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

On May 2, 12:02 pm, Joel <jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> M_P <m...@[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. [=85]

I never claim you didn't get the chance to substantively reply to it.
Cretin.

> >> Excessive quoting is bad form.
>
> >Insufficient quoting is evasive.
>
> Which is why *I DON'T DO THAT*.  I have quoted the appropriate amount,
> religiously.  [=85]

No, you leave out substantive content and quote your silly
squabblings.

> >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. [=85]

"Lol, well, now that you mention it, there actually was a very good
reason for it being banned, but I wouldn't expect you to have a clue
about it, so never mind. [...] The words "never mind" are there for a
reason. If you need evidence, that's exactly why you don't know about
it, kiddo. [...] I already made it clear I'm not going to waste my
breath on it."

That's a lot of breath.

> >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 is, as I've shown with the deconstruction you requested. Deal with
it.

> 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!

With Usenet all-caps chest-thumping? Now I understand why you posted
all those gay fantasies.

> I don't even need to specifically refute why you're wrong.  If anyone
> doesn't get it, they are ****ing retarded.
[=85]
> If you don't
> know that, you are wayyy beneath my level on drug knowledge, and you
> can go educate yourself.

Coward.

> >> >> "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.

As you already claimed without a shred of sup****t.

> Grow a dick.

Grow a brain and a backbone.

> > 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.

Nonsense. Anyone punished under that law is coerced.

> >> 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.  [=85]

And the government that passed these bans didn't think so?

> >> >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. [=85]

No tears =85 enemies of reason like you used to irritate me, and now you
just bore me.