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

On May 1, 3:11 pm, Joel <jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> M_P <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> >> >Correct: the ban had nothing to do with protecting users (nor
> >> >protecting the public from users), but was simply coercive
conformism.
>
> >> Yeah, man, they were so terrified of the imminent and overwhelming
> >> massive overthrow of the government (because there were so many more
> >> millions of young hippies than conservative rednecks and rich people)
>
> >Straw man;
>
> You *are* a straw man.  I don't need to create a straw-man argument.

You don't *need* to, but you did.

> > I didn't say anything about government being "terrified,"
> >nor does government need to be terrified in order to pass laws that
> >exceed its proper authority.
>
> Lol, well, now that you mention it, there actually was a very good
> reason for it being banned,

Provide evidence for your claim.

> but I wouldn't expect you to have a clue
> about it, so never mind.
>
> >> 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.

> Grow a freakin' dick.

Your gay fantasies are off-topic for these newsgroups.

> > 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.

> 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"?

> >> Oh, wait, you're just some moronic nerd who's done too many
> >> psychedelics to even think like a normal person.  Congrats, paranoid
> >> dweeb.
>
> >No, but you're just some Internet dork who substitutes ignorant
> >personal attacks for reasoned arguments.
>
> 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.

> 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.

> but you should be adult enough to get the point.

"Adult" clearly has little to do with your posts.

> But of course, you vainly view me as a kid,

I didn't say one word about your age. Your insecurities are showing.

> 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.