Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Or Kill Me => Topic started by: The Johnny on June 09, 2012, 11:17:21 pm

Title: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 09, 2012, 11:17:21 pm

This came about on a reflection based on linking some recent (and not so recent) threads with common practice in the social sciences.


******

First-off, what is "beating a dead horse" in regards to a discussion?

That can supposedly be resolved easily with a definition:

Quote from: wikipedia
is an idiom that means a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile; or that to continue in any endeavour (physical, mental, etc.) is a waste of time as the outcome is already decided.

All in all that is well and simple: perhaps its the same discussion that has been replayed in its standard iterations for the billionth time in a very similar manner... but is that a dead-end? is it futile? has the outcome been decided?

I posit that it is not any of this things, but here is the catch: there needs to be reviewing of past discussions, history of the subject, and a general knowledge of what has been said and done before. And it also requires the participants in the discussion to integrate the new information or knowledge that is discussed even if it runs contrary to their ideology or beliefs (otherwise its just partisan screeching on any given debate).

This is where it relates to the social sciences: it is not forbidden or useless to discuss anything... but the more a topic or subject has been discussed or dissected, the cost to be paid for those that wish to participate in the discussion, the more work they have to do to actually do something useful... one has to review previous positionings or theories, learn about their critiques or downfalls and what came of it.

Say, you want to make a serious statement on what and why "love" is what it is, beyond what you subjectively think it is? Go read up on the history of the positions regarding the subject, the context in which those positions affected the creation of that posture, the critiques, assess the current context in which you create the new concept and then maybe if you arent tired after all that, you can make that serious statement.

Speaking specifically about PD and its drug threads, theres agreement on that its a reiteration of past discussions, so the correct thing to do is for those interested in discussing such topic, to read ALL the drug threads, so they know the context and the arguments, instead of running around in circles.

So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 09, 2012, 11:19:22 pm

Note: This also applies to Anarchy threads.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 09, 2012, 11:31:08 pm
I agree. It's not so easy to find all the past iterations, though. Someone who knows where they are should definitely post links ASAP in the reiteration.

If I've never been in the particular argument before, then someone saying, "It's been done before, this isn't going to get anywhere" doesn't really help me feel closure. Specific links would be the first step, and then if the participants feel they can improve on the past arguments then progress can be made.

I guess my point is I agree with you. :P
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 09, 2012, 11:32:09 pm
Thining of proper response. But i think regardless rwhn wont be able to convice us. Likewise we wont be able to convince him. And even if we could i cant fault him for not letting us know. It would be like working for a democratic mayor and publically admitting youre a republican.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 10, 2012, 12:21:35 am

Epi: Yea, not all of them are labelled as drug threads, because this discussions tend to be somewhat related but not specifically regarding the OP, its more of a type of drift that happens. So yeah, some thread archeology would be useful, i particularly only recall one that was titled "Cannabis" and another one called "REEFER MADNESS".

Also, arguing legalization of drugs, the medical use of marijuana, and other subjects tend to be mixed instead of being argued at the same time... i understand this is valid on some ocassions (as in the political reasons, such as regarding the FDA), but usually arguing several points at the same time just creates confusion.

Twid: I dont mind either side convincing the other side or not, but at least see new iterations in the arguments exposed would be nice, or maybe reach a true dead-end where its just "we agree to disagree" (to which some people have seemed to have reached, and part of the why i stopped posting when the discussion drifted towards legalization, rather than probable cause and rights violations).

Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 10, 2012, 12:23:56 am

Maybe splitting all the drug discussion into one big thread of 300 pages, but maybe thats a huge burden on the mods.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 10, 2012, 12:38:00 am
In that particular thread, probable cause and rights violations should have trumped everything, and that would have made a pretty good discussion. The problem was that the conversation revolved around drugs. Now, I partook in it myself, but if you bring drugs into the whole thing it's going to collapse into a whole legalization thing. The problem with it is is that it's always going to resolve to that. Truth be told I am kinda surprised that RWHN would approve of use of "Advanced search techniques" in a high school even considering his anti-drug stance. But again, we're talking about drugs. It's always going to come back to is weed (not drugs, just weed) really that bad and should it be legalized. BEcause for some reason drugs mean weed. I mean, as far as I can tell no one's going to say that crystal meth should be sold in every convenience store.

I could go on and ramble and tangent, but then that would just make another drug thread.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 10, 2012, 01:32:40 am
In that particular thread, probable cause and rights violations should have trumped everything, and that would have made a pretty good discussion. The problem was that the conversation revolved around drugs. Now, I partook in it myself, but if you bring drugs into the whole thing it's going to collapse into a whole legalization thing. The problem with it is is that it's always going to resolve to that. Truth be told I am kinda surprised that RWHN would approve of use of "Advanced search techniques" in a high school even considering his anti-drug stance. But again, we're talking about drugs. It's always going to come back to is weed (not drugs, just weed) really that bad and should it be legalized. BEcause for some reason drugs mean weed. I mean, as far as I can tell no one's going to say that crystal meth should be sold in every convenience store.

I could go on and ramble and tangent, but then that would just make another drug thread.

The weed issue is the Great Hemorrhoid Symptomatic of the Catastrophic Constipation of AmurkaTM.

Most people are ok with it being decriminalized. It's not hard to google cops and judges coming out in favor of decriminalization.
Even people who never liked it have friends and family members who have been arrested for it at some point. It sucks watching good people go to jail while you're stepping over parking lot vomit every time you go to the club. It sucks even more when they're going through chemo. It sucks hearing the neighbors drunken fights night after night. It sucks having to stop on the sidewalk, turn some smelly wino on his side when he's having a grand mal, and call 9-11 because everybody else is standing around with their finger in their ass. etc. etc. 300 pages. But marijuana is nowhere near decriminalization here because They say it's "dangerous".

Most of us have had it ground into our heads from the time we were preschoolers that we live in a democracy. We know better now, but on some level a lot of people might still be adjusting, or hoping to change it, or angry, or in denial, or something. I suspect that's why every discussion with drugs in it always comes back to the same shit and plays out over and over and over.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 10, 2012, 03:03:38 am
Thining of proper response. But i think regardless rwhn wont be able to convice us. Likewise we wont be able to convince him. And even if we could i cant fault him for not letting us know. It would be like working for a democratic mayor and publically admitting youre a republican.


Uh, trust me, I can safely say you guys have not convinced me that I am wrong.  I do know, that past threads have had past members, slightly alter their viewpoint, usually having a better understanding of the impact of drugs on youth.  But I am nobody's shill and speak for me and what I know and believe.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 10, 2012, 03:42:33 am
Thining of proper response. But i think regardless rwhn wont be able to convice us. Likewise we wont be able to convince him. And even if we could i cant fault him for not letting us know. It would be like working for a democratic mayor and publically admitting youre a republican.


Uh, trust me, I can safely say you guys have not convinced me that I am wrong.  I do know, that past threads have had past members, slightly alter their viewpoint, usually having a better understanding of the impact of drugs on youth.  But I am nobody's shill and speak for me and what I know and believe.
           /
 :retard:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 10, 2012, 06:15:13 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 10, 2012, 11:21:11 am
Good luck with that. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 10, 2012, 02:22:48 pm


So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP


I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 10, 2012, 02:30:28 pm
I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

That's only one reason to argue. Another one is because I'm amused, intrigued, and disgusted at the myriad ways that people pull the wool over their own eyes. And another is to familiarize myself with what robots like RWHN are likely to beep at me in the future so I'll be better prepared to short-circuit them in person.


Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...

When people do things to lose your respect, it's absurd to think we should feign it or end a discussion because some bad words might hurt their fee-fees.

Communication ≠ "being nice".
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 10, 2012, 02:37:09 pm
Thining of proper response. But i think regardless rwhn wont be able to convice us. Likewise we wont be able to convince him. And even if we could i cant fault him for not letting us know. It would be like working for a democratic mayor and publically admitting youre a republican.


Uh, trust me, I can safely say you guys have not convinced me that I am wrong.  I do know, that past threads have had past members, slightly alter their viewpoint, usually having a better understanding of the impact of drugs on youth.  But I am nobody's shill and speak for me and what I know and believe.

And I can safely say you have not changed your viewpoint on iota, no matter how credible and in what quantities it has been presented to you.

But you're not a shill.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Triple Zero on June 10, 2012, 05:58:12 pm
Good luck with that.

That was directed just as much at you as it was at <<someone that probably had an extremely good reason to change their screenname to "TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS" :roll:>>



anyway, I have previously prepared a chart applying to recurrent as well as recursive discussions and explains EVERYTHING:

(http://i.imgur.com/r8tbN.jpg)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 10, 2012, 06:10:16 pm
When people do things to lose your respect, it's absurd to think we should feign it or end a discussion because some bad words might hurt their fee-fees.
I said communication, and like you said,
Quote
Communication ≠ "being nice".
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 10, 2012, 06:35:10 pm
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Fuck off.

If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser. I don't feel the need to play the "everybody wins, let's all just feel good about ourselves" game. You want to strip people of their 4th amendment rights, throw them in jail, and ruin their lives and futures over something that hurts no one? You're a shitty person, and I am going to say so. Just like I would say so if it was a racist or a homophobe. Shitty people who support doing harm to others because they don't follow their ideology are shitty people, and shutting up about it is tacit approval.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 10, 2012, 06:41:29 pm
Good luck with that.

That was directed just as much at you as it was at <<someone that probably had an extremely good reason to change their screenname to "TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS" :roll:>>

I did. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32533.msg1180031.html#msg1180031) And thanks.
I needed a new SN and this (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32585.0.html) looked inspiring.  :lulz:

Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Fuck off.

If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser. I don't feel the need to play the "everybody wins, let's all just feel good about ourselves" game. You want to strip people of their 4th amendment rights, throw them in jail, and ruin their lives and futures over something that hurts no one? You're a shitty person, and I am going to say so. Just like I would say so if it was a racist or a homophobe. Shitty people who support doing harm to others because they don't follow their ideology are shitty people, and shutting up about it is tacit approval.

THIS.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 10, 2012, 07:58:13 pm


So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP


I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 10, 2012, 08:09:00 pm


So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP


I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.

This thread was just a sociological experiment, eh?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 10, 2012, 08:12:11 pm
anyway, I have previously prepared a chart applying to recurrent as well as recursive discussions and explains EVERYTHING:

(http://i.imgur.com/r8tbN.jpg)

:lol:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 10, 2012, 08:59:50 pm


So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP


I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.

This thread was just a sociological experiment, eh?

Look, if you want drama, go to the drug thread.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: BabylonHoruv on June 10, 2012, 09:20:19 pm
I think one thing that we run into as far as both drugs and Anarchy are concerned is that people on both sides tend to completely ignore what the people on the other side have to say, at least as far as the person on the other side can tell.

Sometimes this is because the person on the other side is saying something that has already been said, and thoroughly rebuked, in which case linking to the old thread where that happened is a far better response than the usual response (basically, fuck you you brainwashed moron) Other times things get ignored because the people on opposing sides have taken a personal dislike to one another and can't really pay attention to anything the other says because it is colored by "this person is a brainwashed moron and has nothing useful to say"  That last is, IMO, where most of the real screeching comes in because people end up reiterating points that have legitimately not been answered at one another while ignoring one another's points because there is no longer any respect for the people on the other side of the issue. 

being nice isn't required for communication, nor is it required that people like one another, but a certain amount of respect is vital or the whole conversation just becomes a shouting match.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 10, 2012, 09:41:41 pm


So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP


I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.

This thread was just a sociological experiment, eh?

Look, if you want drama, go to the drug thread.

I wasn't referring to drug threads, I was referring to your petulant demand that other people do your research for you.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 10, 2012, 10:18:09 pm


So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP


I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.

This thread was just a sociological experiment, eh?

Look, if you want drama, go to the drug thread.

I wasn't referring to drug threads, I was referring to your petulant demand that other people do your research for you.

You are ignoring the main point of the OP, which is that to avoid arguing in circles, one should see the background of the discussion, and focusing on taking that single phrase out of context.

Do you see me engaging in the stupid drug threads? No.

The research isnt for me, its for those that wish to seriously partake in an argument in those kinds of threads.

This isnt me being lazy and expecting others to do the research for me, do you get it? I HAVENT EVEN BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION OF THAT THREAD SINCE IT DRIFTED TO DRUGS! I dont care about it!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 10, 2012, 10:29:47 pm
I think one thing that we run into as far as both drugs and Anarchy are concerned is that people on both sides tend to completely ignore what the people on the other side have to say, at least as far as the person on the other side can tell.

Sometimes this is because the person on the other side is saying something that has already been said, and thoroughly rebuked, in which case linking to the old thread where that happened is a far better response than the usual response (basically, fuck you you brainwashed moron) Other times things get ignored because the people on opposing sides have taken a personal dislike to one another and can't really pay attention to anything the other says because it is colored by "this person is a brainwashed moron and has nothing useful to say"  That last is, IMO, where most of the real screeching comes in because people end up reiterating points that have legitimately not been answered at one another while ignoring one another's points because there is no longer any respect for the people on the other side of the issue. 

being nice isn't required for communication, nor is it required that people like one another, but a certain amount of respect is vital or the whole conversation just becomes a shouting match.

Id say its like guerrilla style debating or "bait and switch", sometimes when one side feels that one of their points is weak and is undefendable for lack of evidence or whatever, they focus on a different aspect related to the issue, so the debate/discussion then has multiple fronts to be engaged and then it becomes a non-linear discussion of "argument and refutal".

I can understand that people can get infuriated by the perceived or real blindness by the opposing side to see their point, and they are entitled to express it, although in terms of a discussion in the internet, its as close as it comes to saying "we agree to disagree" which justs ends the discussion in a whirlpool of "ad hominem".
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 10, 2012, 10:52:11 pm


So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP


I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.

This thread was just a sociological experiment, eh?

Look, if you want drama, go to the drug thread.

I wasn't referring to drug threads, I was referring to your petulant demand that other people do your research for you.

You are ignoring the main point of the OP, which is that to avoid arguing in circles, one should see the background of the discussion, and focusing on taking that single phrase out of context.

Do you see me engaging in the stupid drug threads? No.

The research isnt for me, its for those that wish to seriously partake in an argument in those kinds of threads.

This isnt me being lazy and expecting others to do the research for me, do you get it? I HAVENT EVEN BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION OF THAT THREAD SINCE IT DRIFTED TO DRUGS! I dont care about it!

I misinterpreted those last lines, in your OP, my apologies.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 11, 2012, 03:09:46 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 11, 2012, 03:35:21 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 11, 2012, 03:47:16 am
Good luck with that.

That was directed just as much at you as it was at <<someone that probably had an extremely good reason to change their screenname to "TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS" ::) >>



Meh, I've had a couple of weak moments and taken some digs at AMB, but I think I've been pretty respectable compared to the opposing side.  Though Twid has been a good Joe, I must say.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 11, 2012, 03:56:14 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?

THIS.

Show me something worth a shit and I have no problem ceding a point or even the whole tamale.

Close off and mouth the party line and it's shit-flinging time.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 11, 2012, 04:17:32 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?

Then don't pretend you're having a discussion, just to ignore whatever they say.

I guess I have a basic respect for everyone that you guys don't. I dunno. And I don't mean that condescendingly. It just looks like the way it is. My naivete? Maybe.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 11, 2012, 04:45:47 am
Uhhh, dude...

...

...

this is PD.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 11, 2012, 05:29:41 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?

Then don't pretend you're having a discussion, just to ignore whatever they say.

I guess I have a basic respect for everyone that you guys don't. I dunno. And I don't mean that condescendingly. It just looks like the way it is. My naivete? Maybe.

Maybe you're born with it.

(http://i.imgur.com/WUTOw.jpg)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Placid Dingo on June 11, 2012, 05:37:32 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?

Is that relevant?

How many years should you hold your bladder before pissing in the bath? Whoever happens to be in the bath at the same time has to cop the consequences even if you feel your long term tolerance had been justifiably exhausted.

I might remind you that you snarled at me and said I was 'blowing my own ass-trumpet' when I mentioned that a study suggesting closing marijuana shops increased crime sounded suss. That particular study was then retracted; what did the insult, the snark etc add to our ability to have that conversation? Based on this I can't help bit think you're foolig yourself if you claim that this response is reserved for people who've long term tested your patience。

Going after the person, not the argument sets the tone. And knowing the history of the argument makes that more effective. I'm 100% with Nyx on this one.

Really as I've followed the drugs threads there's two views.

Prohibition has issues and these issues would be made smaller by ending it.

Or

Prohibition has issues but the cost of removing it as a means to remove these issues do more harm than good (chiefly by normalizing the culture of marijuana and providing an easier and more appealing gateway into potential drug abuse.)

Instead it kind of feels like we go from 'rhwn is a braindead govt lackey', to 'lol imma troll you now' and then calling eachother idiots.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 11, 2012, 05:43:32 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?

Then don't pretend you're having a discussion, just to ignore whatever they say.

I guess I have a basic respect for everyone that you guys don't. I dunno. And I don't mean that condescendingly. It just looks like the way it is. My naivete? Maybe.

I have a basic suspicious respect for everyone, until they absolutely prove, repeatedly, that they are not worthy of my respect by being themselves disrespectful, crapweasely douchecanoes. After that point I'm pretty much just going to make fun of them.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 11, 2012, 05:49:54 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?

Then don't pretend you're having a discussion, just to ignore whatever they say.

I guess I have a basic respect for everyone that you guys don't. I dunno. And I don't mean that condescendingly. It just looks like the way it is. My naivete? Maybe.

Maybe you're born with it.

(http://i.imgur.com/WUTOw.jpg)

  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 11, 2012, 05:54:31 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?

Then don't pretend you're having a discussion, just to ignore whatever they say.

I guess I have a basic respect for everyone that you guys don't. I dunno. And I don't mean that condescendingly. It just looks like the way it is. My naivete? Maybe.

I have a basic suspicious respect for everyone, until they absolutely prove, repeatedly, that they are not worthy of my respect by being themselves disrespectful, crapweasely douchecanoes. After that point I'm pretty much just going to make fun of them.

That's all well and good. I guess I just haven't seen the same evidence. No reason for me to assume you haven't though. Proceed. Get down witcha bad self.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 11, 2012, 06:01:02 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?

Is that relevant?

How many years should you hold your bladder before pissing in the bath? Whoever happens to be in the bath at the same time has to cop the consequences even if you feel your long term tolerance had been justifiably exhausted.

I might remind you that you snarled at me and said I was 'blowing my own ass-trumpet' when I mentioned that a study suggesting closing marijuana shops increased crime sounded suss. That particular study was then retracted; what did the insult, the snark etc add to our ability to have that conversation?

Going after the person, not the argument sets the tone. And knowing the history of the argument makes that more effective. I'm 100% with Nyx on this one.

Really as I've followed the drugs threads there's two views.

Prohibition has issues and these issues would be made smaller by ending it.

Or

Prohibition has issues but the cost of removing it as a means to remove these issues do more harm than good (chiefly by normalizing the culture of marijuana and providing an easier and more appealing gateway into potential drug abuse.)

Instead it kind of feels like we go from 'rhwn is a braindead govt lackey', to 'lol imma troll you now' and then calling eachother idiots.

You clearly haven't read the history of my arguments with RWHN as I only have recently started personally insulting him. He has lost my respect as someone who thinks for himself and demonstrates a complete lack of intellectual honesty in favor of an insulting array of fallacies.

That you're still butthurt about a "blowing your own ass-trumpet" comment suggests you need to stop taking yourself so seriously, and perhaps wear a helmet.

Sometimes, going after the person is justified, especially when they have shown themselves to be dogmatic true believers who will stoop to any sheisty rhetorical trick in a misguided belief that ends justify the means if it's for the children.

