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

M_P <m_p@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>> >LOL! *You're* the one who just now deleted the substantive content.
>>
>> I didn't "delete" anything.  The previous posts are still there.
>
>Feeble wordplay.


Oh, that's rich.  You're the one who complains that I snipped very old
quoting that you then claim you didn't get the chance to substantively
reply to!  Idiot.  I had given up on you doing so, because you
obviously never will.  You had your chance before any of the quoting
I've left above.  God, you are a nerd.


>> Excessive quoting is bad form.
>
>Insufficient quoting is evasive.


Which is why *I DON'T DO THAT*.  I have quoted the appropriate amount,
religiously.  Yet you complain!


>> But you're the one who still didn't reply to the substantive content.
>
>Wrong again.


You may have finally done so later in this post, but it certainly took
a while to get there.


>> I already made it clear I'm not going to waste my breath on it.
>
>ROTFL! You've already spent several times as much "breath" on
>pretending you know something as it would take to say what you knew
>(if you knew anything).


No, I haven't.  I simply haven't let you get the last word.


>> >You have yet to establish that there's anything to know. Who do you
>> >think you're impressing with these pretensions to knowledge?
>>
>> How much do you think I give a ****?
>
>Enough to keep posting with your pretenses but no actual knowledge.


Again, nonsense.


>> >You mean you "moved on" from clear unambiguous writing. And you
>> >consider that progress?
>>
>> Quite correct.  Absolutely.  Except that my writing is clear and
>> unambiguous, if your brain doesn't fall apart while reading it.  If it
>> does, that's hardly my fault.  I'm just smarter than you.
>
>Wrong as usual ... read on.


Nice try ... read on.


>OK, I'll spoonfeed you: in "they merely forced people to buy LSD
>illegally even though they could easily do so" the second "they" could
>refer either to government (the first "they") or to "people" and the
>"so" could refer either to "buy LSD illegally" or to "force people to
>buy LSD illegally".


THAT IS YOUR BRAIN FALLING APART.  You see, NERD, I expect people to
be adult enough to just realize what the "theys" meant.  You are such
an idiot if you think it's ambiguous, it's not even funny.  But I know
why you're claiming it.  You like to play games and be a stupid little
nerd.  I BEAT UP NERDS!

I don't even need to specifically refute why you're wrong.  If anyone
doesn't get it, they are ****ing retarded.


>> >> "the ban ... was simply coercive conformism"
>>
>> >Wrong as usual. That was merely the least insane remaining alternative
>> >after protection was ruled out.
>>
>> It was all you said!  Good God, go back and read your first reply in
>> the thread.  It was quite short.
>
>I also said the part you replaced with "..." above -- which was in
>fact the meat of my statement.


Yeah, but that part was irrelevant, as I already said.  Grow a dick.


>> >> 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.
>>
>> I certainly do.  The congress, and the DEA, have shown a very clear
>> pattern with regard to recreational drugs.  Once it reaches a certain
>> prevalence, it's banned.  It happened then with LSD, and in the '80s
>> with MDMA, and in recent times with some of the research chemicals.
>> It's about consistency with pot being illegal, as much as it is about
>> the recreational use of these drugs themselves (except for something
>> like 2C-T-7, which caused deaths).
>
>Even if you could establish that as a tenable account -- and to do
>that you'd have to show that the drugs you mention were in fact each
>banned at the same prevalence --


OH MY GOD!  You are SO PEDANTIC!  You can't quit!  Oh my good lord in
heaven.  It's *comparable* prevalence!  It is!  It is!  If you don't
know that, you are wayyy beneath my level on drug knowledge, and you
can go educate yourself.  Especially with a 'tude the size of yours,
nerd.


> you'd still have an account that as
>it stands is completely consistent with coercive conformism.


No, it isn't.  I already pointed out that people could easily buy LSD
illicitly.  It's an unenforceable law, so there's no coercion.


>> Of course, they can never overcome the inconsistency with alcohol
>> being legal, so it's just more typical American redneck fascist
>> bull**** (on the surface, which is the element we're discussing here).
>
>"Redneck fascist bull****" differs from "coercive conformism" how?


Because rednecks are stupid enough to think they can tell everyone
what to do.  Then they wonder why so many "criminals" disobey their
loudmouth redneck cracker *****.  This law is a joke.


>> >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.
>>
>> They are interrelated.  Didn't you ever take calculus?  I make these
>> attacks with the expectation that it will draw fire on me, but I am
>> confident in my ability to reason in such an adversarial format.
>
>Personal attacks are antithetical to reason.


Aww, cry me a river.


>> I
>> therefore expect my opponents to be comfortable with it, as well,
>> because I prefer arguing with people who are on my level.
>
>I.e. in the gutter.


I'd rather be in the gutter than be wrong, like you.


>> I'm on the
>> fence, as far as you go, in that regard.  You've shown a decent
>> ability,
>
>I hope not.
>
>> but a lack of intellectual honesty.
>
>Bull****.


Lol.  Aww.

-- 
Joel Crump