Re: =>Albert Hofmann, Inventor of LSD, Embarks on Final Trip <=

On May 1, 4:06 pm, Joel <jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> M_P <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> >> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.
>
> >You don't *need* to, but you did.
>
> False.  You keep repeating that to avoid the discussion.

LOL! *You're* the one who just now deleted the substantive content.

> >> Lol, well, now that you mention it, there actually was a very good
> >> reason for it being banned,
>
> >Provide evidence for your claim.

Still waiting ....

> >> but I wouldn't expect you to have a clue
> >> about it, so never mind.
>
> I *knew* you'd do that!  Oh man, I read you just like a book.  The
> words "never mind" are there for a reason.  If you need evidence,
> that's exactly why you don't know about it, kiddo.

You have yet to establish that there's anything to know. Who do you
think you're impressing with these pretensions to knowledge?

> >> >> that they merely forced people to buy LSD illegally even though
they
> >> >> could easily do so.
>
> >> >Who could easily do what? If you mean that people could easily buy
LSD
> >> >illegally,
>
> >> What are you, illiterate?  Yes, that's exactly what I meant because
> >> it's exactly what I said.
>
> >What you said had so many pronouns it could be read in any number of
> >ways.
>
> Oh, OK.  Sorry, dude.  I'll be sure to write like a quiet little
> library-visiting sweater-and-khakis-wearing fruitcake, so my posts
> will be clearer.  ****in' college drone.  I moved on from college-
> level writing.

You mean you "moved on" from clear unambiguous writing. And you
consider that progress?

> You just lack basic comprehension.  It wasn't unclear
> at all,

Yes it was, for the reasons I explained and you failed to
substantively address.

> if you possess a phallus.

More gay fantasies.

> >> Grow a freakin' dick.
>
> >Your gay fantasies are off-topic for these newsgroups.
>
> Haha, that wasn't bad.  Not great, but not bad.
>
> >> > that just sup****ts my statement that the laws had nothing
> >> >to do with protecting users (nor protecting the public from users).
>
> >> No, it doesn't, because that part of your statement had no real
> >> relevance to anything.
>
> >Learn to read. It was entirely relevant to the quoted passage about
> >the reason for LSD bans.
>
> Yeah, I guess, but it wasn't your basic point.

What do you think was my basic point?

> >> I suppose I'd "concede" it, except that it
> >> wasn't the meat of your statement in the first place.
>
> >So what in your fevered imagination was "the meat of my statement"?
>
> "the ban ... was simply coercive conformism"

Wrong as usual. That was merely the least insane remaining alternative
after protection was ruled out.

> Not very fevered, is it?

Not a bit. Are you engaged in some sort of projection here?

> >> Hahaha, it may be a personal attack, but it ain't ign'ant.  And it
> >> didn't substitute.  You blew off my response as a "straw man", but it
> >> wasn't. It was sarcasm
>
> >Sophomoric at best.
>
> You know what, you aren't in a position to say that.  Granted, I
> wasn't exactly imitating Barack Obama at a campaign rally, but I
> wasn't trying to.  I like being what you would conceive of as
> "sophomoric", because it's funny.

To you.

> But my point was not sophomoric,
> period.
>
> It is laughable that people still take the '60s so damn seriously.
> LSD is not without significance, to be sure, but it didn't have all
> that much to do with progress, and your implication had to be that the
> government felt there was something socially "dangerous" about it.

If you have a better explanation, now's the time.

> It's like LSD was seen as a commie conspiracy, or something.  But feel
> free to clarify that.
>
> >> exposing how meaningless your statement was.
> >> You claim that there was some "coercive conformism" at work, well,
> >> what the **** would be the point of that, other than to prevent
> >> dissent?  Maybe it's exaggerated to talk about the overthrow of the
> >> government,
>
> >Hence the straw man.
>
> Heh, no.  How can you be so one-dimensionally serious?  Don't you have
> any buzz to you, any spirit?

Too much spirit to be entertained by your drivel.

> >> but you should be adult enough to get the point.
>
> >"Adult" clearly has little to do with your posts.
>
> You'd be surprised.
>
> >> But of course, you vainly view me as a kid,
>
> >I didn't say one word about your age. Your insecurities are showing.
>
> I didn't imply anything about age.  Kid is figurative, obviously.  Oh,
> I forgot, you take everything literally where convenient to evading
> discussion (as if you're the first to try that one on me).

Here come the laughable evasions.

> >> because I make personal
> >> attacks.  I couldn't take such laughable piss-ant nerdy sheltered
> >> private-school whining b.s. personally if I tried, because I'm too
> >> secure in my own ability to make and withstand personal attacks.
>
> >You're "secure in your ability to make personal attacks"? That's like
> >saying you're secure in your ability to smear feces on the walls ...
> >which I'll bet you are, at that.
>
> I notice you left out the "and withstand" between "make" and "personal
> attacks".  That really takes it purely out of context.

No it doesn't; you made two claims in one sentence, one of which ("I'm
secure in my own ability to withstand personal attacks") I have no
problem with, so I addressed only the other one.