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

M_P <m_p@[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, 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.


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.


>> >> 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 just lack basic comprehension.  It wasn't unclear
at all, if you possess a phallus.


>> 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.


>> 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"  Not very fevered, is it?


>> 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.  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.
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?


>> 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).


>> 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.

-- 
Joel Crump