Re: a major undertaking, but the rewards would be more than worth it

<collection60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1179852884.042473.118730@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> LSD sucks anyhow.
>
> Try mushrooms.
>

I have. They're okay, certainly easier to obtain. But they're not as good
as 
LSD. They're a "dirty" hallucinogen. LSD.25 is a clean drug. We had a 
discussion some time ago about all the additional chemicals in mushrooms 
besides psilocybin/psilocin. All these chemicals can affect the experience

at least marginally, and you don't really know which ones you're getting,
or 
in what ratio. Lsd.25 is LSD.25, period. I'm not saying you always get
pure, 
uncut LSD. Hell, I'm sure most of the time it's cut or adulterated with
some 
impurity or other, especially blotter acid. But good, clean, pure LSD.25 
beats the shrooms any day, IMO. Also, I think your brain handles acid
better 
than it handles shrooms, in the sense that the effects are very ---
concise, 
for lack of a better word; very mathematical, geometric, just as reality
is. 
Even alternatives such as non-Euclidian geometry is still geometry. I'm 
guessing I've taken mushrooms perhaps a dozen times over the years, the
last 
time being five years ago, and I've usually felt sorta ****ed-up and
spacey 
for a few days afterwards, and as often as not, I've gotten a cold. At the

end of an acid trip, I've just felt that all the equations have balanced
out 
again, and just went on with life. Mushrooms can be fun, but they're not 
*logical* like LSD is. I can easily see how that physicist, himself a 
regular user of acid, won the Nobel prize. Acid aided/augmented his
logical 
thinking. If he used mushrooms regularly like that, --- well, who knows 
where he'd be, but I'm entirely sure he couldn't have accomplished
whatever 
it was that got him the Nobel prize. His name escapes me, but he testified

at the O.J Simpson trial.