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

M_P <m_p@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

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


Pedantic.


>> >Insufficient quoting is evasive.
>>
>> Which is why *I DON'T DO THAT*.  I have quoted the appropriate amount,
>> religiously.  […]
>
>No, you leave out substantive content and quote your silly
>squabblings.


Liar.


>> >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. […]
>
>"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.


As if I'm gonna let you get the last word and distort what I did?
Don't be so juvenilely pedantic.


>> 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.


Wrong.  It's obvious in the context of the sentence what the last
"they" refers to.  You just don't have a strong enough brain to read
hardcore writing.  You're a mental pansy.  And a God damn liar,
anyway.  I don't believe you really find it ambiguous.  You don't seem
that stupid.


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


As if you've presented anything big to sup****t your points?  Please.


>> >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.


The "..." part said what you believe is *not* the reason it was
banned.  Hence I wasn't very interested in discussing it, since I more
or less agree with that.  *DUH*.


>> > 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.


Most LSD busts are of dealers, not users.  It's a lot easier to get
away with eating a little piece of paper than smoking a joint.


>> >"Redneck fascist bull****" differs from "coercive conformism" how?
>>
>> Because rednecks are stupid enough to think they can tell everyone
>> what to do.  […]
>
>And the government that passed these bans didn't think so?


I certainly hope they weren't that naive.


>> >Personal attacks are antithetical to reason.
>>
>> Aww, cry me a river. […]
>
>No tears … enemies of reason like you used to irritate me, and now you
>just bore me.


If I actually were an enemy of reason, that might matter to me.
However, I am the definition of reason.

-- 
Joel Crump