And your dichotomizing of the drug threads shows you haven't followed many of them very carefully. One of the more important arguments you're missing is the harm that prohibition actually does: costing people their livelihood, costing taxpayers a huge amount of money, seizing people's homes, letting people rot in a corrupt prison system that profits off of their incarceration, disproportionately disenfranchising the poor and minorities, making it okay for the government to have invasive control of your body and personal space—and all of these things harm children more than the drug itself.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 11, 2012, 06:04:32 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?

Then don't pretend you're having a discussion, just to ignore whatever they say.

I guess I have a basic respect for everyone that you guys don't. I dunno. And I don't mean that condescendingly. It just looks like the way it is. My naivete? Maybe.

I have a basic suspicious respect for everyone, until they absolutely prove, repeatedly, that they are not worthy of my respect by being themselves disrespectful, crapweasely douchecanoes. After that point I'm pretty much just going to make fun of them.

That's all well and good. I guess I just haven't seen the same evidence. No reason for me to assume you haven't though. Proceed. Get down witcha bad self.

Since I doubt you have meticulously followed every conversation I and others have been in with RWHN over the last 5+ years, yes, it's pretty safe to say that you are correct in saying that there's no reason for that assumption.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Placid Dingo on June 11, 2012, 06:20:23 am
Net, I've been called worse and I'm not phased. I'm just saying, it clearly isn't true that you are withholding judgement with great patience and only giving in at the final moment.

I guess this is the thing again though- everyone likes the way they post because they like it, and I don't remember the last time anyone's request to maintain an intellectual respectful atmosphere was met with anythig but rationalizations of why actually everything theyve ever posted was as it should have been. I'm starting to feel snippy about it so I'll eject from the whole topic now.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 11, 2012, 06:23:44 am
What is up with all the control-freaking about what, how, where, and how often people post these days?

Is it my turn?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 11, 2012, 06:24:20 am
If any of you fuckers post in my threads or more than once per day, there's going to be hell to pay.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 11, 2012, 06:25:51 am
There's not enough True Blood talk on this forum. Everything else you people talk about is stupid and pointless. I demand more Sookie.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Don Coyote on June 11, 2012, 06:27:34 am
There's not enough True Blood talk on this forum. Everything else you people talk about is stupid and pointless. I demand more SNookie.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 11, 2012, 06:27:38 am
I don't see why we can't each pick a subforum and stick to it. All this mingling and posting in other people's threads is disrespectful. One subforum, one poster, one post per thread. THAT'S IT.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 11, 2012, 06:28:21 am
There's not enough True Blood talk on this forum. Everything else you people talk about is stupid and pointless. I demand more SNookie.

Snookie is a vampire???  :eek:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Don Coyote on June 11, 2012, 06:29:00 am
 :trolling:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 11, 2012, 06:30:18 am
:trolling:

 :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 11, 2012, 06:32:46 am
Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...


You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

Quote
If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?

Is that relevant?

How many years should you hold your bladder before pissing in the bath? Whoever happens to be in the bath at the same time has to cop the consequences even if you feel your long term tolerance had been justifiably exhausted.

I might remind you that you snarled at me and said I was 'blowing my own ass-trumpet' when I mentioned that a study suggesting closing marijuana shops increased crime sounded suss. That particular study was then retracted; what did the insult, the snark etc add to our ability to have that conversation?

Going after the person, not the argument sets the tone. And knowing the history of the argument makes that more effective. I'm 100% with Nyx on this one.

Really as I've followed the drugs threads there's two views.

Prohibition has issues and these issues would be made smaller by ending it.

Or

Prohibition has issues but the cost of removing it as a means to remove these issues do more harm than good (chiefly by normalizing the culture of marijuana and providing an easier and more appealing gateway into potential drug abuse.)

Instead it kind of feels like we go from 'rhwn is a braindead govt lackey', to 'lol imma troll you now' and then calling eachother idiots.

You clearly haven't read the history of my arguments with RWHN as I only have recently started personally insulting him. He has lost my respect as someone who thinks for himself and demonstrates a complete lack of intellectual honesty in favor of an insulting array of fallacies.

That you're still butthurt about a "blowing your own ass-trumpet" comment suggests you need to stop taking yourself so seriously, and perhaps wear a helmet.

Sometimes, going after the person is justified, especially when they have shown themselves to be dogmatic true believers who will stoop to any sheisty rhetorical trick in a misguided belief that ends justify the means if it's for the children.

And your dichotomizing of the drug threads shows you haven't followed many of them very carefully. One of the more important arguments you're missing is the harm that prohibition actually does: costing people their livelihood, costing taxpayers a huge amount of money, seizing people's homes, letting people rot in a corrupt prison system that profits off of their incarceration, disproportionately disenfranchising the poor and minorities, making it okay for the government to have invasive control of your body and personal space—and all of these things harm children more than the drug itself.

Besides what prohibition is doing in general, RWHN is OKAY with schools being a police state if it means ONE KID gets caught with a bud or something and ends up having to do a program. If we have a PROBLEM with our kids being jailed for tardies and assorted other bullshit, he says we should GO TALK TO THE SCHOOL BOARD AND IT'LL BE ALL BETTER. Like nobody ever raised hell when their kids were being abused.

There's nothing there to respect, he sold his soul for a paycheck a long time ago. RWHN can eat a bag of dicks.

Oh, and the Nixon thing was SUBLIME.  :lol:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 11, 2012, 06:34:53 am
Net, I've been called worse and I'm not phased. I'm just saying, it clearly isn't true that you are withholding judgement with great patience and only giving in at the final moment.

I guess this is the thing again though- everyone likes the way they post because they like it, and I don't remember the last time anyone's request to maintain an intellectual respectful atmosphere was met with anythig but rationalizations of why actually everything theyve ever posted was as it should have been. I'm starting to feel snippy about it so I'll eject from the whole topic now.

If you'd bothered to actually look at my discussions with RWHN in recent years you'd know you're making a false inference based solely on my recent behavior.

I don't claim to be a paragon of perfect rationality and even in this very thread that you're reading right now I have owned my misinterpretation. That's the best I can do—check myself and hope people will point out where I'm wrong, even rudely, and own it.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 11, 2012, 06:36:25 am
I don't see why we can't each pick a subforum and stick to it. All this mingling and posting in other people's threads is disrespectful. One subforum, one poster, one post per thread. THAT'S IT.

FUCKIN A. NO SHIT SLINGING. PROBLEM SOLVED.  :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on June 11, 2012, 03:08:03 pm
Here's my over-simplistic, all encopassing theory of why threads like drugs and anarchy and hosries and shit always devolve into an asshole convention.

It's because, once you've been around the block a few times, you totally are aware of a myriad arguments for and a myriad arguments against. This doesn't sway your opinion, it makes it concrete and, conversely, it makes the other one more and more retarded. Each time the anti-pot lobby comes up with another dumb fucking reason to associate puffing herb with the deth sentance! Each time another stupid variation on "why can't we all just get on and love each other, without the need for police and money and shit" rears it's head, my opinion on these matters is reinforced. This is probably the same for the retards with the dumb counter-opinions.

See how it works yet?

The more someone argues a position that you have already decided is retarded, the chance of swaying your opinion actually decreases in direct proportion to the respect you have for the numbnuts who's arguing it. I like RWHN, a lot. But I can't get behind his opinion on teh herb. That should be all there is to it but, unfortunately, the arguments keep cycling around and, every time, I see his position as more and more ridiculous.

I don't think he's evil or anything because of it. I just put it down to - smart people sometimes believe dumb shit. I'm sure I could argue with him some more about this but it aint my fucking business to change his mind, just like it aint his business to change mine. As long as we're accepting this last thing then there aint no problem. Next time mary jane gets mentioned (unless I can think of some really pithy one-liner) I'll keep my peace.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: LMNO on June 11, 2012, 03:23:40 pm
What the hell, I'll take a stab at this.

This is what I can see regarding RWHN's stance:

1) If an adult wants to fuck themselves up on drugs, go right ahead.

2) Some studies have shown that a child's brain is still developing even as old as a late teen.
           2a) Some of those studies have shown that the decision-making areas in a child's brain are not fully formed as a teenager.
           2b) Some other studies have shown that drugs can alter/stunt a child's brain more profoundly than an adult's.

3) Something should be done to prevent children from fucking up their brains.

I personally agree with all of the above.

Of course, any proposed solutions have to take place in the real world; and he's looked at a lot of studies (perhaps not all, but quite a lot); and he's gone into schools to observe; and he's gone to the state house; and he's seen the bureaucracy at work, the police in action, and the statistics on the ground.  And he's decided on a course of action. 

Perhaps it's not optimal.  Perhaps it's ineffectual.  It certainly isn't widely agreed with around here.  But I know one thing for sure, in my years of interacting with him on this board... he's not dumb.  He's used his brain, and he's weighed options.  He knows about Maybe Logic, he knows the "in some sense" mantra.  He knows about BIP and wearing blinders.  He knows about the menu and the meal, the map and the territory.

He's agreed that kids shouldn't get criminal records.  He's agreed that education and counseling and social improvements to communities will reduce the usage rate more than criminal punishment.  He's also taken a few stances that seem... draconian, at least to me (and apparently, many of you).  And yeah, I disagree with him at times.  But to call him a shill, a shitneck, an asshole, a fraud, or a brainwashing fascist seems a bit much. 

He looked at the situation, thought it over, and has made a choice.  The fact that he continues to post here, even when some threads turn into one person vs the entire board (and can often get kind of ugly), speaks volumes to me about what kind of person he is.

Anyway, just thought I'd put that out there.  I don't agree with his methods, but I think I agree with much of his core principles.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 11, 2012, 03:42:57 pm
Thanks LMNO and thanks (I think) Pent.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 11, 2012, 05:07:11 pm
Im a good joe because im like... Mellow and stuff man. You know? Like if i feel like im going to like... Lose my cool man, i just take a deep breath hold it... :cough cough: and then i feel alright. And like... Maybe a little hungry you know man? And then i wonder who ate all the ice cream.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 11, 2012, 05:45:27 pm
Im a good joe because im like... Mellow and stuff man. You know? Like if i feel like im going to like... Lose my cool man, i just take a deep breath hold it... :cough cough: and then i feel alright. And like... Maybe a little hungry you know man? And then i wonder who ate all the ice cream.

It's like yogic brea- what were we talking about?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 11, 2012, 05:53:47 pm
:lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 11, 2012, 05:58:31 pm
  The fact that he continues to post here, even when some threads turn into one person vs the entire board (and can often get kind of ugly), speaks volumes to me about what kind of person he is.

The fact that he treats anyone who disagrees with him as a slave to peer pressure tells me what kind of person he is.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 12, 2012, 11:47:00 pm
That's all well and good. I guess I just haven't seen the same evidence. No reason for me to assume you haven't though. Proceed. Get down witcha bad self.

Since I doubt you have meticulously followed every conversation I and others have been in with RWHN over the last 5+ years, yes, it's pretty safe to say that you are correct in saying that there's no reason for that assumption.

 :oops: Be patient with me Nigel...I'm just a kid!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 12, 2012, 11:58:39 pm
There's some things that will make you lose respect for a person, Ep. Even the common respect you'd give to a wino on the sidewalk.

Don't know how old you are..but you'll find out.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 12:04:17 am
That's all well and good. I guess I just haven't seen the same evidence. No reason for me to assume you haven't though. Proceed. Get down witcha bad self.

Since I doubt you have meticulously followed every conversation I and others have been in with RWHN over the last 5+ years, yes, it's pretty safe to say that you are correct in saying that there's no reason for that assumption.

 :oops: Be patient with me Nigel...I'm just a kid!

She's far too brave to grant you mercy.

No, you need encouragement!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 13, 2012, 12:15:26 am
There's some things that will make you lose respect for a person, Ep. Even the common respect you'd give to a wino on the sidewalk.

Don't know how old you are..but you'll find out.

No, I do get that. It's not the shit-flinging itself I have a problem with, it's the disingenuousness revealed by, like I said, pretending to have a discussion and then kicking that pretended respect out the window. Seems crapweasely (to use Nigel's term) to me. Especially when the other side is giving signs of openness to discussion (even if, internally, they are completely and utterly closed).

Not that there aren't levels of fucking-with-someone I'm willing to take part in - but at the point where it'd be a nasty act if done to anyone else, I think that's where I'm out. In other words, the excuse of having fun is cool, but the excuse of vengeance alone doesn't slide.
Not much for "an eye for an eye", me.

Again, naivete? Maybe.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 12:19:07 am
There's some things that will make you lose respect for a person, Ep. Even the common respect you'd give to a wino on the sidewalk.

Don't know how old you are..but you'll find out.

No, I do get that. It's not the shit-flinging itself I have a problem with, it's the disingenuousness revealed by, like I said, pretending to have a discussion and then kicking that pretended respect out the window. Seems crapweasely (to use Nigel's term) to me. Especially when the other side is giving signs of openness to discussion (even if, internally, they are completely and utterly closed).

Well, THAT'S an interesting view of the situation.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 13, 2012, 12:23:04 am
There's some things that will make you lose respect for a person, Ep. Even the common respect you'd give to a wino on the sidewalk.

Don't know how old you are..but you'll find out.

No, I do get that. It's not the shit-flinging itself I have a problem with, it's the disingenuousness revealed by, like I said, pretending to have a discussion and then kicking that pretended respect out the window. Seems crapweasely (to use Nigel's term) to me. Especially when the other side is giving signs of openness to discussion (even if, internally, they are completely and utterly closed).

Well, THAT'S an interesting view of the situation.

OKAY OKAY OKAY

Let's not take this to that place again....
I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DRUGS DISCUSSION!
Just a hypothetical here.
Just a hypothetical.

I do realize the RHWN thing has history, and history I don't know about. I'm not that dumb.
Granted, it was an impression I got from that discussion, yes. But I'm not saying that impression was right, at this point.  In fact let me say it was WRONG! I hope that was cleared up. I'm moving from that original impression to a general hypothetical.

Just a hypothetical here. 'k?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 12:23:53 am
There's some things that will make you lose respect for a person, Ep. Even the common respect you'd give to a wino on the sidewalk.

Don't know how old you are..but you'll find out.

No, I do get that. It's not the shit-flinging itself I have a problem with, it's the disingenuousness revealed by, like I said, pretending to have a discussion and then kicking that pretended respect out the window. Seems crapweasely (to use Nigel's term) to me. Especially when the other side is giving signs of openness to discussion (even if, internally, they are completely and utterly closed).

Well, THAT'S an interesting view of the situation.

OKAY OKAY OKAY

Let's not take this to that place again....
I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DRUGS DISCUSSION!
Just a hypothetical here.
Just a hypothetical.

I do realize the RHWN thing has history, and history I don't know about. I'm not that dumb.
Granted, it was an impression I got from that discussion, yes. But I'm not saying that impression was right, at this point.  In fact let me say it was WRONG! I hope that was cleared up. I'm moving from that original impression to a general hypothetical.

Just a hypothetical here. 'k?

LET THE ENCOURAGEMENT SINK IN, EPI!  (*thump, thump*)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 13, 2012, 12:26:25 am
 :lol: Dammit Rev....gonna have to get eye-for-an-eye up in here, pretty soon.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 12:28:04 am
:lol: Dammit Rev....gonna have to get eye-for-an-eye up in here, pretty soon.

That's a rather pacifistic approach, I think.  I prefer the "two eyes, left testicle, and nerve gas your city for an eye" approach.  I have grown soft in my old age, of course.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 12:42:52 am
There's some things that will make you lose respect for a person, Ep. Even the common respect you'd give to a wino on the sidewalk.

Don't know how old you are..but you'll find out.

No, I do get that. It's not the shit-flinging itself I have a problem with, it's the disingenuousness revealed by, like I said, pretending to have a discussion and then kicking that pretended respect out the window. Seems crapweasely (to use Nigel's term) to me. Especially when the other side is giving signs of openness to discussion (even if, internally, they are completely and utterly closed).

Not that there aren't levels of fucking-with-someone I'm willing to take part in - but at the point where it'd be a nasty act if done to anyone else, I think that's where I'm out. In other words, the excuse of having fun is cool, but the excuse of vengeance alone doesn't slide.
Not much for "an eye for an eye", me.

Again, naivete? Maybe.


Yes, you see son, we can't be letting Evil walk around all willy nilly like it owns the joint.  It must be PUT IN IT'S PLACE.  Otherwise, your kids will end up in jail, or worse, the boy scouts.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 12:44:15 am
There's some things that will make you lose respect for a person, Ep. Even the common respect you'd give to a wino on the sidewalk.

Don't know how old you are..but you'll find out.

No, I do get that. It's not the shit-flinging itself I have a problem with, it's the disingenuousness revealed by, like I said, pretending to have a discussion and then kicking that pretended respect out the window. Seems crapweasely (to use Nigel's term) to me. Especially when the other side is giving signs of openness to discussion (even if, internally, they are completely and utterly closed).

Not that there aren't levels of fucking-with-someone I'm willing to take part in - but at the point where it'd be a nasty act if done to anyone else, I think that's where I'm out. In other words, the excuse of having fun is cool, but the excuse of vengeance alone doesn't slide.
Not much for "an eye for an eye", me.

Again, naivete? Maybe.


Yes, you see son, we can't be letting Evil walk around all willy nilly like it owns the joint.  It must be PUT IN IT'S PLACE.  Otherwise, your kids will end up in jail, or worse, the boy scouts.

I got a truckload of Preparation H for a Mr Butthurt...

...Someone want to sign for this?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 12:47:02 am
Evil doesn't feel the burn.  Evil IS the burn.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 12:48:09 am
Evil doesn't feel the burn.  Evil IS the burn.

Well, Evil's been the burn on every thread on PD in the last half hour or so.  Better sign for this load anyway, just to be...well, safe.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 12:49:22 am
  The fact that he continues to post here, even when some threads turn into one person vs the entire board (and can often get kind of ugly), speaks volumes to me about what kind of person he is.

The fact that he treats anyone who disagrees with him as a slave to peer pressure tells me what kind of person he is.

What broke it for me was when I said that my MPH friend holds the opposite view from him regarding the effect of the criminalization of drugs on youth use rates, and asked if it is possible that both viewpoints had validity. His response was to tell me that my MPH friend must be "misinformed". He strongly implied that he has an MPH, and that was the genesis of my questioning of his credentials because much of his reasoning seems inconsistent with that of anyone I know who has an MPH, but when I asked directly what his degree was, he would not answer.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 12:49:28 am
I know, right?  Evil is fucking everywhere.  Quick, hide your socks!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 12:52:28 am
I know, right?  Evil is fucking everywhere.  Quick, hide your socks!

 :butthurt:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 12:53:58 am
I don't think you're evil, RWHN. I think you're a shitty person with bad principles, working as a puny cog in a system which perpetuates evil on your fellow human beings, and telling yourself that you have a great mission to Save the Kids.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 12:54:18 am
Nixon called, RWHN. He says he all the stains came off the walls and he wants you to come see.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 01:02:04 am
I don't think you're evil, RWHN. I think you're a shitty person with bad principles, working as a puny cog in a system which perpetuates evil on your fellow human beings, and telling yourself that you have a great mission to Save the Kids.

I think most people can rationalize away the rotten shit they associate themselves with.

For example, I can ignore some pretty rotten shit in the interests of keeping the lights on.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 01:17:41 am
Now, now, you can't let up on we Bad People.  Your kids might end up in Jesus Camp!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 01:20:33 am
I'm such a Bad Person that now we have 10 guests viewing the Fucking Orange Eating Contest!  Only the Truly Bad can conjure up fell deeds of that nature.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 01:35:55 am
No need for caps, you're just a regular lower-case kind of guy. As much as you'd like to believe anyone thinks otherwise.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: E.O.T. on June 13, 2012, 01:52:55 am
No need for caps, you're just a regular lower-case kind of guy. As much as you'd like to believe anyone thinks otherwise.

