choice forum in the name of "trying to protect it". You're litteraly doing their job for them. they should pay you and everyone else who reason like you on here.

 

[Julgran]

I'm really tired with justifying everything by "outsiders will think".

we have lost so much of our liberties using this argument. I'm genuinely sick to my stomach with the argument.

I agree with you, but I'm describing reality how it is, and not how I want it to be.

I do welcome other opinions, though.

 

[Lily (Osako)]

Agreed.
With enough effort you can find whatever information you could ever want. It just takes the right search terms and time to dig through. Search engines do censor seach results (Such as sites about ctb) but you can eventually gather enough info.

---

*time for some fun unsolicited search engine tips with gramatical errors* search without qoutations except for using tip number 1.

1.Use qoutation marks for key phrases for results that have so include said phrase. Ex: "Tallest free standing building"

2.Order of key search terms matters. Try to put the most important terms first when being specific.

3.Try using - and + to filter results. Ex: "Trees +oak" "Trees -pine"
Or go crazy specific: "trees -branches -pine -green + bird + fish"

3.5 Use ~instead for words of same meaning. Ex: "books ~antique" will get results for old, vintage, used, preowned books. Or * for fill in the blank mad lib style.

4.Wayback Machine. A site that lets you find archived internet sites that may be gone.

5.Use advanced search/Reverse image search

6.Google can search results for a specific site using "site:"
Ex: "Cute dogs wearing hats site:youtube.com"

6.5 Or try using "related:" for sites of simliar type. Ex: "related:ebay.com. gives results from other online auction sites. (You can also use "link:" for links.) Or use "AROUND(#)" to look for terms nearby. Ex: "Fish AROUND(19) ice in sodas" for results within 19 words.

7.Search social media by @(social media site). Ex: "Rainbow trout@twitter"

8.Google scholar/Semantic scholar for educational/research/law articles. Medical studies/cases can be found this way.

9.Set number ranges by ... Ex: "tacos $100...€300" "Fishes in pond 1000...2000"

10.Try using "OR" for split results. "Apple pie recipes OR Domestic cats"

11.For file types use "filetype:pdf" "filetype:jpg" "filetype:(insert type here)"

12.Use wiki/article/online encyclopedia citations to find more info

---

As sad as it is, there are eyes on this website that do not have suicidal people's best interests at heart. They aren't here for genuine reasons, just here to to gather 'evidence' to use as ammo to shoot the site down, people that are obssessed with playing hero.

Posting sources is giving those people more ammo.

Thank you. I'm so technologically inept. Showing my age

 

[rationaltake]

it's not fair because litteraly everywhere else, your opinion will be supported. and you still want to win in the only arena left.

you can't understand me because I've been on this website since Jan 2019. On and off. I know how it used to be. and comparing it to how it is now it's truly depressing.

I guess it's just following the rhythm of society. everything eventually gets stripped of the right to free speech.

now the worst is when people like you, who supposedly are pro choice, start to strip a pro choice forum in the name of "trying to protect it". You're litteraly doing their job for them. they should pay you and everyone else who reason like you on here.

News flash! I'm just a member. I don't make the rules of the site. The rules are not my opinion. Take it up with the admin of the forum if you disagree with the rules.

 

[Insomniac]

News flash! I'm just a member. I don't make the rules of the site. The rules are not my opinion. Take it up with the admin of the forum if you disagree with the rules.

sorry, it wasn't in my intention to be confrontational. I guess I'm just using this opportunity to bitch and vent about these new rules because they will always be new rules to me.

The people on this website, supposed to be our only solace, restraining themselves in other to fit in with anti choicers was such a big victory for them.

I still can't believe they're slowly winning every battle.

 

[Willy Wonka]

Agreed.
With enough effort you can find whatever information you could ever want. It just takes the right search terms and time to dig through. Search engines do censor seach results (Such as sites about ctb) but you can eventually gather enough info.

---

*time for some fun unsolicited search engine tips with gramatical errors* search without qoutations except for using tip number 1.

1.Use qoutation marks for key phrases for results that have so include said phrase. Ex: "Tallest free standing building"

2.Order of key search terms matters. Try to put the most important terms first when being specific.

3.Try using - and + to filter results. Ex: "Trees +oak" "Trees -pine"
Or go crazy specific: "trees -branches -pine -green + bird + fish"

3.5 Use ~instead for words of same meaning. Ex: "books ~antique" will get results for old, vintage, used, preowned books. Or * for fill in the blank mad lib style.

4.Wayback Machine. A site that lets you find archived internet sites that may be gone.

5.Use advanced search/Reverse image search

6.Google can search results for a specific site using "site:"
Ex: "Cute dogs wearing hats site:youtube.com"

6.5 Or try using "related:" for sites of simliar type. Ex: "related:ebay.com. gives results from other online auction sites. (You can also use "link:" for links.) Or use "AROUND(#)" to look for terms nearby. Ex: "Fish AROUND(19) ice in sodas" for results within 19 words.

7.Search social media by @(social media site). Ex: "Rainbow trout@twitter"

8.Google scholar/Semantic scholar for educational/research/law articles. Medical studies/cases can be found this way.

9.Set number ranges by ... Ex: "tacos $100...€300" "Fishes in pond 1000...2000"

10.Try using "OR" for split results. "Apple pie recipes OR Domestic cats"

11.For file types use "filetype:pdf" "filetype:jpg" "filetype:(insert type here)"

12.Use wiki/article/online encyclopedia citations to find more info

---

As sad as it is, there are eyes on this website that do not have suicidal people's best interests at heart. They aren't here for genuine reasons, just here to to gather 'evidence' to use as ammo to shoot the site down, people that are obssessed with playing hero.

Posting sources is giving those people more ammo.

do these tips work on any search engine or are they specific to google?