1. Woodbury, Connecticut arrived from Google searching for "how do I volunteer to be tased"
2. Woodbury, Connecticut left via "Braidwood concluded that tasers can kill"
I wonder if he continued his quest to be tasered?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Speaking of "Blogs", this little bit of news from the Federal Trade Commission in the US may just affect those other "excited delirium" web-sites:
"FTC: Bloggers must disclose payments for reviews
(AP) – 22 hours ago
PHILADELPHIA — The Federal Trade Commission will require bloggers to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.
It is the first time since 1980 that the commission has revised its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials, and the first time the rules have covered bloggers.
But the commission stopped short Monday of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest.
The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation.
The rules take effect Dec. 1.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved."
Let's see if all the "Excited Delirium" messengers will admit whom they are being paid by to run their sites and Blogs.
Speaking for myself, although I am not located Within the USA, I'm more than happy to declare that I have zero financial interest in the taser / stun-gun / excited delirium issue. Nor any related industry such as batons or pepper spray. No stock ownership, no options, no investment vehicles of any sort. Nothing... I've described my motivating factors several times.
As far as I know, the other leading bloggers on the taser-death issue are similarly driven by equally pure motivation.
In a past series of blog entries, you detailed the registration of several "excited delirium" web-sites and loosely or directly traced their ownership to either Taser International or its representatives, both paid and sympathetic to promoting the notion of "excited delirium" as a valid medical condition. My reason for citing the new FTC rule on disclosure was not to question your efforts or those of P. Gilman, but to alert you that the registrants of those other "excited delirium" web presences may soon have to disclose their financial backers, if any, and the source of funds for any promotion or reviews of stun devices.
I was not suggesting that you are in any conflict, financial or otherwise. In fact, I think you exemplify the good use of blogs to explore and report on controversial issues facing our societies.
Yes, I realized your intent. I just wanted to be proactive in re-stating my motivation as an angry Canadian blogger. US FTC investigators may contact by email if they wish to confirm anything about this blog. I'm 'Pure as the driven snow' and willing to confirm that fact with any interested and appropriate authorities.
Post a Comment