GEEZ!

          have you eaten since that weird breakfast we had?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 02:01:08 am
No need for caps, you're just a regular lower-case kind of guy. As much as you'd like to believe anyone thinks otherwise.

GEEZ!

          have you eaten since that weird breakfast we had?

I ate a meat.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: E.O.T. on June 13, 2012, 02:26:45 am
No need for caps, you're just a regular lower-case kind of guy. As much as you'd like to believe anyone thinks otherwise.

GEEZ!

          have you eaten since that weird breakfast we had?

I ate a meat.

YEAH

          obviously. i guess i meant, other than rwhn (?)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Salty on June 13, 2012, 05:31:44 am
No need for caps, you're just a regular lower-case kind of guy. As much as you'd like to believe anyone thinks otherwise.

GEEZ!

          have you eaten since that weird breakfast we had?

I ate a meat.

YEAH

          obviously. i guess i meant, other than rwhn (?)
:lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Elder Iptuous on June 13, 2012, 04:05:22 pm
i'd just like to go on record saying that i agree with LMNOs post.  I may not agree with RWHN on the drug issues, but i respect him, and feel that the vitriol is unbecoming.

ON a more interesting note....
Is anyone knowledgeable on work done formally mapping common debates?

A quick google of 'debate map' gave a link to debategraph.org which is kinda neat on a cursory examination...
it seems that if there were central debate maps maintained, it would avoid rehashing points ad nauseum that have been put to rest.

Instead of starting each debate with basic premise and following well worn paths (that often lead to cul-de-sacs of stupid), you could start the conversation with a reference to the map and a claim that you offer an undocumented supporting argument to position #3721 (or whatever)
If someone brings up a point that has been covered, you simply have to point out where, and the arguments surrounding it could be seen in full at their disposal.  if they have something new to add, they can bring that up legitimately without having to trudge through the intermediate steps that simply make people upset and resistant before getting to new territory.

Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 05:00:51 pm
i'd just like to go on record saying that i agree with LMNOs post.  I may not agree with RWHN on the drug issues, but i respect him, and feel that the vitriol is unbecoming.

Having spent the bulk of my life seeing good people dragged through legal nightmares over the controlled substance issue and seeing my kids get shoved into cop cars for such heinous acts as school tardies, I'm not concerned with what's "becoming" anymore. I don't particularly give a fuck how I look to anybody.
 
Quote
ON a more interesting note....
Is anyone knowledgeable on work done formally mapping common debates?

A quick google of 'debate map' gave a link to debategraph.org which is kinda neat on a cursory examination...
it seems that if there were central debate maps maintained, it would avoid rehashing points ad nauseum that have been put to rest.

Instead of starting each debate with basic premise and following well worn paths (that often lead to cul-de-sacs of stupid), you could start the conversation with a reference to the map and a claim that you offer an undocumented supporting argument to position #3721 (or whatever)
If someone brings up a point that has been covered, you simply have to point out where, and the arguments surrounding it could be seen in full at their disposal.  if they have something new to add, they can bring that up legitimately without having to trudge through the intermediate steps that simply make people upset and resistant before getting to new territory.

Interesting in theory, but...rules?  :lol:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 05:04:42 pm
i'd just like to go on record saying that i agree with LMNOs post.  I may not agree with RWHN on the drug issues, but i respect him, and feel that the vitriol is unbecoming.

ON a more interesting note....
Is anyone knowledgeable on work done formally mapping common debates?

A quick google of 'debate map' gave a link to debategraph.org which is kinda neat on a cursory examination...
it seems that if there were central debate maps maintained, it would avoid rehashing points ad nauseum that have been put to rest.

Instead of starting each debate with basic premise and following well worn paths (that often lead to cul-de-sacs of stupid), you could start the conversation with a reference to the map and a claim that you offer an undocumented supporting argument to position #3721 (or whatever)
If someone brings up a point that has been covered, you simply have to point out where, and the arguments surrounding it could be seen in full at their disposal.  if they have something new to add, they can bring that up legitimately without having to trudge through the intermediate steps that simply make people upset and resistant before getting to new territory.

"Unbecoming"?  :lulz:

As, in, such uppityness is unbecoming for a lady?

Sorry, I'll get back in the kitchen now, massah.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 05:07:42 pm
Oh, dear.   :lulz:

I'm coverin' my head.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 05:09:59 pm
Okay, I have my hard hat.

Carry on.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: E.O.T. on June 13, 2012, 05:10:13 pm

THE WOMENZ!!

          they eat people for breakfast!!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 05:11:27 pm
And, what Texas Fairies said.

Bottom line, my respect for RWHN was greatly diminished when he insinuated that my friend's education was sub-par and that she was "misinformed" instead of answering the question. It was eroded further when he implied that he had an MPH but then danced around and evaded the question when asked directly what his degree is in. When he replied to direct questions, accompanied with citations, with "I DON'T LIKE YOU DON'T TALK TO ME", the last iota of respect and consideration I had for him slipped away. As far as I am concerned, he's nothing more than a parasite feeding off the hairy ass-end of the government. You want me to "respect" him? You have the gall to tell me that my lack of respect is "unbecoming"?

Are you fucking kidding me? Listen to how that sounds. Just listen to your fucking self, for a second. You sound like a complete and utter ass.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 05:13:17 pm
i'd just like to go on record saying that i agree with LMNOs post.  I may not agree with RWHN on the drug issues, but i respect him, and feel that the vitriol is unbecoming.

ON a more interesting note....
Is anyone knowledgeable on work done formally mapping common debates?

A quick google of 'debate map' gave a link to debategraph.org which is kinda neat on a cursory examination...
it seems that if there were central debate maps maintained, it would avoid rehashing points ad nauseum that have been put to rest.

Instead of starting each debate with basic premise and following well worn paths (that often lead to cul-de-sacs of stupid), you could start the conversation with a reference to the map and a claim that you offer an undocumented supporting argument to position #3721 (or whatever)
If someone brings up a point that has been covered, you simply have to point out where, and the arguments surrounding it could be seen in full at their disposal.  if they have something new to add, they can bring that up legitimately without having to trudge through the intermediate steps that simply make people upset and resistant before getting to new territory.

"Unbecoming"?  :lulz:

As, in, such uppityness is unbecoming for a lady?

Sorry, I'll get back in the kitchen now, massah.

NIGEL THAT WASN'T VERY LADYLIKE  :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 05:13:55 pm
By the way, Papa Ippy-ookums, you want to make a debate map, go right ahead. No one's going to stop you.

Or maybe you meant one of us girls should do it, tee-hee! 'Cause you probably have important man stuff to do, and we're just sitting around being unbecoming and disrespectful.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 05:15:47 pm
i'd just like to go on record saying that i agree with LMNOs post.  I may not agree with RWHN on the drug issues, but i respect him, and feel that the vitriol is unbecoming.

ON a more interesting note....
Is anyone knowledgeable on work done formally mapping common debates?

A quick google of 'debate map' gave a link to debategraph.org which is kinda neat on a cursory examination...
it seems that if there were central debate maps maintained, it would avoid rehashing points ad nauseum that have been put to rest.

Instead of starting each debate with basic premise and following well worn paths (that often lead to cul-de-sacs of stupid), you could start the conversation with a reference to the map and a claim that you offer an undocumented supporting argument to position #3721 (or whatever)
If someone brings up a point that has been covered, you simply have to point out where, and the arguments surrounding it could be seen in full at their disposal.  if they have something new to add, they can bring that up legitimately without having to trudge through the intermediate steps that simply make people upset and resistant before getting to new territory.

"Unbecoming"?  :lulz:

As, in, such uppityness is unbecoming for a lady?

Sorry, I'll get back in the kitchen now, massah.

NIGEL THAT WASN'T VERY LADYLIKE  :lulz:

Oopsie!  :oops: What was I thinking? BRB I need to put on a longer skirt that covers my obscene ankles, I just realized that I'm dressed like a harlot and it's completely unbecoming.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 05:17:24 pm
By the way, Papa Ippy-ookums, you want to make a debate map, go right ahead. No one's going to stop you.

Or maybe you meant one of us girls should do it, tee-hee! 'Cause you probably have important man stuff to do, and we're just sitting around being unbecoming and disrespectful.

But it looks hard! Girls aren't supposed to be all intellectual.

Does anyone here want some Rice Krispie treats?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 05:20:26 pm
By the way, Papa Ippy-ookums, you want to make a debate map, go right ahead. No one's going to stop you.

Or maybe you meant one of us girls should do it, tee-hee! 'Cause you probably have important man stuff to do, and we're just sitting around being unbecoming and disrespectful.

But it looks hard! Girls aren't supposed to be all intellectual.

Does anyone here want some Rice Krispie treats?


Oooh, my favorite! I hope they have chocolate chips, because, you know, girls like chocolate.

Let's go pop some Valium, make a pot roast, and talk about curtains and how icky we think blowjobs are. You know, lady stuff.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 05:24:37 pm
By the way, Papa Ippy-ookums, you want to make a debate map, go right ahead. No one's going to stop you.

Or maybe you meant one of us girls should do it, tee-hee! 'Cause you probably have important man stuff to do, and we're just sitting around being unbecoming and disrespectful.

But it looks hard! Girls aren't supposed to be all intellectual.

Does anyone here want some Rice Krispie treats?


Oooh, my favorite! I hope they have chocolate chips, because, you know, girls like chocolate.

Let's go pop some Valium, make a pot roast, and talk about curtains and how icky we think blowjobs are. You know, lady stuff.

I think feel that would be fun!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Elder Iptuous on June 13, 2012, 05:36:31 pm
 excuse me?
i wasn't aware that 'unbecoming' had misogynistic undertones. (as you seem to associate it with 'unlady like')
or that it had racist undertones (as you refered to me as 'massah')

but if that's how you're going to take that word, i'll settle for using in it's place 'unwarranted' 'pointless' or 'ugly'.
furthermore, there's plenty of vitriol coming from plenty of quarters. if you want to accept my assessment of it all on yourself, that's on you, but that wasn't the intent.

i realize this is a passionate topic and that i should tread lightly to avoid being sucked into drama. i simply felt compelled for vague reasons to state my respect for RWHN, and that i feel he's being heaped on excessively.
If i can't do that without being seen, for some reason, as a misogynistic, racist, unreasonable person, then i'll just step out and give wide berth to all.

I would also like to point out that i like and respect you very much also, and wouldn't intend to insult you.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 05:43:56 pm
excuse me?
i wasn't aware that 'unbecoming' had misogynistic undertones. (as you seem to associate it with 'unlady like')
or that it had racist undertones (as you refered to me as 'massah')

but if that's how you're going to take that word, i'll settle for using in it's place 'unwarranted' 'pointless' or 'ugly'.
furthermore, there's plenty of vitriol coming from plenty of quarters. if you want to accept my assessment of it all on yourself, that's on you, but that wasn't the intent.

i realize this is a passionate topic and that i should tread lightly to avoid being sucked into drama. i simply felt compelled for vague reasons to state my respect for RWHN, and that i feel he's being heaped on excessively.
If i can't do that without being seen, for some reason, as a misogynistic, racist, unreasonable person, then i'll just step out and give wide berth to all.

I would also like to point out that i like and respect you very much also, and wouldn't intend to insult you.

It doesn't have inherently racist or sexist undertones.

What it has is COMPLETELY CONDESCENDING OVERTONES.

Quote
un·be·com·ing/ˌənbiˈkəmiNG/
Adjective:   

    (esp. of clothing or a color) Not flattering.
    (of a person's attitude or behavior) Not fitting or appropriate; unseemly.

Synonyms:   
improper - unseemly - indecorous - inappropriate

You just told two adult women that their behavior was "unbecoming", and for that, you can go fuck yourself, Massah Ippy-ookums.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 05:46:51 pm
Oh yeah, I almost forgot the part where the things about our behavior that's "unbecoming" is that we're not treating Massah WHN with enough "respect".

YEAH, NOTHING EVEN VAGUELY OFFENSIVE ABOUT ANY OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING ALL UPPITY ABOUT.  :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 05:50:04 pm
Need your shoes shined? Or maybe one of us gals can make you a sammich.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 05:53:51 pm
"Unseemly". Jebus.  :lulz:

I DON'T KNOW NOTHIN BOUT DEBATIN NO LAWS! Y'ALL MENS GO AHEAD! I GO HEP MIZ SCARLETT LACE HER CORSET!

JES HOLLER IF YOU NEEDS ANYTHING!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 05:54:06 pm
Okay, putting hard hat away and getting hockey helmet.

IPPIE, RUN!  RUUUUUUUUUUN!

Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 05:56:30 pm
I've used the word "unbecoming" towards my wife.  But only when I want that special lovin' that leaves you satisfied, worn out, and in a body cast.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Elder Iptuous on June 13, 2012, 05:57:45 pm
although i'm confused,upset, and saddened, i'm simply going to make good on my promise to give wide berth.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 06:07:01 pm
although i'm confused,upset, and saddened, i'm simply going to make good on my promise to give wide berth.

Go back and read your initial post.  You lectured.

Just saying.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Elder Iptuous on June 13, 2012, 06:19:40 pm
i said 'i feel the vitriol is unbecoming'.  that was an assessment of the situation as a whole, not directed at any particular person.  If that was taken as lecturing to any particular person or condescending, that was not intended, and i would apologize for that.  nor were the connotations that are being attached to the term.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: LMNO on June 13, 2012, 06:56:49 pm
I swear to God, Jake.  If you take me back into Chinatown one more fucking time...
                          /
(http://geekadelphia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/chinatown.jpg)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 06:57:46 pm
The vitriol really doesn't bother me personally, and I know I have taken a couple of shots at AMB in particular, I have my 'ook ook' moments with the best of them.


It is interesting though how the discussion evolves and how some of the responses get framed.


Of course, from my perspective, I feel part of that is a lack of onformation and understanding of the larger system.  A good point is that nobody here, still, really understands what my job is.  Some people still think I'm a counselor, others think I'm standing in front of kids all day doing my Nancy Reagan impression.  Most think because I'm federally funded I have Uncle Sam dictating and controlling every move I make, which if you were actually sitting in my seat, you would realize is completely ludicrous.  Fuck, I can't get them to anwer a simple e-mail, they certainly don't have time to babysit.


And just today at my commission meeting, we were all sitting around the table discussing keeping kids and non-violent drug offenders out of the system.  But, this is just the sort of thing we Bad People do.  But, if that makes me Bad, i'll proudly wear that banner.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Elder Iptuous on June 13, 2012, 07:01:16 pm
LMNO,
i would also like to personally apologize to you for saying that i agreed with your post, and then making a comment that turned out to be inflammatory.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 07:01:53 pm
I swear to God, Jake.  If you take me back into Chinatown one more fucking time...
                          /
(http://geekadelphia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/chinatown.jpg)

WE NEVER LEFT.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: LMNO on June 13, 2012, 07:04:57 pm
 :jumper:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 07:17:06 pm
The vitriol really doesn't bother me personally, and I know I have taken a couple of shots at AMB in particular, I have my 'ook ook' moments with the best of them.

Your shots missed, dumbass.

Quote
It is interesting though how the discussion evolves and how some of the responses get framed.


Of course, from my perspective, I feel part of that is a lack of onformation and understanding of the larger system.  A good point is that nobody here, still, really understands what my job is.  Some people still think I'm a counselor, others think I'm standing in front of kids all day doing my Nancy Reagan impression.  Most think because I'm federally funded I have Uncle Sam dictating and controlling every move I make, which if you were actually sitting in my seat, you would realize is completely ludicrous.  Fuck, I can't get them to anwer a simple e-mail, they certainly don't have time to babysit.

We understand perfectly. You write grant proposals and talk out of your ass.

Quote
And just today at my commission meeting, we were all sitting around the table discussing keeping kids and non-violent drug offenders out of the system.  But, this is just the sort of thing we Bad People do.  But, if that makes me Bad, i'll proudly wear that banner.

Nobody gives a fuck about your "options" for kids you don't quite have enough dirt on to actually prosecute, or your intervention camps or whatever the fuck you're alluding to this time. Go fuck spiders.

Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: LMNO on June 13, 2012, 07:23:36 pm
Nobody gives a fuck about your "options" for kids you don't quite have enough dirt on to actually prosecute, or your intervention camps or whatever the fuck you're alluding to this time.

Um...

Nope.  Walking away.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 07:30:39 pm
Nobody gives a fuck about your "options" for kids you don't quite have enough dirt on to actually prosecute, or your intervention camps or whatever the fuck you're alluding to this time.

Um...

Nope.  Walking away.

NO.  YOU SAY, "SURPRISE ME, ERIS", AND THEN YOU GRAB ONTO YOUR ASS AND SMILE.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: LMNO on June 13, 2012, 07:36:57 pm
BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, WROTE THE BOOK.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 07:37:33 pm
BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, WROTE THE BOOK.

Grabbing your ass and smiling is not a task that you complete.  It is a way of life.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 07:39:57 pm
Intervention camps? 

 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 07:46:02 pm
Intervention camps? 

 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

It figures you'd find that funny. Now go google "juvenile boot camp deaths" and pull your little peepee.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 13, 2012, 07:50:33 pm
It is interesting though how the discussion evolves and how some of the responses get framed.

Of course, from my perspective, I feel part of that is a lack of onformation and understanding of the larger system.

PAK CHOOIE ONF!

I'd agree that there is definitely a lack of information and understanding entering someone's mind about the larger system.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 07:54:30 pm
Tell me what you need to learn and I'll point you in the right direction.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 07:58:27 pm
NOTHING WRONG WITH ME
NOTHING WRONG WITH ME
SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE
SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 08:01:49 pm
Us ignorant masses just don't know what's Good For Us. But it's OK; the pencil-pushers had a meeting. :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 13, 2012, 08:04:19 pm
Us ignorant masses just don't know what's Good For Us, Net. But it's OK; the pencil-pushers had a meeting. :lulz:

He's going to point me in the right direction for learning!

 :)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 08:04:47 pm
although i'm confused,upset, and saddened, i'm simply going to make good on my promise to give wide berth.

Did the naughty little children fail to live up to Daddy's expectations?  :cry:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 08:06:22 pm
SUBJECT:  BLACK KID IN HOODIE.
CLASSIFICATION:  THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  TERMINATE.

SUBJECT:  17 YEAR OLD WITH A BAG OF TOLEDO WINDOW-BOX WEED.
CLASSIFICATION:  THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  INCARCERATION FOR 7-12 YEARS, FORFEITURE OF VOTING AND GUN RIGHTS FOR LIFE.

SUBJECT:  23 YEAR OLD BIGOT IN A BORDER PATROL UNIFORM, TASING MEXICANS FOR FUN.
CLASSIFICATION:  HOMELAND SECURITY.
DETERMINATION:  ASSIGN ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.  PAY RAISE.

SUBJECT:  DEA AGENT ENGAGED IN ENTRAPMENT.
CLASSIFICATION:  DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AGENT.
DETERMINATION:  PROMOTION.

SUBJECT:  BUREAUCRAT EMPLOYING SCARE TACTICS ON LIMITED OR FALSIFIED DATA.
CLASSIFICATION:  DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AGENT.
DETERMINATION:  ADDITIONAL FUNDING REALLOCATED FROM EDUCATIONAL BUDGET.

SUBJECT:  JOHN Q PUBLIC, MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS.
CLASSIFICATION:  POTENTIAL THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  SSSS FOR AIR TRAVEL, WIRE TAPS.

SUBJECT:  12 YEAR OLD STUDENT.
CLASSIFICATION:  POTENTIAL DRUG DEALER.
DETERMINATION:  WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF LOCKER.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 08:07:59 pm
Us ignorant masses just don't know what's Good For Us, Net. But it's OK; the pencil-pushers had a meeting. :lulz:

He's going to point me in the right direction for learning!

 :)

We NEED the good people at the DEA to tell us what to do. We NEED the cops to search our homes and possessions anytime they feel like it. We NEED to raise our children in an authoritarian environment of suspicion. It's for our own good.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 13, 2012, 08:08:43 pm
Tell me what you need to learn and I'll point you in the right direction.

I need to learn more about the following things:
• the privatized prison industry
• Why America has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, in spite of a 15 year trend of decreasing rates of violent crime
• What agenda is causing the National Cancer Institute and the Journal of the American Medical Association to publish pro-marijuana articles
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 08:09:01 pm
SUBJECT:  BLACK KID IN HOODIE.
CLASSIFICATION:  THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  TERMINATE.

SUBJECT:  17 YEAR OLD WITH A BAG OF TOLEDO WINDOW-BOX WEED.
CLASSIFICATION:  THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  INCARCERATION FOR 7-12 YEARS, FORFEITURE OF VOTING AND GUN RIGHTS FOR LIFE.

SUBJECT:  23 YEAR OLD BIGOT IN A BORDER PATROL UNIFORM, TASING MEXICANS FOR FUN.
CLASSIFICATION:  HOMELAND SECURITY.
DETERMINATION:  ASSIGN ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.  PAY RAISE.

SUBJECT:  DEA AGENT ENGAGED IN ENTRAPMENT.
CLASSIFICATION:  DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AGENT.
DETERMINATION:  PROMOTION.

SUBJECT:  BUREAUCRAT EMPLOYING SCARE TACTICS ON LIMITED OR FALSIFIED DATA.
CLASSIFICATION:  DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AGENT.
DETERMINATION:  ADDITIONAL FUNDING REALLOCATED FROM EDUCATIONAL BUDGET.

SUBJECT:  JOHN Q PUBLIC, MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS.
CLASSIFICATION:  POTENTIAL THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  SSSS FOR AIR TRAVEL, WIRE TAPS.

SUBJECT:  12 YEAR OLD STUDENT.
CLASSIFICATION:  POTENTIAL DRUG DEALER.
DETERMINATION:  WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF LOCKER.

:mittens:

Post wins thread.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 13, 2012, 08:10:59 pm
SUBJECT:  BLACK KID IN HOODIE.
CLASSIFICATION:  THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  TERMINATE.

SUBJECT:  17 YEAR OLD WITH A BAG OF TOLEDO WINDOW-BOX WEED.
CLASSIFICATION:  THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  INCARCERATION FOR 7-12 YEARS, FORFEITURE OF VOTING AND GUN RIGHTS FOR LIFE.

SUBJECT:  23 YEAR OLD BIGOT IN A BORDER PATROL UNIFORM, TASING MEXICANS FOR FUN.
CLASSIFICATION:  HOMELAND SECURITY.
DETERMINATION:  ASSIGN ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.  PAY RAISE.

SUBJECT:  DEA AGENT ENGAGED IN ENTRAPMENT.
CLASSIFICATION:  DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AGENT.
DETERMINATION:  PROMOTION.

SUBJECT:  BUREAUCRAT EMPLOYING SCARE TACTICS ON LIMITED OR FALSIFIED DATA.
CLASSIFICATION:  DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AGENT.
DETERMINATION:  ADDITIONAL FUNDING REALLOCATED FROM EDUCATIONAL BUDGET.

SUBJECT:  JOHN Q PUBLIC, MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS.
CLASSIFICATION:  POTENTIAL THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  SSSS FOR AIR TRAVEL, WIRE TAPS.

SUBJECT:  12 YEAR OLD STUDENT.
CLASSIFICATION:  POTENTIAL DRUG DEALER.
DETERMINATION:  WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF LOCKER.

:horrormirth:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 08:14:41 pm
We're all just cogs, when you look at us from a certain angle. 

I, for example, am a cog in the chemical industry.  I do one small thing that contributes to the profits of a certain oil company, and I help make available high-purity materials for the infrastructure and medical markets.

Stella is a small cog in the interpersonal relationships field.  She tells individuals what they think they want to hear.  This makes them feel better about petty things they have no control over.

LMNO is a small cog in the Big Gay Cowboy industry.  He saves children from alligators.

RWHN is a small cog in the police state.  I am unsure what he does.

Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 08:17:08 pm
SUBJECT:  BLACK KID IN HOODIE.
CLASSIFICATION:  THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  TERMINATE.

SUBJECT:  17 YEAR OLD WITH A BAG OF TOLEDO WINDOW-BOX WEED.
CLASSIFICATION:  THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  INCARCERATION FOR 7-12 YEARS, FORFEITURE OF VOTING AND GUN RIGHTS FOR LIFE.

SUBJECT:  23 YEAR OLD BIGOT IN A BORDER PATROL UNIFORM, TASING MEXICANS FOR FUN.
CLASSIFICATION:  HOMELAND SECURITY.
DETERMINATION:  ASSIGN ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.  PAY RAISE.

SUBJECT:  DEA AGENT ENGAGED IN ENTRAPMENT.
CLASSIFICATION:  DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AGENT.
DETERMINATION:  PROMOTION.

SUBJECT:  BUREAUCRAT EMPLOYING SCARE TACTICS ON LIMITED OR FALSIFIED DATA.
CLASSIFICATION:  DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AGENT.
DETERMINATION:  ADDITIONAL FUNDING REALLOCATED FROM EDUCATIONAL BUDGET.

SUBJECT:  JOHN Q PUBLIC, MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS.
CLASSIFICATION:  POTENTIAL THREAT.
DETERMINATION:  SSSS FOR AIR TRAVEL, WIRE TAPS.

SUBJECT:  12 YEAR OLD STUDENT.
CLASSIFICATION:  POTENTIAL DRUG DEALER.
DETERMINATION:  WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF LOCKER.

:mittens:

Post wins thread.

Post wins EVERYTHING.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 08:19:07 pm
We're all just cogs, when you look at us from a certain angle. 

I, for example, am a cog in the chemical industry.  I do one small thing that contributes to the profits of a certain oil company, and I help make available high-purity materials for the infrastructure and medical markets.

Stella is a small cog in the interpersonal relationships field.  She tells individuals what they think they want to hear.  This makes them feel better about petty things they have no control over.

LMNO is a small cog in the Big Gay Cowboy industry.  He saves children from alligators.

RWHN is a small cog in the police state.  I am unsure what he does.


I put kids in jail.  Haven't you been paying attention?  I'm a Bad Man.  I am up to No Good.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 08:21:30 pm
We're all just cogs, when you look at us from a certain angle. 

I, for example, am a cog in the chemical industry.  I do one small thing that contributes to the profits of a certain oil company, and I help make available high-purity materials for the infrastructure and medical markets.

Stella is a small cog in the interpersonal relationships field.  She tells individuals what they think they want to hear.  This makes them feel better about petty things they have no control over.

LMNO is a small cog in the Big Gay Cowboy industry.  He saves children from alligators.

RWHN is a small cog in the police state.  I am unsure what he does.


I put kids in jail.  Haven't you been paying attention?  I'm a Bad Man.  I am up to No Good.

No, police and district attorneys put children in jail.  You merely find that the basic ideas that they use to do so are fundamentally sound, and work in a position that helps promulgate that view.  You aren't the Bad Man.  You're a cog, in a vast machine full of cogs and good intentions.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 08:22:01 pm
We're all just cogs, when you look at us from a certain angle. 

I, for example, am a cog in the chemical industry.  I do one small thing that contributes to the profits of a certain oil company, and I help make available high-purity materials for the infrastructure and medical markets.

Stella is a small cog in the interpersonal relationships field.  She tells individuals what they think they want to hear.  This makes them feel better about petty things they have no control over.

LMNO is a small cog in the Big Gay Cowboy industry.  He saves children from alligators.

RWHN is a small cog in the police state.  I am unsure what he does.

He licks ass and suffers from delusions of grandeur.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 08:23:44 pm
We're all just cogs, when you look at us from a certain angle. 

I, for example, am a cog in the chemical industry.  I do one small thing that contributes to the profits of a certain oil company, and I help make available high-purity materials for the infrastructure and medical markets.

Stella is a small cog in the interpersonal relationships field.  She tells individuals what they think they want to hear.  This makes them feel better about petty things they have no control over.

LMNO is a small cog in the Big Gay Cowboy industry.  He saves children from alligators.

RWHN is a small cog in the police state.  I am unsure what he does.

He licks ass and suffers from delusions of grandeur.

I think he believes he is doing and/or supporting something that is - on the whole - right.

I think he's wrong.  Horribly, horribly wrong.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 08:24:46 pm
I will refrain from the obvious sophomoric amateur psychology, as I believe that it has already been inferred by my above statement.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 08:26:46 pm
Tell me what you need to learn and I'll point you in the right direction.

I need to learn more about the following things:
• the privatized prison industry


I can't help you with that one.  We have county jails and state prisons in Maine.

Quote
• Why America has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, in spite of a 15 year trend of decreasing rates of violent crime


Take a statistics class.  Something can be going down but still be the highest per capita compared to others.  It just means others are going down faster or were a lot lower, per capita, to begin with.

Quote
• What agenda is causing the National Cancer Institute and the Journal of the American Medical Association to publish pro-marijuana articles


Pro-medical marijuana, pro smoked medical-marijuana?  Depends on the specific stance they are taking.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 08:30:20 pm
Tell me what you need to learn and I'll point you in the right direction.

I need to learn more about the following things:
• the privatized prison industry


I can't help you with that one.  We have county jails and state prisons in Maine.


And that makes Senator Doug Thomas (R-Somerset) cry.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 08:31:11 pm
We're all just cogs, when you look at us from a certain angle. 

I, for example, am a cog in the chemical industry.  I do one small thing that contributes to the profits of a certain oil company, and I help make available high-purity materials for the infrastructure and medical markets.

Stella is a small cog in the interpersonal relationships field.  She tells individuals what they think they want to hear.  This makes them feel better about petty things they have no control over.

LMNO is a small cog in the Big Gay Cowboy industry.  He saves children from alligators.

RWHN is a small cog in the police state.  I am unsure what he does.


I put kids in jail.  Haven't you been paying attention?  I'm a Bad Man.  I am up to No Good.

No, police and district attorneys put children in jail.  You merely find that the basic ideas that they use to do so are fundamentally sound, and work in a position that helps promulgate that view.  You aren't the Bad Man.  You're a cog, in a vast machine full of cogs and good intentions.


Nope, I'm right there, whispering in their ear telling them I think it is a great idea to lock up nonviolent drug offenders and throw away the key.  I'm telling them to not worry about silly little things like futures, wellness, education, growth.  Nope, lock them up and be done with them.  Because I know that is what is good for my community to be healthy.  Lots of kids in jails.  Yep.  It's right there engraved in my coffee mug. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 08:33:21 pm
We're all just cogs, when you look at us from a certain angle. 

I, for example, am a cog in the chemical industry.  I do one small thing that contributes to the profits of a certain oil company, and I help make available high-purity materials for the infrastructure and medical markets.

Stella is a small cog in the interpersonal relationships field.  She tells individuals what they think they want to hear.  This makes them feel better about petty things they have no control over.

LMNO is a small cog in the Big Gay Cowboy industry.  He saves children from alligators.

RWHN is a small cog in the police state.  I am unsure what he does.

He licks ass and suffers from delusions of grandeur.

I think he believes he is doing and/or supporting something that is - on the whole - right.

I think he's wrong.  Horribly, horribly wrong.

It's like a person who does WalMart cheers and MEANS them.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 08:35:18 pm
Nope, I'm right there, whispering in their ear telling them I think it is a great idea to lock up nonviolent drug offenders and throw away the key.  I'm telling them to not worry about silly little things like futures, wellness, education, growth.  Nope, lock them up and be done with them.  Because I know that is what is good for my community to be healthy.  Lots of kids in jails.  Yep.  It's right there engraved in my coffee mug.

You've already stated your position on diversion, etc.  But the thing is, you still support prohibition, which is on the whole a horrible fucking monster that destroys lives in the name of saving them.

While I agree that sometimes you have to live with an imperfect solution, the prohibition industry on the whole is not a solution at all.

And then to be told that it's okay because your state doesn't have private prisons?  Or because your state has a somewhat realistic diversion program?  You honestly can't see how that looks?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 08:36:19 pm
Take a statistics class. 

Missed this.

Christ, what an asshole.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 08:38:09 pm
Take a statistics class. 

Missed this.

Christ, what an asshole.

Yeah.
It's like when he told me to "go talk to the school" after I fought them tooth and nail for YEARS.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 13, 2012, 08:39:07 pm
Tell me what you need to learn and I'll point you in the right direction.

I need to learn more about the following things:
• the privatized prison industry

I can't help you with that one.  We have county jails and state prisons in Maine.

Perhaps you could brush up on it and get back to me as this is a growing national industry.

Quote
• Why America has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, in spite of a 15 year trend of decreasing rates of violent crime

Take a statistics class.  Something can be going down but still be the highest per capita compared to others.  It just means others are going down faster or were a lot lower, per capita, to begin with.

I've already taken statistics classes. I was actually balls deep in science before I transferred to teh arts.

Thanks for the non-answer though.

Quote
• What agenda is causing the National Cancer Institute and the Journal of the American Medical Association to publish pro-marijuana articles

Pro-medical marijuana, pro smoked medical-marijuana?  Depends on the specific stance they are taking.

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 08:40:24 pm
Take a statistics class. 

Missed this.

Christ, what an asshole.

Yeah.
It's like when he told me to "go talk to the school" after I fought them tooth and nail for YEARS.

You must have done it wrong.  Apparently it works in Maine.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 08:42:51 pm
Nope, I'm right there, whispering in their ear telling them I think it is a great idea to lock up nonviolent drug offenders and throw away the key.  I'm telling them to not worry about silly little things like futures, wellness, education, growth.  Nope, lock them up and be done with them.  Because I know that is what is good for my community to be healthy.  Lots of kids in jails.  Yep.  It's right there engraved in my coffee mug.

You've already stated your position on diversion, etc.  But the thing is, you still support prohibition, which is on the whole a horrible fucking monster that destroys lives in the name of saving them.


So isn't substance abuse.  Especially whenit involves youth and untimely deaths of youth.

Quote
While I agree that sometimes you have to live with an imperfect solution, the prohibition industry on the whole is not a solution at all.


It isn't the solution.  I've said this repeatedly but you guys are too busy getting your hate on to pay attention.  The actual community-based prevention strategies and efforts are the solution.  But legalization significantly alters the environment and would neutralize and overcome those efforts.

Quote
And then to be told that it's okay because your state doesn't have private prisons?  Or because your state has a somewhat realistic diversion program?  You honestly can't see how that looks?


I didn't say it was okay dumbass, I simply said it wasn't here so I can't comment on it.  But, it being in other states, also means I have no influence.  If it is in your state, YOU go do something about it. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 08:44:57 pm

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?


I could only speculate without reading actual articles.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 08:45:57 pm
dumbass,

I am now convinced that you can't be taken seriously, even in casual conversation.

Enjoy your butthurt and your religious zeal.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 08:52:27 pm
dumbass,

I am now convinced that you can't be taken seriously, even in casual conversation.

Enjoy your butthurt and your religious zeal.


Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot the game rules here, that I'm only able to be on the receiving end of name-calling.  How silly of me.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 13, 2012, 09:02:00 pm

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?

I could only speculate without reading actual articles.

That's very interesting, as passages from the articles, their sources, and links to them were all posted more than once.

Odd that you felt it appropriate to comment on them in other threads without reading them....
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 09:19:28 pm
Tell me what you need to learn and I'll point you in the right direction.

I need to learn more about the following things:
• the privatized prison industry


I can't help you with that one.  We have county jails and state prisons in Maine.

Quote
• Why America has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, in spite of a 15 year trend of decreasing rates of violent crime


Take a statistics class.  Something can be going down but still be the highest per capita compared to others.  It just means others are going down faster or were a lot lower, per capita, to begin with.

Please don't tell me you are unaware of the incredible INCREASE in incarceration in our country since 1980. Incarceration rates have quadrupled. Your answer doesn't make any sense, and simply appears evasive.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 09:24:40 pm

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?

I could only speculate without reading actual articles.

That's very interesting, as passages from the articles, their sources, and links to them were all posted more than once.

Odd that you felt it appropriate to comment on them in other threads without reading them....


Well Sherlock, lots of articles have been posted in lots of these threads, you'll pardon me if I don't instantly recall everything that's been posted in every drug thread.  So if you want to remind me of a specific article we can talk if you want to play silly games, we can do that too.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 09:27:16 pm

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?


I could only speculate without reading actual articles.

I am endlessly astounded by the sheer quantity of important published articles and books that are, at least seemingly, highly relevant to your field, but which you not only inexplicably have never heard of, but actually outright refuse to read. It's almost like you have an approved list of sources and you can't accept any information that isn't on the approved list.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 13, 2012, 09:35:38 pm

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?


I could only speculate without reading actual articles.

I am endlessly astounded by the sheer quantity of important published articles and books that are, at least seemingly, highly relevant to your field, but which you not only inexplicably have never heard of, but actually outright refuse to read. It's almost like you have an approved list of sources and you can't accept any information that isn't on the approved list.

Almost?
He's got those two guys.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 13, 2012, 10:00:11 pm

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?

I could only speculate without reading actual articles.

That's very interesting, as passages from the articles, their sources, and links to them were all posted more than once.

Odd that you felt it appropriate to comment on them in other threads without reading them....

Well Sherlock, lots of articles have been posted in lots of these threads, you'll pardon me if I don't instantly recall everything that's been posted in every drug thread.  So if you want to remind me of a specific article we can talk if you want to play silly games, we can do that too.

My dear Watson, here are relevant quotes and hyperlinks to the aforementioned data in question:

Quote
Occasional marijuana use does not appear to have long-term adverse effects on lung function, according to new research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Researchers from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and University of California at San Francisco analyzed marijuana and tobacco use among 5,000 black and white men from the national database, CARDIA (Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study), which was intended to determine heart disease risk factors over a 20-year period.

Measuring participants' lung function for air flow and lung volume five times throughout the study period, the researchers found that cigarette smokers saw lung function worsen throughout the 20-year period, but marijuana smokers did not. Only the heaviest pot smokers (more than 20 joints per month) showed decreased lung function throughout the study.

"The more typical amounts of marijuana use among Americans are occasional or low levels," said Dr. Stefan Kertesz, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the study. "From the standpoint of being a scientist, these data suggest that low and moderate range use of marijuana do not do long-term harm."

Source:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/occasional-pot-smoking-harm-lung-function-time-study/story?id=15331989#.T9NT4K55USM




The following is from The National Cancer Institute (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4):

Quote
One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors.[3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]

Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis and metastasis.[9-11] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[12]

The effects of delta-9-THC and a synthetic agonist of the CB2 receptor were investigated in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).[13] Both agents reduced the viability of hepatocellular carcinoma cells in vitro and demonstrated antitumor effects in hepatocellular carcinoma subcutaneous xenografts in nude mice. The investigations documented that the anti-HCC effects are mediated by way of the CB2 receptor. Similar to findings in glioma cells, the cannabinoids were shown to trigger cell death through stimulation of an endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway that activates autophagy and promotes apoptosis. Other investigations have confirmed that CB1 and CB2 receptors may be potential targets in non-small cell lung carcinoma[14] and breast cancer.[15]

In an in vivo model using severe combined immunodeficient mice, subcutaneous tumors were generated by inoculating the animals with cells from human non-small cell lung carcinoma cell lines.[16] Tumor growth was inhibited by 60% in THC-treated mice compared with vehicle-treated control mice. Tumor specimens revealed that THC had antiangiogenic and antiproliferative effects. However, research with immunocompetent murine tumor models has demonstrated immunosuppression and enhanced tumor growth in mice treated with THC.[17,18]

In addition, both plant-derived and endogenous cannabinoids have been studied for anti-inflammatory effects. A mouse study demonstrated that endogenous cannabinoid system signaling is likely to provide intrinsic protection against colonic inflammation.[19] As a result, a hypothesis that phytocannabinoids and endocannabinoids may be useful in the risk reduction and treatment of colorectal cancer has been developed.[20-23]

Adams IB, Martin BR: Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction 91 (11): 1585-614, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Grotenhermen F, Russo E, eds.: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2002.

 National Toxicology Program .: NTP toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of 1-trans-delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (CAS No. 1972-08-3) in F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser 446 (): 1-317, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Bifulco M, Laezza C, Pisanti S, et al.: Cannabinoids and cancer: pros and cons of an antitumour strategy. Br J Pharmacol 148 (2): 123-35, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Sánchez C, de Ceballos ML, Gomez del Pulgar T, et al.: Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB(2) cannabinoid receptor. Cancer Res 61 (15): 5784-9, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

McKallip RJ, Lombard C, Fisher M, et al.: Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Blood 100 (2): 627-34, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Casanova ML, Blázquez C, Martínez-Palacio J, et al.: Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. J Clin Invest 111 (1): 43-50, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Blázquez C, González-Feria L, Alvarez L, et al.: Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in gliomas. Cancer Res 64 (16): 5617-23, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Guzmán M: Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents. Nat Rev Cancer 3 (10): 745-55, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Blázquez C, Casanova ML, Planas A, et al.: Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis by cannabinoids. FASEB J 17 (3): 529-31, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Vaccani A, Massi P, Colombo A, et al.: Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through a cannabinoid receptor-independent mechanism. Br J Pharmacol 144 (8): 1032-6, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Torres S, Lorente M, Rodríguez-Fornés F, et al.: A combined preclinical therapy of cannabinoids and temozolomide against glioma. Mol Cancer Ther 10 (1): 90-103, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Vara D, Salazar M, Olea-Herrero N, et al.: Anti-tumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma: role of AMPK-dependent activation of autophagy. Cell Death Differ 18 (7): 1099-111, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Preet A, Qamri Z, Nasser MW, et al.: Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non-small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 4 (1): 65-75, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Nasser MW, Qamri Z, Deol YS, et al.: Crosstalk between chemokine receptor CXCR4 and cannabinoid receptor CB2 in modulating breast cancer growth and invasion. PLoS One 6 (9): e23901, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Preet A, Ganju RK, Groopman JE: Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Oncogene 27 (3): 339-46, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Zhu LX, Sharma S, Stolina M, et al.: Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits antitumor immunity by a CB2 receptor-mediated, cytokine-dependent pathway. J Immunol 165 (1): 373-80, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]

McKallip RJ, Nagarkatti M, Nagarkatti PS: Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol enhances breast cancer growth and metastasis by suppression of the antitumor immune response. J Immunol 174 (6): 3281-9, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Massa F, Marsicano G, Hermann H, et al.: The endogenous cannabinoid system protects against colonic inflammation. J Clin Invest 113 (8): 1202-9, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Patsos HA, Hicks DJ, Greenhough A, et al.: Cannabinoids and cancer: potential for colorectal cancer therapy. Biochem Soc Trans 33 (Pt 4): 712-4, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Liu WM, Fowler DW, Dalgleish AG: Cannabis-derived substances in cancer therapy--an emerging anti-inflammatory role for the cannabinoids. Curr Clin Pharmacol 5 (4): 281-7, 2010.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Malfitano AM, Ciaglia E, Gangemi G, et al.: Update on the endocannabinoid system as an anticancer target. Expert Opin Ther Targets 15 (3): 297-308, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Sarfaraz S, Adhami VM, Syed DN, et al.: Cannabinoids for cancer treatment: progress and promise. Cancer Res 68 (2): 339-42, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Mechoulam R, Berry EM, Avraham Y, et al.: Endocannabinoids, feeding and suckling--from our perspective. Int J Obes (Lond) 30 (Suppl 1): S24-8, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Fride E, Bregman T, Kirkham TC: Endocannabinoids and food intake: newborn suckling and appetite regulation in adulthood. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 230 (4): 225-34, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Walker JM, Hohmann AG, Martin WJ, et al.: The neurobiology of cannabinoid analgesia. Life Sci 65 (6-7): 665-73, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Meng ID, Manning BH, Martin WJ, et al.: An analgesia circuit activated by cannabinoids. Nature 395 (6700): 381-3, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Walker JM, Huang SM, Strangman NM, et al.: Pain modulation by release of the endogenous cannabinoid anandamide. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96 (21): 12198-203, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Facci L, Dal Toso R, Romanello S, et al.: Mast cells express a peripheral cannabinoid receptor with differential sensitivity to anandamide and palmitoylethanolamide. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92 (8): 3376-80, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Ibrahim MM, Porreca F, Lai J, et al.: CB2 cannabinoid receptor activation produces antinociception by stimulating peripheral release of endogenous opioids. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102 (8): 3093-8, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Richardson JD, Kilo S, Hargreaves KM: Cannabinoids reduce hyperalgesia and inflammation via interaction with peripheral CB1 receptors. Pain 75 (1): 111-9, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 13, 2012, 10:04:12 pm

By the way, mapping out a debate requires a truckload of resources invested, and by that i mean, someone slaving over all the drug threads interpreting each sentence into a category of an argument, then grouping together all the pro/con sentences/paragraphs to that particular argument, and EVEN THEN you cant be sure your interpretation of any given paragraph is the ultimate word or correct.

That's in part why i suggested that people that are seriously interested in debating this topic, that havent taken part in (or read) all of the shitfests should reread them threads, thats as close as a solution one can get for the newly involved.

Maybe if those newly involved saw the background of the discussion, could possibly see the dead ends in the discussion, the latest one to me seems to be "prohibition can be good", although i think it has been adressed before.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 11:24:26 pm
I addressed both of those Net.


One talks about occassional use, and I provided a separate link that had more excerpts where they noted the findings weren't applicable to regular, habitual use.  But, it is a scientific finding which is why a scientific journal published the findings.  OH MY GOSH!


The other one is about FORCE FEEDING mice marijuana.  The mice didn't smoke the marijuana.  And I've said several times that there are likely appropriate vehicles for medical marijuana, but that the popular smoked form isn't one of them.  It is crude, introduces a chemical laden smoke to the lungs, and is highly prone to diversion.  There should be more research to study medical benefits and figure out a better way to administer the drug.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 13, 2012, 11:28:57 pm
I like how this attempt to dissect the mechanisms of debate regarding threads that always devolve into a shitshow has, itself, turned into one of those threads.

:lulz:

Christ, sometimes you guys are a steaming pack of assholes. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 11:33:47 pm
I like how this attempt to dissect the mechanisms of debate regarding threads that always devolve into a shitshow has, itself, turned into one of those threads.

:lulz:

Christ, sometimes you guys are a steaming pack of assholes. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

Well, I can say that if my asshole had vocal chords, I could probably more clearly state my position.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 13, 2012, 11:41:02 pm
I addressed both of those Net.


One talks about occassional use, and I provided a separate link that had more excerpts where they noted the findings weren't applicable to regular, habitual use.  But, it is a scientific finding which is why a scientific journal published the findings.  OH MY GOSH!


The other one is about FORCE FEEDING mice marijuana.  The mice didn't smoke the marijuana.  And I've said several times that there are likely appropriate vehicles for medical marijuana, but that the popular smoked form isn't one of them.  It is crude, introduces a chemical laden smoke to the lungs, and is highly prone to diversion.  There should be more research to study medical benefits and figure out a better way to administer the drug.

The first talks about typical use which is applicable to prohibition as it is TYPICAL of how the drug is used. What you're talking about is abuse and not only is atypical, but is less prevalent.

You asked to see these articles in order to comment on why an organizations would publish articles favorable to typical marijuana use. I'm not surprised to see that you resorted to the same sort of distorting rhetoric that you've been blasted for in the recent past. So you don't dispute the scientific validity of any of the studies above?

The second article involves MANY MANY more studies than ones involving force feeding mice marijuana. Did you just happen to miss the list of studies that support the National Cancer Institute's position? Or did you stop reading after the mouse part?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 11:47:00 pm
So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 13, 2012, 11:56:57 pm
So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana. 

You asked me to present you the studies, you tell me, Watson.

Not that smoked marijuana has much relevance to it's medicinal use, but have at it.

:)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 13, 2012, 11:57:51 pm
I like how this attempt to dissect the mechanisms of debate regarding threads that always devolve into a shitshow has, itself, turned into one of those threads.

:lulz:

Christ, sometimes you guys are a steaming pack of assholes. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

:lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 13, 2012, 11:59:32 pm
So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana. 

You asked me to present you the studies, you tell me, Watson.

Not that smoked marijuana has much relevance to it's medicinal use, but have at it.

 :)


You don't know.  Just as I thought.  But there is already a drug thread for discussing drugs, so if you find out the answer to my question, feel free to post it there. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 14, 2012, 12:00:33 am
So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana. 

You asked me to present you the studies, you tell me, Watson.

Not that smoked marijuana has much relevance to it's medicinal use, but have at it.

 :)


You don't know.  Just as I thought.  But there is already a drug thread for discussing drugs, so if you find out the answer to my question, feel free to post it there. 

You do your own homework, Watson.

:)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Lenin McCarthy on June 14, 2012, 12:18:56 am
I don't think you're that bad actually, PD. The internal discussions of the political party youth wing I'm a member of are like PD drug/libertarianism threads, AND the discussion topics are things like male circumcision.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 14, 2012, 02:19:02 am
So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana.

You should be able to answer his initial question in regards to why they would publish the studies he linked... Net's initial question was not regarding smoked marijuana. You are irrelevantly narrowing the criteria.

Net, you made the claim that they have published studies/articles on all three kinds of pro-marijuananess. You are under the burden of proof for that claim.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 14, 2012, 02:23:19 am
I don't think you're that bad actually, PD. The internal discussions of the political party youth wing I'm a member of are like PD drug/libertarianism threads, AND the discussion topics are things like male circumcision.

And I would bet money that one has NOTHING on the pregnancy newsgroup. I've never seen such viciousness in my life!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 14, 2012, 02:29:33 am
So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana.

You should be able to answer his initial question in regards to why they would publish the studies he linked... Net's initial question was not regarding smoked marijuana. You are irrelevantly narrowing the criteria.


I was addressing the supposition that I ignored these studies when they were first posted.  I anwered Net's question already.  Scientific research tends to be published in scientific journals, however, the point I was making was that these studies aren't making the case for smoked, medical marijuana.  I've not denied that research has shown promising prospects But what I have argued is that research should be allowed to continue to develop a better administration vehicle that is less prone to diversion and abuse.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 14, 2012, 02:32:13 am

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,26546.0.html (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,26546.0.html)

SUIT YOURSEEEELVESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 14, 2012, 04:04:29 am
ASS


HOLES
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 14, 2012, 04:55:39 am
ASS


HOLES

(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/912/assholes.jpg)

(Disclaimer; You guys aren't the Assholes - you're looking down into the Assholes....so to speak. as per the movie)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: LMNO on June 14, 2012, 05:00:26 am
That... is AWESOME.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 14, 2012, 05:11:39 am
ASS


HOLES

(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/912/assholes.jpg)

(Disclaimer; You guys aren't the Assholes - you're looking down into the Assholes....so to speak. as per the movie)

 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Epic.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 14, 2012, 05:46:03 am
I think that's my favorite shoop ever. :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 14, 2012, 06:56:22 am
ASS


HOLES

(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/912/assholes.jpg)

(Disclaimer; You guys aren't the Assholes - you're looking down into the Assholes....so to speak. as per the movie)

This is brilliant.  :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 14, 2012, 09:39:28 am
So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana.

You should be able to answer his initial question in regards to why they would publish the studies he linked... Net's initial question was not regarding smoked marijuana. You are irrelevantly narrowing the criteria.

Net, you made the claim that they have published studies/articles on all three kinds of pro-marijuananess. You are under the burden of proof for that claim.

Do you see how he tries to change the subject and weasel out of the original question? It's like RWHN wants me to hold his hand, read him each study, and explain what all the big words mean.

I provided him the evidence, the ball is in his court. I'm not doing his homework for him. It clearly has medicinal value, according to the National Cancer Institute, and typical use of marijuana in it's smoked form does no damage to people's lungs.

This is where he runs off to suck NIDA's dick and gargles the FDA's balls.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 14, 2012, 10:20:12 am
So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana.

You should be able to answer his initial question in regards to why they would publish the studies he linked... Net's initial question was not regarding smoked marijuana. You are irrelevantly narrowing the criteria.

Net, you made the claim that they have published studies/articles on all three kinds of pro-marijuananess. You are under the burden of proof for that claim.

Do you see how he tries to change the subject and weasel out of the original question? It's like RWHN wants me to hold his hand, read him each study, and explain what all the big words mean.

I provided him the evidence, the ball is in his court. I'm not doing his homework for him. It clearly has medicinal value, according to the National Cancer Institute, and typical use of marijuana in it's smoked form does no damage to people's lungs.

This is where he runs off to suck NIDA's dick and gargles the FDA's balls.

But Net, what guarantee do you have that it wont be overused and abused every single time, leading to everyone dying of lung cancer?  :fnord:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 14, 2012, 10:21:02 am
But as Epi eludes to, the two articles you posted aren't saying what you said they were going to say.  I don't blame you to try to obfuscate and distract through ad hominems.  But next time you should have a cleare understanding of the science you are providing so you don't accidentally provide a false bill of goods.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 14, 2012, 10:50:27 am
But as Epi eludes to, the two articles you posted aren't saying what you said they were going to say.  I don't blame you to try to obfuscate and distract through ad hominems.  But next time you should have a cleare understanding of the science you are providing so you don't accidentally provide a false bill of goods.

How false this bill of goods is, oh my:

Quote
Measuring participants' lung function for air flow and lung volume five times throughout the study period, the researchers found that cigarette smokers saw lung function worsen throughout the 20-year period, but marijuana smokers did not. Only the heaviest pot smokers (more than 20 joints per month) showed decreased lung function throughout the study.

"The more typical amounts of marijuana use among Americans are occasional or low levels," said Dr. Stefan Kertesz, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the study. "From the standpoint of being a scientist, these data suggest that low and moderate range use of marijuana do not do long-term harm."

Quote
Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[12]
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 14, 2012, 10:54:40 am
So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana.

You should be able to answer his initial question in regards to why they would publish the studies he linked... Net's initial question was not regarding smoked marijuana. You are irrelevantly narrowing the criteria.

Net, you made the claim that they have published studies/articles on all three kinds of pro-marijuananess. You are under the burden of proof for that claim.

Do you see how he tries to change the subject and weasel out of the original question? It's like RWHN wants me to hold his hand, read him each study, and explain what all the big words mean.

I provided him the evidence, the ball is in his court. I'm not doing his homework for him. It clearly has medicinal value, according to the National Cancer Institute, and typical use of marijuana in it's smoked form does no damage to people's lungs.

This is where he runs off to suck NIDA's dick and gargles the FDA's balls.

But Net, what guarantee do you have that it wont be overused and abused every single time, leading to everyone dying of lung cancer?  :fnord:

I FORGOT ABOUT TEH CHILDRENS!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on June 14, 2012, 10:56:47 am
If I were to start a thread about why I think threads discussing the recurrence of other threads always devolve into "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging matches, how long do you think it would take until that thread devolved into a "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging match?

How about if I started a thread about how threads discussing the threads which discuss the recurrence of other threads?

I'm interested to see how far down this rabbit hole goes  :rbtg:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 14, 2012, 11:01:53 am
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 14, 2012, 11:03:02 am
If I were to start a thread about why I think threads discussing the recurrence of other threads always devolve into "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging matches, how long do you think it would take until that thread devolved into a "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging match?

How about if I started a thread about how threads discussing the threads which discuss the recurrence of other threads?

I'm interested to see how far down this rabbit hole goes  :rbtg:

It would be meta-licious at least.

Although it seems that the growth rate of drug discussion has died down, is it because everyone is tired of arguing, or because they see the general pointlessness?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 14, 2012, 11:29:26 am

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?


I see nothing in what you posted about smoked medical marijuana.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on June 14, 2012, 12:45:25 pm
If I were to start a thread about why I think threads discussing the recurrence of other threads always devolve into "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging matches, how long do you think it would take until that thread devolved into a "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging match?

How about if I started a thread about how threads discussing the threads which discuss the recurrence of other threads?

I'm interested to see how far down this rabbit hole goes  :rbtg:

It would be meta-licious at least.

Although it seems that the growth rate of drug discussion has died down, is it because everyone is tired of arguing, or because they see the general pointlessness?

Your optimism is impressive to the point of being truly inspirational  :eek:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 14, 2012, 01:13:10 pm

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?


I see nothing in what you posted about smoked medical marijuana.

I see nothing in what you posted about why the National Cancer Institute and the Journal of the American Medical Association would publish articles in favor of medical marijuana and typical use of marijuana. Your game rules for what constitutes reasonable debate are a mishmash of fallacy, double-standards, and dodging questions.

Smoked medical marijuana has been studied as well, and the research damns your position:

Quote
The classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug as well as the continuing controversy as to whether or not cannabis is of medical value [59] are obstacles to medical progress in this area. Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking. It is true cannabis has some abuse potential, but its profile more closely resembles drugs in Schedule III (where codeine and dronabinol are listed). The continuing conflict between scientific evidence and political ideology will hopefully be reconciled in a judicious manner [60, 61].

Quote
Smoking cannabis provides rapid and efficient delivery of THC to brain. THC can be detected immediately in plasma after the first puff of a cigarette; peak concentrations occur within 10 minutes, then decrease to approximately 60% of peak by 15 minutes and 20% of peak by 30 minutes, but there can be wide inter-individual variation in concentrations achieved [3]. Rapid onset and predictable decay means that self-titration of dosing is attainable.

Chronic Pain

A series of randomized clinical trials at the University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) investigated the short-term efficacy of smoked cannabis for neuropathic pain. Sponsored by the State of California Medical Marijuana Research Act of 1999, and conducted under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Food and Drug Administration, this research allocated participants to smoke cannabis cigarettes containing from 1% to 8% THC by weight (4 to 32 mg THC) or to placebo cannabis cigarettes from which THC had been extracted. The total daily dose of THC ranged from 4 mg to 128 mg. Two trials enrolled patients with painful HIV peripheral neuropathy [4, 5]; one consisted of mixed neuropathic pain due to peripheral or central dysfunction of the nervous system (i.e., complex regional pain syndrome, peripheral neuropathy, and traumatic focal nerve or spinal cord injury) [6]. Patients were allowed to continue their usual regimen of analgesics. Results consistently indicated that cannabis significantly reduced pain intensity, with patients reporting 34%-40% decrease on cannabis compared to 17-20% on placebo. Moreover a significantly greater proportion of individuals reported at least 30% reduction in pain on cannabis (46%-52%) compared to placebo (18%-24%) [4-6], which is relevant since 30% decrease in pain intensity is generally associated with reports of improved life quality [7]. The number needed-to-treat to achieve a 30% reduction in pain intensity was 3.5-4.5, a range achieved by standard non-opioid analgesics (i.e., noradrenergic antidepressants and anticonvulsants). Interestingly “medium” dose cannabis cigarettes (3.5% THC) were as effective as higher dose (7% THC) [6]. In this same vein, a fourth trial employing an experimental model of neuropathic pain (intradermal injection of capsaicin) in healthy volunteers suggested that there may be a “therapeutic window” or optimal dose for smoked cannabis: low dose cigarettes (2% THC) had no analgesic effect, high dose (8%) was associated with reports of significant pain increase, and medium dose cannabis cigarettes (4% THC) provided significant analgesia [8]. Separately, another recent placebo-controlled, cross-over study of neuropathic pain due to surgery or injury examined the effect of 25 mg doses of smoked cannabis at various potencies (2.5%, 6%, and 9.4% THC by weight), administered three times daily for 14 days [9]. Results suggested that although lower potency dosing was ineffective, 9.4% THC produced modest but significant analgesic effects compared to placebo, in a sample selected for failure to respond to conventional therapy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358713/?tool=pubmed
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: trippinprincezz13 on June 14, 2012, 05:15:33 pm
It isn't the solution.  I've said this repeatedly but you guys are too busy getting your hate on to pay attention.  The actual community-based prevention strategies and efforts are the solution.  But legalization significantly alters the environment and would neutralize and overcome those efforts.

Why? Alcohol is legal for adult (21+) consumption. Illegal for children to consume but they are known to do so and abuse alcohol anyway. From what I've seen there are tons of prevention campaigns against underage drinking, counseling programs for kids with a substance abuse problem.

So how would having these same sorts of programs and sanctions, etc. in place allowing adults to consume it if they wish while still trying to address the problems with children and teenagers abusing alcohol or drugs, RUIN THINGS FOREVER?

Also, without a bunch of money going to the prosecution of drug users, maybe some of it can be diverted back to useful prevention and education programs.

(Since apparently this thread's about drugs now too and I haven't finished reading the last three pages)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 05:20:13 pm
"I'm not a prohibitionist, but I don't think it should be legalized."

Or words to that effect.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 14, 2012, 06:05:08 pm
I'm fully in favor of prohibition.

Prohibition of these ridiculous and rapidly metastasizing discussion about drugs, that is.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 14, 2012, 06:07:52 pm
If I were to start a thread about why I think threads discussing the recurrence of other threads always devolve into "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging matches, how long do you think it would take until that thread devolved into a "drugs are/aren't badwrong" shit-flinging match?

How about if I started a thread about how threads discussing the threads which discuss the recurrence of other threads?

I'm interested to see how far down this rabbit hole goes these turtles go.  :rbtg:

It'll keep going as long as RWHN continues to make a complete ass out of himself, I guess.  :lol:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 06:08:52 pm
I'm fully in favor of prohibition.

Prohibition of these ridiculous and rapidly metastasizing discussion about drugs, that is.

I was thinking of wadding them all up into one thread, but it occurred to me that is something Malaul would do.

We're just going to have to suffer through it, I think.  And I can't put all the blame on RWHN.  He DID bring the subject up in reference to locker searches, but EVERYONE AND THEIR DAMN GRANDMOTHER looks at NOTHING BUT this trainwreck.

So whattaya gonna do?  This isn't communist America, we can't TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO SAY or argue about.  Well, yes it IS communist America, I guess, but not everyone here is from America.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 06:11:46 pm
In fact, this entire conversation, in all affected threads, is just further proof that we are monkeys just like all the humans are.  We ALL KNOW that this conversation, like a few others, will change nobody's mind, and just get everyone all butthurt, castrate the rest of the board, and create an enormous amount of ill-will that will probably never go away.

But what happens when the SHINY, SHINY subject is brought up?  We're all over it like a test monkey on a heap o' cocaine.  Because we're DUMB.  We don't LEARN.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Freeky on June 14, 2012, 06:17:21 pm
This thread is fucking dildoes.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Freeky on June 14, 2012, 06:18:47 pm
In fact, this entire conversation, in all affected threads, is just further proof that we are monkeys just like all the humans are.  We ALL KNOW that this conversation, like a few others, will change nobody's mind, and just get everyone all butthurt, castrate the rest of the board, and create an enormous amount of ill-will that will probably never go away.

But what happens when the SHINY, SHINY subject is brought up?  We're all over it like a test monkey on a heap o' cocaine.  Because we're DUMB.  We don't LEARN.

This also.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Epimetheus on June 14, 2012, 06:20:17 pm
Well, I don't get into arguments to change the other person's mind. It's more for the possibility that I might change mine - see their side, so to speak.

but yeah. We are monkeys. And boy am I proud.
:monkeydance:

And Roger what do you think of being played by Shia LaBeouf? (pg 12) :lol:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 06:21:41 pm
Well, I don't get into arguments to change the other person's mind. It's more for the possibility that I might change mine - see their side, so to speak.

but yeah. We are monkeys. And boy am I proud.
:monkeydance:

And Roger what do you think of being played by Shia LaBeouf? (pg 12) :lol:
I have no idea, because I can't see it at my work computer, and I'm ALWAYS AT WORK NOW.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 14, 2012, 06:23:49 pm
"I'm not a prohibitionist, but I don't think it should be legalized."

Or words to that effect.

I believe that kind of phrasing is usually referred to as "weasel words".
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 14, 2012, 06:53:49 pm
I'm fully in favor of prohibition.

Prohibition of these ridiculous and rapidly metastasizing discussion about drugs, that is.

I was thinking of wadding them all up into one thread, but it occurred to me that is something Malaul would do.

We're just going to have to suffer through it, I think.  And I can't put all the blame on RWHN.  He DID bring the subject up in reference to locker searches, but EVERYONE AND THEIR DAMN GRANDMOTHER looks at NOTHING BUT this trainwreck.

So whattaya gonna do?  This isn't communist America, we can't TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO SAY or argue about.  Well, yes it IS communist America, I guess, but not everyone here is from America.


It was already embedded in the topic.  That's why they were doing the locker searches, and I was trying to keep it in the sphere of school responsibility for student safety.  But, I think others decided they wanted to have the same drug fight again.  I obliged, of course, but you can't blame me for diverting the topic away from school safety into another endless drug debate.  Well, you could blame me, but you would be wrong.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 14, 2012, 06:57:26 pm
I'm fully in favor of prohibition.

Prohibition of these ridiculous and rapidly metastasizing discussion about drugs, that is.

I was thinking of wadding them all up into one thread, but it occurred to me that is something Malaul would do.

We're just going to have to suffer through it, I think.  And I can't put all the blame on RWHN.  He DID bring the subject up in reference to locker searches, but EVERYONE AND THEIR DAMN GRANDMOTHER looks at NOTHING BUT this trainwreck.

So whattaya gonna do?  This isn't communist America, we can't TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO SAY or argue about.  Well, yes it IS communist America, I guess, but not everyone here is from America.


It was already embedded in the topic.  That's why they were doing the locker searches, and I was trying to keep it in the sphere of school responsibility for student safety.  But, I think others decided they wanted to have the same drug fight again.  I obliged, of course, but you can't blame me for diverting the topic away from school safety into another endless drug debate.  Well, you could blame me, but you would be wrong.

Your definition of "school safety" basically amounts to CALL THE COPS SEARCH THE LOCKERS THEY MIGHT HAVE DRRRRRUUUUUUUGGGGGZZZZZ.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 06:58:45 pm
I'm fully in favor of prohibition.

Prohibition of these ridiculous and rapidly metastasizing discussion about drugs, that is.

I was thinking of wadding them all up into one thread, but it occurred to me that is something Malaul would do.

We're just going to have to suffer through it, I think.  And I can't put all the blame on RWHN.  He DID bring the subject up in reference to locker searches, but EVERYONE AND THEIR DAMN GRANDMOTHER looks at NOTHING BUT this trainwreck.

So whattaya gonna do?  This isn't communist America, we can't TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO SAY or argue about.  Well, yes it IS communist America, I guess, but not everyone here is from America.


It was already embedded in the topic.  That's why they were doing the locker searches, and I was trying to keep it in the sphere of school responsibility for student safety.  But, I think others decided they wanted to have the same drug fight again.  I obliged, of course, but you can't blame me for diverting the topic away from school safety into another endless drug debate.  Well, you could blame me, but you would be wrong.

I blame everyone equally, including myself.  We all stood around with that giddy look you get on your face just before you stick your dick in the garbage disposal, and then in we went.

And, predictably, it's spread to and demolished about a half-dozen threads.  Because WE DON'T LEARN.  I predict we'll be arguing about Magick or Libertarianism or IP or all of the above before August, because we're fucking stupid that way.

So much for homo sapiens.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 14, 2012, 07:01:30 pm
It isn't the solution.  I've said this repeatedly but you guys are too busy getting your hate on to pay attention.  The actual community-based prevention strategies and efforts are the solution.  But legalization significantly alters the environment and would neutralize and overcome those efforts.

Why? Alcohol is legal for adult (21+) consumption. Illegal for children to consume but they are known to do so and abuse alcohol anyway. From what I've seen there are tons of prevention campaigns against underage drinking, counseling programs for kids with a substance abuse problem.

So how would having these same sorts of programs and sanctions, etc. in place allowing adults to consume it if they wish while still trying to address the problems with children and teenagers abusing alcohol or drugs, RUIN THINGS FOREVER?

Also, without a bunch of money going to the prosecution of drug users, maybe some of it can be diverted back to useful prevention and education programs.

(Since apparently this thread's about drugs now too and I haven't finished reading the last three pages)


Legalizing drugs would make them more available and increase access.  Yes, I know some drugs are already easy to get, but this would make them measurably MORE easy to get.  That impacts usage rates causing them to go up.  Maybe, you could get them back down with prevention programs but funding for prevention is woefully inadequate as it is.  And I have no faith in state governments to reroute any potential savings in enforcement to prevention.  As it is my governor is cutting prevention funding that comes from tobacco settlement money and not taxes.


So I'm really not taking some significant risks and relying on maybes.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 14, 2012, 07:06:34 pm
I'm fully in favor of prohibition.

Prohibition of these ridiculous and rapidly metastasizing discussion about drugs, that is.

I was thinking of wadding them all up into one thread, but it occurred to me that is something Malaul would do.

We're just going to have to suffer through it, I think.  And I can't put all the blame on RWHN.  He DID bring the subject up in reference to locker searches, but EVERYONE AND THEIR DAMN GRANDMOTHER looks at NOTHING BUT this trainwreck.

So whattaya gonna do?  This isn't communist America, we can't TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO SAY or argue about.  Well, yes it IS communist America, I guess, but not everyone here is from America.


It was already embedded in the topic.  That's why they were doing the locker searches, and I was trying to keep it in the sphere of school responsibility for student safety.  But, I think others decided they wanted to have the same drug fight again.  I obliged, of course, but you can't blame me for diverting the topic away from school safety into another endless drug debate.  Well, you could blame me, but you would be wrong.

I blame everyone equally, including myself.  We all stood around with that giddy look you get on your face just before you stick your dick in the garbage disposal, and then in we went.

And, predictably, it's spread to and demolished about a half-dozen threads.  Because WE DON'T LEARN.  I predict we'll be arguing about Magick or Libertarianism or IP or all of the above before August, because we're fucking stupid that way.

So much for homo sapiens.


I just wish, at least, people could not take it so personally that I have a different opinion.  I don't care about the insults, calling me a "bad person", etc.  It doesn't bother me personally.  It bothered me the first couple of go-arounds on this topic but I've learned to brush it off.


BUT, at least the quality of the debate, if we are going to have it, could be a little higher.


Just my two cents for whatever it is worth.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 14, 2012, 07:08:23 pm
It isn't the solution.  I've said this repeatedly but you guys are too busy getting your hate on to pay attention.  The actual community-based prevention strategies and efforts are the solution.  But legalization significantly alters the environment and would neutralize and overcome those efforts.

Why? Alcohol is legal for adult (21+) consumption. Illegal for children to consume but they are known to do so and abuse alcohol anyway. From what I've seen there are tons of prevention campaigns against underage drinking, counseling programs for kids with a substance abuse problem.

So how would having these same sorts of programs and sanctions, etc. in place allowing adults to consume it if they wish while still trying to address the problems with children and teenagers abusing alcohol or drugs, RUIN THINGS FOREVER?

Also, without a bunch of money going to the prosecution of drug users, maybe some of it can be diverted back to useful prevention and education programs.

(Since apparently this thread's about drugs now too and I haven't finished reading the last three pages)


Legalizing drugs would make them more available and increase access.  Yes, I know some drugs are already easy to get, but this would make them measurably MORE easy to get.  That impacts usage rates causing them to go up.  Maybe, you could get them back down with prevention programs but funding for prevention is woefully inadequate as it is.  And I have no faith in state governments to reroute any potential savings in enforcement to prevention.  As it is my governor is cutting prevention funding that comes from tobacco settlement money and not taxes.


So I'm really not taking some significant risks and relying on maybes.

You seem to think everybody forgot that's been refuted already.

YUO ON CRACK?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 07:11:13 pm
I'm fully in favor of prohibition.

Prohibition of these ridiculous and rapidly metastasizing discussion about drugs, that is.

I was thinking of wadding them all up into one thread, but it occurred to me that is something Malaul would do.

We're just going to have to suffer through it, I think.  And I can't put all the blame on RWHN.  He DID bring the subject up in reference to locker searches, but EVERYONE AND THEIR DAMN GRANDMOTHER looks at NOTHING BUT this trainwreck.

So whattaya gonna do?  This isn't communist America, we can't TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO SAY or argue about.  Well, yes it IS communist America, I guess, but not everyone here is from America.


It was already embedded in the topic.  That's why they were doing the locker searches, and I was trying to keep it in the sphere of school responsibility for student safety.  But, I think others decided they wanted to have the same drug fight again.  I obliged, of course, but you can't blame me for diverting the topic away from school safety into another endless drug debate.  Well, you could blame me, but you would be wrong.

I blame everyone equally, including myself.  We all stood around with that giddy look you get on your face just before you stick your dick in the garbage disposal, and then in we went.

And, predictably, it's spread to and demolished about a half-dozen threads.  Because WE DON'T LEARN.  I predict we'll be arguing about Magick or Libertarianism or IP or all of the above before August, because we're fucking stupid that way.

So much for homo sapiens.


I just wish, at least, people could not take it so personally that I have a different opinion.  I don't care about the insults, calling me a "bad person", etc.  It doesn't bother me personally.  It bothered me the first couple of go-arounds on this topic but I've learned to brush it off.


BUT, at least the quality of the debate, if we are going to have it, could be a little higher.


Just my two cents for whatever it is worth.

Could have fooled me.  You've been just as pissed off as me or anyone else.

Fact is, I really don't care what your opinion is, outside of debate.  But the impression I get is that you've put a "uniform" on, that you've allowed what you DO to become who you ARE.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 14, 2012, 07:16:46 pm
You are mistaking satire for anger.


I wear lots of uniforms.  One is a father, one is a husband, one is a musician, one is a poet, one is a scientist, and yes, one is a grassroots community organizer/preventionist.  My job is very important to me, as are my goals to reduce substance abuse and make my community a healthy place for children to live and grow.  BUT, I am not solely defined by it.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2012, 07:17:53 pm
You are mistaking satire for anger.

If you say so.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 14, 2012, 07:22:54 pm
Everything RWHN posts reads like satire to me, but I imagine that's Poe's Law.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Freeky on June 14, 2012, 07:30:11 pm
This threads ams dildoes.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 14, 2012, 07:31:07 pm
You are mistaking satire for anger.


I wear lots of uniforms.  One is a father, one is a husband, one is a musician, one is a poet, one is a scientist, and yes, one is a grassroots community organizer/preventionist.  My job is very important to me, as are my goals to reduce substance abuse and make my community a healthy place for children to live and grow.  BUT, I am not solely defined by it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6svEdDPCJIg
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 14, 2012, 09:00:30 pm
It isn't the solution.  I've said this repeatedly but you guys are too busy getting your hate on to pay attention.  The actual community-based prevention strategies and efforts are the solution.  But legalization significantly alters the environment and would neutralize and overcome those efforts.

Why? Alcohol is legal for adult (21+) consumption. Illegal for children to consume but they are known to do so and abuse alcohol anyway. From what I've seen there are tons of prevention campaigns against underage drinking, counseling programs for kids with a substance abuse problem.

So how would having these same sorts of programs and sanctions, etc. in place allowing adults to consume it if they wish while still trying to address the problems with children and teenagers abusing alcohol or drugs, RUIN THINGS FOREVER?

Also, without a bunch of money going to the prosecution of drug users, maybe some of it can be diverted back to useful prevention and education programs.

(Since apparently this thread's about drugs now too and I haven't finished reading the last three pages)


Legalizing drugs would make them more available and increase access.  Yes, I know some drugs are already easy to get, but this would make them measurably MORE easy to get.  That impacts usage rates causing them to go up.  Maybe, you could get them back down with prevention programs but funding for prevention is woefully inadequate as it is.  And I have no faith in state governments to reroute any potential savings in enforcement to prevention.  As it is my governor is cutting prevention funding that comes from tobacco settlement money and not taxes.


So I'm really not taking some significant risks and relying on maybes.

You know, if you would just SHUT UP and stop trotting out the same old crap anytime someone weighs in on this, all of this shit might go away. I know it's not your responsibility, but it would definitely earn you a gold star.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 14, 2012, 09:01:43 pm
That goes double for the rest of you. You know where this is going, it's been there a half-dozen times already, so...


STOP MAKING ARGUMENTS THAT NOBODY IS LISTENING TO AND JUST SHUT UP.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 14, 2012, 09:08:27 pm
Just trying to not be rude and ignore questions, but, I'll be a team player.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 14, 2012, 09:24:08 pm
Im not going to wade through the rest of this before making an offer. Since i work for a cancer study AND in some of our studies track illicit drug use AND those include specific drugs, separating out recreational marijuana use i can attempt to see if weve done any studies linking smoking weed and cancer rather than force feeding it to mice. focusing on my study will help me narrow it down. the caveat being that the studies in question may not have been going on long enough to be helpful (i think weve only been tracking it in my generation). If you guys wish. When i have the time. Ill start up a separate thread providing it only includes epidemiology and not drug policy.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 14, 2012, 09:46:14 pm
In the interest of being scientific i will include articles that indicate the following:
benefit
no benefit
detriment
no detriment

since those four are all different things with some overlap. I will also include other intoxicants both legal and illegal (as will all of you). Again were talking science here. Any spaggotry involving policy or crime rates will be split off into a cant follow the rules thread even if im the one doing it. Sound like a plan? Is this something people would be interested in?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on June 14, 2012, 10:42:31 pm
In fact, this entire conversation, in all affected threads, is just further proof that we are monkeys just like all the humans are.  We ALL KNOW that this conversation, like a few others, will change nobody's mind, and just get everyone all butthurt, castrate the rest of the board, and create an enormous amount of ill-will that will probably never go away.

But what happens when the SHINY, SHINY subject is brought up?  We're all over it like a test monkey on a heap o' cocaine.  Because we're DUMB.  We don't LEARN.

Theory:

so this board is full of bald monkeys, that's a given but it's my opinion that the ones who frequent this place are a bit more intelligent than most of the ones I pass by in the street. We enjoy intellectual pursuits, like debating things. It's stimulating on a whole bunch of levels, you sharpen your intellect, you're forced to examine structures in your head that's in danger of becoming beliefs, you can learn shit...

Surely the best challenge is the debate that's hardest to win? Hence the old faithfuls. Problem is, we're bald monkeys and there comes a point where that takes over. Banging your head against a brick wall is a good workout but it does make you kinda punchy if you do it for too long and, when that happens, it's like watching a food fight at a retard convention. Kinda amusing but kinda depressing at the same time.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 12:30:12 am
Crickets.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 01:34:00 am
Im not going to wade through the rest of this before making an offer. Since i work for a cancer study AND in some of our studies track illicit drug use AND those include specific drugs, separating out recreational marijuana use i can attempt to see if weve done any studies linking smoking weed and cancer rather than force feeding it to mice. focusing on my study will help me narrow it down. the caveat being that the studies in question may not have been going on long enough to be helpful (i think weve only been tracking it in my generation). If you guys wish. When i have the time. Ill start up a separate thread providing it only includes epidemiology and not drug policy.


How are you defining "epidemiology" for the purposes of this thread you are proposing?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 01:36:36 am
Causes spreading and distribution of disease. Risk factors. That sort of thing.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 01:42:54 am
Okay, just trying to see what the breadth would be.  Sounds like an interesting topic to me, though, I'm biased for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 01:48:12 am
Well im having a rather frustrating time stuck at north station trying to get reception. But really any science as long as it describes any health benefits or disease risk factors and only medical science. No policy. No crime stats. Just how drugs effect the body and mind.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 01:49:07 am
And aparently night fell while i was underground...
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 01:51:12 am
Ok cool. If you come across prodrug studies post them since ill post con as well. Im not taking sides just presenting and evaluating data.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 15, 2012, 01:57:30 am
Ok cool. If you come across prodrug studies post them since ill post con as well. Im not taking sides just presenting and evaluating data.

Quoted for posterity. Twid and RWHN both are expected to post both pro and con.

Of course we know how this is going to progress. ZOMG&DRUGZ&DRUGZ&DRUGZ!!!1!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 01:59:08 am
No. Like i said theres a standing request to vacuum out policy debate on sight.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 02:19:17 am
No. Like i said theres a standing request to vacuum out policy debate on sight.


I'm game as long as we also screen out the below-board commentary from the gallery.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 02:22:20 am
No. Like i said theres a standing request to vacuum out policy debate on sight.


I'm game as long as we also screen out the below-board commentary from the gallery.

Of course. We're talking about the science. We're debating the science. No room for ad hominem. We're pretending that we're scientists in this proposed thread. Perhaps if we pretend we're reviewers and it hasn't been approved for publication yet. Also, any published follow up commentary on these articles are welcome and relevant.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2012, 02:25:48 am
I am curious about how this pans out, as when Rat and I attempted this approach three years ago WHN resorted to personal attacks and impugning my friend's credentials.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 02:29:52 am
I am curious about how this pans out, as when Rat and I attempted this approach three years ago WHN resorted to personal attacks and impugning my friend's credentials.

No one is exempt. Not even me. If I go, "Rev, you're a retard," then that should also be vacuumed out, indescriminately, by the first mod that sees it. Personal attacks can be continued in the split thread if desired.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 02:34:41 am
Like I said, given the game rules you've laid out, I'm game if you are Twid. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 15, 2012, 02:45:36 am

50 pages?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 02:48:44 am
Any other questions or concerns to be addressed before we get to it? Because I'll start the opening post tonight even if I don't have any articles ready right away.

I do have one possible concern. This should obviously go into Techmology and Scientism, but since a majority of the articles I'm aiming to look through will be close to home (again, do to relative ease of access and being familiar with the data so I can actually discuss to some degree the collection methods), it might make two things real fucking easy:

a) people could narrow down what building I work in and who some pretty important people who know me personally.
b) could allow someone from work to find me here, aside from my supervisor who already knows I'm here, with a simple google search regarding the studies.

Now, I have no problem with people who have been here for a while knowing who I work for, hell, Nigel already knows, and even has my work email. But for a casual noob or someone who wants to be problematic...

So, would it be permissible to the mods to use OMF for this, and also to break the links with hxxp?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 02:49:46 am

50 pages?

If you mean the proposed thread, that would be great if it was a purely scientific no drama thread. What's wrong with that?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 02:59:11 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 02:59:16 am
Any other questions or concerns to be addressed before we get to it? Because I'll start the opening post tonight even if I don't have any articles ready right away.

I do have one possible concern. This should obviously go into Techmology and Scientism, but since a majority of the articles I'm aiming to look through will be close to home (again, do to relative ease of access and being familiar with the data so I can actually discuss to some degree the collection methods), it might make two things real fucking easy:

a) people could narrow down what building I work in and who some pretty important people who know me personally.
b) could allow someone from work to find me here, aside from my supervisor who already knows I'm here, with a simple google search regarding the studies.

Now, I have no problem with people who have been here for a while knowing who I work for, hell, Nigel already knows, and even has my work email. But for a casual noob or someone who wants to be problematic...

So, would it be permissible to the mods to use OMF for this, and also to break the links with hxxp?


Well, be careful.  I know there are certain things I won't post or share for the very concerns you lay out. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 03:04:42 am
Any other questions or concerns to be addressed before we get to it? Because I'll start the opening post tonight even if I don't have any articles ready right away.

I do have one possible concern. This should obviously go into Techmology and Scientism, but since a majority of the articles I'm aiming to look through will be close to home (again, do to relative ease of access and being familiar with the data so I can actually discuss to some degree the collection methods), it might make two things real fucking easy:

a) people could narrow down what building I work in and who some pretty important people who know me personally.
b) could allow someone from work to find me here, aside from my supervisor who already knows I'm here, with a simple google search regarding the studies.

Now, I have no problem with people who have been here for a while knowing who I work for, hell, Nigel already knows, and even has my work email. But for a casual noob or someone who wants to be problematic...

So, would it be permissible to the mods to use OMF for this, and also to break the links with hxxp?


Well, be careful.  I know there are certain things I won't post or share for the very concerns you lay out.

I could try and vary it up with studies from other Boston based universities, since we have a gazillion of them, but I think it would become obvious if I start speaking in depth about a particular article or groups of articles. I wouldn't want to have to limit myself in discussing something because it would betray knowing too much about a particular study.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 03:22:55 am
Considering I was half in the bag and drunk on crazed spaggotry when we sacked TSC, I can't remember if it's possible, but is it possible to set a specific thread to be viewable only to... say Outlandish? Probably not, but worth asking.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2012, 03:28:16 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2012, 03:32:22 am
Gotta say that from what I know of Twid, the research he's working on, and the people he's working with...

1. Man I have some hard, hardcore nerd envy and

2. He is not talking lightweight research here. This is the real deal. And some. And a half again of that.

Big respect on the full-on ups.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 03:36:23 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 03:39:01 am
Gotta say that from what I know of Twid, the research he's working on, and the people he's working with...

1. Man I have some hard, hardcore nerd envy and

2. He is not talking lightweight research here. This is the real deal. And some. And a half again of that.

Big respect on the full-on ups.

I'm a regular grunt at this stage, but I was working for (on the same floor as now) one of the most important scientists in his field, and one of his most promising former students. The funny thing was, I had no clue about the two of them until I already got the job. Then I thought, "oh shit...."
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 03:51:44 am
RWHN, if you are curious about what Nigel and I are talking about, I'm ok with you knowing, so if you want to know, I'll PM you.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 03:53:27 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Also, I'm on the flexible part-time schedule.

Is Twid at work? Who knows. ;)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2012, 04:00:50 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Also, I'm on the flexible part-time schedule.

Is Twid at work? Who knows. ;)

YOU LUCKY ASS!!!!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2012, 04:02:57 am
Gotta say that from what I know of Twid, the research he's working on, and the people he's working with...

1. Man I have some hard, hardcore nerd envy and

2. He is not talking lightweight research here. This is the real deal. And some. And a half again of that.

Big respect on the full-on ups.

I'm a regular grunt at this stage, but I was working for (on the same floor as now) one of the most important scientists in his field, and one of his most promising former students. The funny thing was, I had no clue about the two of them until I already got the job. Then I thought, "oh shit...."

Yeah, NO shit, you goddamn fortunate fucking motherfucker! Am I a huge dick if I now say "luck of the Irish"? :p
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 04:22:57 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Also, I'm on the flexible part-time schedule.

Is Twid at work? Who knows. ;)

YOU LUCKY ASS!!!!

Pfft. I can give you comparative screen shots of my paychecks between now and working for Dr. S if you like.

Twid,
Yeah. Lateral moves are "awesome"
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 04:26:24 am
Gotta say that from what I know of Twid, the research he's working on, and the people he's working with...

1. Man I have some hard, hardcore nerd envy and

2. He is not talking lightweight research here. This is the real deal. And some. And a half again of that.

Big respect on the full-on ups.

I'm a regular grunt at this stage, but I was working for (on the same floor as now) one of the most important scientists in his field, and one of his most promising former students. The funny thing was, I had no clue about the two of them until I already got the job. Then I thought, "oh shit...."

Yeah, NO shit, you goddamn fortunate fucking motherfucker! Am I a huge dick if I now say "luck of the Irish"? :p

Here's the thing about the luck of the Irish. It's fleeting.

Also, 800 years of England.

But I will admit, that will be a hard job to top. And stressful though it was, it will be hard to find a boss that I like more.

Hell, I was even saying today that the job was more than I can handle, and I miss it, and I would do it again. I loved the variety. I loved the mental stimulation. It was never fucking boring.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 04:28:16 am
Gotta say that from what I know of Twid, the research he's working on, and the people he's working with...

1. Man I have some hard, hardcore nerd envy and

2. He is not talking lightweight research here. This is the real deal. And some. And a half again of that.

Big respect on the full-on ups.

I'm a regular grunt at this stage, but I was working for (on the same floor as now) one of the most important scientists in his field, and one of his most promising former students. The funny thing was, I had no clue about the two of them until I already got the job. Then I thought, "oh shit...."

Yeah, NO shit, you goddamn fortunate fucking motherfucker! Am I a huge dick if I now say "luck of the Irish"? :p

Here's the thing about the luck of the Irish. It's fleeting.

Also, 800 years of England.

But I will admit, that will be a hard job to top. And stressful though it was, it will be hard to find a boss that I like more.

Hell, I was even saying today that the job was more than I can handle, and I miss it, and I would do it again. I loved the variety. I loved the mental stimulation. It was never fucking boring.

And this was directed to a coworker, at approx 6:20 pm Boston time.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 15, 2012, 04:42:53 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Tell me it's not puppies.  :sad:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2012, 04:47:10 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Also, I'm on the flexible part-time schedule.

Is Twid at work? Who knows. ;)

YOU LUCKY ASS!!!!

Pfft. I can give you comparative screen shots of my paychecks between now and working for Dr. S if you like.

Twid,
Yeah. Lateral moves are "awesome"

Dude, my job is social work. You know what the typical MSW can hope for, wage, wise? I'm not on an MSW track, and I'm actually really happy about that.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 05:02:35 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Also, I'm on the flexible part-time schedule.

Is Twid at work? Who knows. ;)

YOU LUCKY ASS!!!!

Pfft. I can give you comparative screen shots of my paychecks between now and working for Dr. S if you like.

Twid,
Yeah. Lateral moves are "awesome"

Dude, my job is social work. You know what the typical MSW can hope for, wage, wise? I'm not on an MSW track, and I'm actually really happy about that.

2/3rds of my take home was wiped out.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 05:04:31 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Also, I'm on the flexible part-time schedule.

Is Twid at work? Who knows. ;)

YOU LUCKY ASS!!!!

Pfft. I can give you comparative screen shots of my paychecks between now and working for Dr. S if you like.

Twid,
Yeah. Lateral moves are "awesome"

Dude, my job is social work. You know what the typical MSW can hope for, wage, wise? I'm not on an MSW track, and I'm actually really happy about that.

2/3rds of my take home was wiped out.

AND I don't have the excitement of working directly for Dr. S anymore.

No, I'm a data coordinator which is a BS title to legitimize the admittedly good hourly pay rate I get at admittedly bad hours per week.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 05:06:35 am
Cross reference Stupid luck thread. It was the most stimulating and challenging job I ever had, and the best paying too.

I couldn't do it.

I now get paid at 75% the rate at 50% the time.

Edit: changing know to now, which makes more sense.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 08:41:28 am
Any other questions or concerns to be addressed before we get to it? Because I'll start the opening post tonight even if I don't have any articles ready right away.

I do have one possible concern. This should obviously go into Techmology and Scientism, but since a majority of the articles I'm aiming to look through will be close to home (again, do to relative ease of access and being familiar with the data so I can actually discuss to some degree the collection methods), it might make two things real fucking easy:

a) people could narrow down what building I work in and who some pretty important people who know me personally.
b) could allow someone from work to find me here, aside from my supervisor who already knows I'm here, with a simple google search regarding the studies.

Now, I have no problem with people who have been here for a while knowing who I work for, hell, Nigel already knows, and even has my work email. But for a casual noob or someone who wants to be problematic...

So, would it be permissible to the mods to use OMF for this, and also to break the links with hxxp?


Well, be careful.  I know there are certain things I won't post or share for the very concerns you lay out.

I could try and vary it up with studies from other Boston based universities, since we have a gazillion of them, but I think it would become obvious if I start speaking in depth about a particular article or groups of articles. I wouldn't want to have to limit myself in discussing something because it would betray knowing too much about a particular study.

Considering I was half in the bag and drunk on crazed spaggotry when we sacked TSC, I can't remember if it's possible, but is it possible to set a specific thread to be viewable only to... say Outlandish? Probably not, but worth asking.

Faust? (and presumably by timezone, Cain?)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 08:56:29 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Tell me it's not puppies.  :sad:

Virology, in a nutshell.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 08:59:26 am
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Tell me it's not puppies.  :sad:

Virology, in a nutshell.

Animal research is in the basement (big surprise), but that usually involves (redacted. Non-canids and to my knowledge, non-primates).
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 11:12:46 am
Just a caveat I should throw out.  My week next week will be tied up with a week long conference/training, so I may not be very active during that time frame.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 15, 2012, 02:28:49 pm
Any other questions or concerns to be addressed before we get to it? Because I'll start the opening post tonight even if I don't have any articles ready right away.

I do have one possible concern. This should obviously go into Techmology and Scientism, but since a majority of the articles I'm aiming to look through will be close to home (again, do to relative ease of access and being familiar with the data so I can actually discuss to some degree the collection methods), it might make two things real fucking easy:

a) people could narrow down what building I work in and who some pretty important people who know me personally.
b) could allow someone from work to find me here, aside from my supervisor who already knows I'm here, with a simple google search regarding the studies.

Now, I have no problem with people who have been here for a while knowing who I work for, hell, Nigel already knows, and even has my work email. But for a casual noob or someone who wants to be problematic...

So, would it be permissible to the mods to use OMF for this, and also to break the links with hxxp?


Well, be careful.  I know there are certain things I won't post or share for the very concerns you lay out.

I could try and vary it up with studies from other Boston based universities, since we have a gazillion of them, but I think it would become obvious if I start speaking in depth about a particular article or groups of articles. I wouldn't want to have to limit myself in discussing something because it would betray knowing too much about a particular study.

Considering I was half in the bag and drunk on crazed spaggotry when we sacked TSC, I can't remember if it's possible, but is it possible to set a specific thread to be viewable only to... say Outlandish? Probably not, but worth asking.

Faust? (and presumably by timezone, Cain?)

It's technically feasible, but we won't do it. You start another goddamn drug thread at your own risk. Admins don't police content except when it could land Faust and/or myself in legal trouble.

And on a personal non-admin level, I have to say that it's a piss-poor idea and I can tell you EXACTLY how it will end up.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 02:32:50 pm
ANOTHER drug thread?

Jesus, Joseph, and that one lady.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 02:54:39 pm
No. A nothing but science thread that focuses on specifically the health consequences both good and ill of drugs. And it looks like ill have to hold back on certain research to not reveal where specifically i work.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 02:57:16 pm
No. A nothing but science thread that focuses on specifically the health consequences both good and ill of drugs. And it looks like ill have to hold back on certain research to not reveal where specifically i work.

I can say with absolute confidence that despite the hypothetical best wishes of everyone involved - presuming such wishes exist - that is not what's going to happen.

Also, DRAT!  You and RWHN are too clever for the rest of us data-mining bastards.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 15, 2012, 03:13:17 pm
No. A nothing but science thread that focuses on specifically the health consequences both good and ill of drugs. And it looks like ill have to hold back on certain research to not reveal where specifically i work.

That's exactly how most of the other ones started out. You can see for yourself how well that went.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 03:15:42 pm
Yes, but many of them get lost in ad-hominems.  If you could keep emotions and knee-jerks out of it (and I include myself in that) it would be more productive.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 03:16:28 pm
Yes, but many of them get lost in ad-hominems.  If you could keep emotions and knee-jerks out of it (and I include myself in that) it would be more productive.

That's a mighty big "if".
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 03:18:57 pm
One way to help with that is if it were only between Twid and myself.  Others could PM articles and content to Twid or myself (like that would happen) for posting, but the actual discussion is between Twid and I. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 03:21:20 pm
One way to help with that is if it were only between Twid and myself.  Others could PM articles and content to Twid or myself (like that would happen) for posting, but the actual discussion is between Twid and I.

So, it's like a blog, then.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 15, 2012, 03:28:22 pm
One way to help with that is if it were only between Twid and myself.  Others could PM articles and content to Twid or myself (like that would happen) for posting, but the actual discussion is between Twid and I. 

As previously stated, we won't police the contents of a thread in that manner. Mind you, I'm not telling you guys what to do or not do, you're free to keep running on that hamster wheel all you want, I'm just pointing out why it's utterly pointless.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 03:36:32 pm
I wouldn't suggest you guys policing that, instead, I would think we could just have an informal understanding with users as to the ground rules for this one particular thread.  Ultimately, sure, it could go astray, but with some discipline and restraint, it could be alright.  We could even have a companion thread for people to vent. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on June 15, 2012, 03:42:03 pm
How about the rest of the board spams the thread with butthurt and gobshite and you and Twid take care of the discipline and restraint by not rising to it?

Seems a more realistic solution

Alternatively do it via PM and post the results in a thread when finished.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 03:45:24 pm
I suppose those are also options, but it was Twid's idea so it is up to him how he wants to do it.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 03:47:33 pm
As to my legal name i dont really care too much. If i want to be a career musician id want it out there anyway. Its the day job thats different. I suppose that if i had the skills i could find out what oil corporation you indirectly benefit. Maybe youre comfortable with that.

So then what of the idea of using omf for this since thats the best way to avoid what?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 03:48:36 pm
Theres a delay on that. The doctor called me in just as i finished it. Catching up now.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 03:59:35 pm
The whole reason this was brought up was because of rwhn mentioned feeding cannabinoids to rodents isnt the same as primates smoking them. Mans got a point. And ive seen in my line of work that somethings are good for you in some way and bad for you in others. Like potatoes will prevent stroke but convert into sugar when digested. Even though i occasionally indulge in the ganj i admit that there may be health consequences that may not be apparent to most people. But thats why i want to keep the discussion purely medical. I mean i wouldnt expect any health deficits personally from my getting high about twice a year. But the conversation would be of scientific interest if it were kept strictly scientific
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 04:01:30 pm
But if its just me and rwhn throwing abstracts around i dont see much of a point (sorry. Had to separate the thought. The longer the post the longer my phone takes to process it).
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2012, 04:15:43 pm
How about the rest of the board spams the thread with butthurt and gobshite and you and Twid take care of the discipline and restraint by not rising to it?

Seems a more realistic solution

Alternatively do it via PM and post the results in a thread when finished.

This seems more reasonable and realistic.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 15, 2012, 08:21:19 pm
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Tell me it's not puppies.  :sad:

Virology, in a nutshell.

Animal research is in the basement (big surprise), but that usually involves (redacted. Non-canids and to my knowledge, non-primates).

Still sad.

Working under a virology research place sounds creepy. But fascinating.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 08:26:33 pm
I do often wonder what goes on in there.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 15, 2012, 08:27:40 pm
ANOTHER drug thread?

Jesus, Joseph, and that one lady.

In this case it might go "Jesus H Christ on a fucking crutch, Mother of motherfucking Gawd and FUCK.".  :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 08:31:42 pm
ANOTHER drug thread?

Jesus, Joseph, and that one lady.

In this case it might go "Jesus H Christ on a fucking crutch, Mother of motherfucking Gawd and FUCK.".  :lulz:

Or just FAAAAAAAACK!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 15, 2012, 08:42:43 pm
ANOTHER drug thread?

Jesus, Joseph, and that one lady.

In this case it might go "Jesus H Christ on a fucking crutch, Mother of motherfucking Gawd and FUCK.".  :lulz:

Or just FAAAAAAAACK!

It occurs to me that there's enough posting about this shit to justify a WHOLE BOARD.
Maybe that's what we need to do with EBG.  :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 08:45:27 pm
ANOTHER drug thread?

Jesus, Joseph, and that one lady.

In this case it might go "Jesus H Christ on a fucking crutch, Mother of motherfucking Gawd and FUCK.".  :lulz:

Or just FAAAAAAAACK!

It occurs to me that there's enough posting about this shit to justify a WHOLE BOARD.
Maybe that's what we need to do with EBG.  :lulz:

YES.  It solves two problems:

1.  EB&G is as dead as yesterday's fish, and looks to stay that way, and

2.  Drug threads are to PD what pennicillin is to the clap.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 08:48:59 pm
Thing about EB&G is, I'm ever so glad I was slapped down for offering to help (by adding some new emotes, etc).  "YOU'RE NOT AN ADMIN THERE!", I was told when I offered, and I'm damn glad of it.

I might have wrecked everything.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 15, 2012, 08:53:31 pm
Thing about EB&G is, I'm ever so glad I was slapped down for offering to help (by adding some new emotes, etc).  "YOU'RE NOT AN ADMIN THERE!", I was told when I offered, and I'm damn glad of it.

I might have wrecked everything.

But it's so PEACEFUL over there! There hasn't been A SINGLE ARGUMENT!  :lol:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 08:55:47 pm
Thing about EB&G is, I'm ever so glad I was slapped down for offering to help (by adding some new emotes, etc).  "YOU'RE NOT AN ADMIN THERE!", I was told when I offered, and I'm damn glad of it.

I might have wrecked everything.

But it's so PEACEFUL over there! There hasn't been A SINGLE ARGUMENT!  :lol:

 :lulz:

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't feeling a little...vindicated?  Schadenfreude-y?

Especially given that I didn't WANT to be an admin, that was just assumed by everyone who read my offer to help.  Which will never happen again.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 09:01:33 pm
Hmm, drug board sounds interesting.  Someone sign me up!  You guys might have a way to get rid of me yet.  ;)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 15, 2012, 09:02:01 pm
Thing about EB&G is, I'm ever so glad I was slapped down for offering to help (by adding some new emotes, etc).  "YOU'RE NOT AN ADMIN THERE!", I was told when I offered, and I'm damn glad of it.

I might have wrecked everything.

But it's so PEACEFUL over there! There hasn't been A SINGLE ARGUMENT!  :lol:

 :lulz:

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't feeling a little...vindicated?  Schadenfreude-y?

Especially given that I didn't WANT to be an admin, that was just assumed by everyone who read my offer to help.  Which will never happen again.

Didn't you offer to load smilies or something like that? AGENDA! ULTERIOR MOTIVES! MIND LAZ0RZ! :lol:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 09:02:18 pm
Hmm, drug board sounds interesting.  Someone sign me up!  You guys might have a way to get rid of me yet.  ;)

Oh, FFS.  I give up.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 09:03:54 pm
Didn't you offer to load smilies or something like that? AGENDA! :lol:

Yeah.  But I am a BAD INFLUENCE and was probably trying to TAKE OVER.

I have grown used to being Disapproved Of by Quality People, but it still pisses me off sometimes.  This was one of those times.  I will never make any similar offers again.

Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 09:06:23 pm
A "no thanks" would have been okay.

"YOU'RE NOT AN ADMIN THERE!" was unnecesarry. 

But I can't be allowed around QUALITY PEOPLE, you know.  I ruin everything I touch.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 09:08:24 pm
Taking it to entirely different forum might not be a bad idea. It would keep another drug thread from happening on pd and we could use alts. This would separate twid from kevins job nicely. It might not even have to be ebg. But anyone interested in joining would have to say so so a link could be provided via pm.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 09:11:27 pm
Hmm, drug board sounds interesting.  Someone sign me up!  You guys might have a way to get rid of me yet.  ;)

Oh, FFS.  I give up.


Dude, tongue firmly in cheek.  Take it easy.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 09:17:40 pm
It might be pretty funny too if a bunch of us just showed up at a random forum and just stayed in one thread talking about drugs and not engaging the locals.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 09:25:21 pm
In all fairness, I just went back and looked at the conversation, Stella.  "YOU'RE NOT AN ADMIN THERE" wasn't actually said in those words or in all caps.  But it was said all the same.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 09:28:30 pm
It might be pretty funny too if a bunch of us just showed up at a random forum and just stayed in one thread talking about drugs and not engaging the locals.


Okay, so now this HAS to happen.  Not just talk about drugs, but have one of our big blow-ups there.  Though, perhaps dramatized and not really for real. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 09:29:17 pm
It might be pretty funny too if a bunch of us just showed up at a random forum and just stayed in one thread talking about drugs and not engaging the locals.


Okay, so now this HAS to happen.  Not just talk about drugs, but have one of our big blow-ups there.  Though, perhaps dramatized and not really for real.

I agree with this assbaggery.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Elder Iptuous on June 15, 2012, 09:39:52 pm
what forum would actually allow a blow up to occur without censoring it and that isn't already a big turd pile?
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 09:40:40 pm
Lol ok. Will set up omf thread at home.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 15, 2012, 09:49:59 pm

Yes, the great Drug Storm of 2012... I recall it to this day...

it all started out as a discussion of what are the best materials and shapes to make a bong in 4/20.... somebody said -not that we can now recall who it was now- "Dude, you should lay off the reefer, that shit's bad for yuo" and someone else replied "But pot is good man, its all mother nature's gift to us, its healthy" and another said "Yeah it should be legalized, like fo reals bro"

Oh, how mistaken we were, thinking there could be civil and useful discussions on the internetz...

Days, weeks, months flew by, a dozen threads, 6000 posts, 50 members ditching the place...

Yes, yes, i still recall it to this day...
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 15, 2012, 09:51:59 pm
In all fairness, I just went back and looked at the conversation, Stella.  "YOU'RE NOT AN ADMIN THERE" wasn't actually said in those words or in all caps.  But it was said all the same.

Yep. The connotation.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2012, 09:57:25 pm
what forum would actually allow a blow up to occur without censoring it and that isn't already a big turd pile?

None that I'd be interested in.   :lulz:

I see this as being almost like street theater.  A dozen jackasses suddenly appear in a forum, arguing with each other, instead of the regulars.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 09:57:30 pm
We should have someone agree with rwhn but only because stoners are lame and (insert hard drug here) is the only one worth doing.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 15, 2012, 10:34:13 pm
I'll shift into full-blown enforcement junkie.  Lock up adults, lock up kids, clean the streets!
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 10:45:34 pm
I like the idea of it as performance art. Perhaps when we get to the 50 page mark we can post "this production has been brought to you by discordian improv theatre." it might make for an interesting recruitment as well as show them to never start a drug thread.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 15, 2012, 11:30:36 pm
We should have someone agree with rwhn but only because stoners are lame and (insert hard drug here) is the only one worth doing.

I used to live in a building where the junkies were always bitching about the tweakers because the tweakers were up all night, and the alkies bitched about the junkies and crackheads.  :lol:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 15, 2012, 11:34:41 pm
Hey i used to bitch about the lottery/scratch card addicts because they were taking to fucking long and i need to by my pack of motherfucking goddamn cigarettes right now and ill fucking kill you roll you up and smoke you and... Next please. Uh hi ill have a pack of newport.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 16, 2012, 01:37:25 am
Hey i used to bitch about the lottery/scratch card addicts because they were taking to fucking long and i need to by my pack of motherfucking goddamn cigarettes right now and ill fucking kill you roll you up and smoke you and... Next please. Uh hi ill have a pack of newport.

Bitching about lottery addicts is LEGITIMATE, though.

Woman: And I'll have 3 Powerballs for tonight's drawing and three for tomorrow's, and, a uh, Texas Twostep...four of those for today and three for tomorrow...no, I said three for today and four for tomorrow, oh, nevermind I'll take them all....Give me a six Mega Millions and some scratch offs...no, not Find the 9's, let me get a four Bingos and three Magnificen 7's and seven Diamond Dollars...and ten of those yellow ones, are those new? Oh, and I need some pick threes, no, don't let the machine pick, I want to play 31 and, uh...

Child: Mom?

Woman: WHAT?

Child: Can I get some gum?

Woman: NO!!!!! WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!!!!!!! Oh, and 27, and, uhhh...
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 16, 2012, 01:40:09 am
Hey i used to bitch about the lottery/scratch card addicts because they were taking to fucking long and i need to by my pack of motherfucking goddamn cigarettes right now and ill fucking kill you roll you up and smoke you and... Next please. Uh hi ill have a pack of newport.

Bitching about lottery addicts is LEGITIMATE, though.

Woman: And I'll have 3 Powerballs for tonight's drawing and three for tomorrow's, and, a uh, Texas Twostep...four of those for today and three for tomorrow...no, I said three for today and four for tomorrow, oh, nevermind I'll take them all....Give me a six Mega Millions and some scratch offs...no, not Find the 9's, let me get a four Bingos and three Magnificen 7's and seven Diamond Dollars...and ten of those yellow ones, are those new? Oh, and I need some pick threes, no, don't let the machine pick, I want to play 31 and, uh...

Child: Mom?

Woman: WHAT?

Child: Can I get some gum?

Woman: NO!!!!! WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!!!!!!! Oh, and 27, and, uhhh...

While that is a fair and accurate assessment, the fact that I was behind them nic fitting makes it humorous and slightly hypocritical.

I mentioned it to Richter a couple of weeks ago actually, like, "Hey I have a real addiction! Fuck off!" and he mentioned that they were addicted to the neurochemicals that are released in the process of gambling.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 16, 2012, 01:41:49 am
Gambling addiction is the most retarded addiction though, I will say.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 16, 2012, 01:44:43 am
Gambling addiction is the most retarded addiction though, I will say.

It takes a minute to buy cigarettes.

It takes twenty minutes to buy a buttload of lottery tickets.

Therefore, THEY'RE WORSE.  :lol:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 16, 2012, 01:53:32 am
Gambling addiction is the most retarded addiction though, I will say.

It takes a minute to buy cigarettes.

It takes twenty minutes to buy a buttload of lottery tickets.

Therefore, THEY'RE WORSE.  :lol:

Excellent point. And often they scratch them right there and use their winnings to buy the next scratchy.

I remember hating them when I was a stock boy at the liquor store too.

Them and Cal.

Cal would, over the course of a day, buy a six pack of Heineken (which is shite beer anyway), but he wouldn't buy the six pack in a go.

No. He would buy 3 in the morning, 2 in the afternoon, and 1 at night.

This process invariably broke up 3 six-packs. Fucker would never go to the singles door. Our nickname for him was Alien Ant Farm.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 16, 2012, 02:38:48 am
Hey i used to bitch about the lottery/scratch card addicts because they were taking to fucking long and i need to by my pack of motherfucking goddamn cigarettes right now and ill fucking kill you roll you up and smoke you and... Next please. Uh hi ill have a pack of newport.

Bitching about lottery addicts is LEGITIMATE, though.

Woman: And I'll have 3 Powerballs for tonight's drawing and three for tomorrow's, and, a uh, Texas Twostep...four of those for today and three for tomorrow...no, I said three for today and four for tomorrow, oh, nevermind I'll take them all....Give me a six Mega Millions and some scratch offs...no, not Find the 9's, let me get a four Bingos and three Magnificen 7's and seven Diamond Dollars...and ten of those yellow ones, are those new? Oh, and I need some pick threes, no, don't let the machine pick, I want to play 31 and, uh...

Child: Mom?

Woman: WHAT?

Child: Can I get some gum?

Woman: NO!!!!! WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!!!!!!! Oh, and 27, and, uhhh...

While that is a fair and accurate assessment, the fact that I was behind them nic fitting makes it humorous and slightly hypocritical.

I mentioned it to Richter a couple of weeks ago actually, like, "Hey I have a real addiction! Fuck off!" and he mentioned that they were addicted to the neurochemicals that are released in the process of gambling.


Yeah, pretty much, and with someone who really has it bad it can mimic the effects some drugs have on people.  One of my former jobs was coordinating a hotline and network for problem gamblers.  Oh, the stories I heard.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 16, 2012, 02:46:52 am
Hey i used to bitch about the lottery/scratch card addicts because they were taking to fucking long and i need to by my pack of motherfucking goddamn cigarettes right now and ill fucking kill you roll you up and smoke you and... Next please. Uh hi ill have a pack of newport.

Bitching about lottery addicts is LEGITIMATE, though.

Woman: And I'll have 3 Powerballs for tonight's drawing and three for tomorrow's, and, a uh, Texas Twostep...four of those for today and three for tomorrow...no, I said three for today and four for tomorrow, oh, nevermind I'll take them all....Give me a six Mega Millions and some scratch offs...no, not Find the 9's, let me get a four Bingos and three Magnificen 7's and seven Diamond Dollars...and ten of those yellow ones, are those new? Oh, and I need some pick threes, no, don't let the machine pick, I want to play 31 and, uh...

Child: Mom?

Woman: WHAT?

Child: Can I get some gum?

Woman: NO!!!!! WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!!!!!!! Oh, and 27, and, uhhh...

While that is a fair and accurate assessment, the fact that I was behind them nic fitting makes it humorous and slightly hypocritical.

I mentioned it to Richter a couple of weeks ago actually, like, "Hey I have a real addiction! Fuck off!" and he mentioned that they were addicted to the neurochemicals that are released in the process of gambling.


Yeah, pretty much, and with someone who really has it bad it can mimic the effects some drugs have on people.  One of my former jobs was coordinating a hotline and network for problem gamblers.  Oh, the stories I heard.

Gambling is fun for everyone from time to time. Hell, I'm rather fond of roullette. I've played Keno maybe 3 or 4 times, and that's been more of a why the hell not. Or the rare times I play Mass Millions because the jack pot is like, 596,493,000. Why not? And that would be pretty awesome, no? But I don't feel a compulsion to go and buy scratch tickets or play Keno. Doing that sort of thing regularly, frequently, points to some sort of addiction.

The main difference is though, I was tempted to tear their heads off to get my smokes. They were blissfully unaware of how badly their deaths were fantasized about.  :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 16, 2012, 02:50:51 am
The last problem gambling training I went to basically broke it down like this.  If you are gambling to have fun, y ou are fine.  It's no different than dropping dough on a concert, movies, a fancy restaurant, whatever.


But if you are seriously doing it as a way to generate income, to make money, you most likely have a problem.


And it's like only 8 or 9% of people who gamble that ever develop any level of addiction or dependence.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 16, 2012, 03:25:13 am
The last problem gambling training I went to basically broke it down like this.  If you are gambling to have fun, y ou are fine.  It's no different than dropping dough on a concert, movies, a fancy restaurant, whatever.


But if you are seriously doing it as a way to generate income, to make money, you most likely have a problem.


And it's like only 8 or 9% of people who gamble that ever develop any level of addiction or dependence.

You see it a lot if you're near a bar or a liquor store or a convenience store. Usual suspects though.

I once had a neighbor that would attach significance to license plates and expect the license plate number to win.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 16, 2012, 03:36:38 am
I knew a guy in Salem who put in for disability. He said when he got his big retro check he was going to buy 1000 scratch tickets. You couldn't tell him that wouldn't help his shitty odds any.

I think he won back about $200.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 16, 2012, 03:39:07 am
I knew a guy in Salem who put in for disability. He said when he got his big retro check he was going to buy 1000 scratch tickets. You couldn't tell him that wouldn't help his shitty odds any.

I think he won back about $200.

Lotteries couldn't function without this level of po'buckerism.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 16, 2012, 03:40:04 am
The last problem gambling training I went to basically broke it down like this.  If you are gambling to have fun, y ou are fine.  It's no different than dropping dough on a concert, movies, a fancy restaurant, whatever.


But if you are seriously doing it as a way to generate income, to make money, you most likely have a problem.


And it's like only 8 or 9% of people who gamble that ever develop any level of addiction or dependence.

You see it a lot if you're near a bar or a liquor store or a convenience store. Usual suspects though.

I once had a neighbor that would attach significance to license plates and expect the license plate number to win.


Casino's prey on this shit too.  They can dial up and down the percentage of times that slot machines pay out.  They can also dial up and down the "near misses", which will end up fueling and egging on the person prone to having a dependence on gambling. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 16, 2012, 04:19:28 am
I knew a guy in Salem who put in for disability. He said when he got his big retro check he was going to buy 1000 scratch tickets. You couldn't tell him that wouldn't help his shitty odds any.

I think he won back about $200.

Lotteries couldn't function without this level of po'buckerism.

YUH CAIN'T WIN IF YUH DON'T PLAY!
            /
:redneck2:

It surprised me to find them WAY UP THERE. I thought if I got away from a part of the country where the "weddings" section of the paper showed people in cowboy hats, I'd escape it.

I was naive in those days.  :horrormirth:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 16, 2012, 04:40:52 am
My statistics professor imparted a very important lesson on day one.

Quote from: Professor Fierimonte
I don't usually play the lottery because your chances of winning are slim to nothing. But I do play sometimes. And when I do, I say, "yeah, uh, I'll play zero-zero-zero-zero." and then someone will say, "fucking amateur." Hey. 0-0-0-0 has, statistically, just as much of a chance of winning as any other numeric combination. And because I'm an amateur, if I pick 0-0-0-0, I won't have to split my winnings with anyone, because no one else will have chosen those numbers. So who's the idiot now? They don't understand that every digit has a one in ten chance. The chance that any number will come out for the first digit is 10%. The second digit? 10%. And so on and so forth. Don't play the lottery. You're all too smart for that.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on June 16, 2012, 10:55:04 am
The last problem gambling training I went to basically broke it down like this.  If you are gambling to have fun, y ou are fine.  It's no different than dropping dough on a concert, movies, a fancy restaurant, whatever.


But if you are seriously doing it as a way to generate income, to make money, you most likely have a problem.


And it's like only 8 or 9% of people who gamble that ever develop any level of addiction or dependence.

You see it a lot if you're near a bar or a liquor store or a convenience store. Usual suspects though.

I once had a neighbor that would attach significance to license plates and expect the license plate number to win.


Casino's prey on this shit too.  They can dial up and down the percentage of times that slot machines pay out.  They can also dial up and down the "near misses", which will end up fueling and egging on the person prone to having a dependence on gambling.

I used to have a failsafe system but it was risky. A bit of a gamble if you like :fnord: We got hold of a set of slot machine door keys from an arcade owner who owed us for a couple of nine bars. We'd go into an arcade, find a quiet spot away from the cameras, slip in behind the machine, open the door and empty the overflow bucket. Jackpot, pretty much guaranteed. It was very addictive, tho.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: LuciferX on June 16, 2012, 11:02:42 am
There's this guy, downstairs, and all he does is work out the odds.  It's like he can run all those numbers in his mind and simulate the thing -  he gets it.  He knows how to balance an equation; but what it means beyond that is irrelevant to him.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 16, 2012, 03:21:56 pm
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Tell me it's not puppies.  :sad:

Virology, in a nutshell.

Animal research is in the basement (big surprise), but that usually involves (redacted. Non-canids and to my knowledge, non-primates).

Still sad.

Working under a virology research place sounds creepy. But fascinating.

And now we'll know who to blame when 28 Days Later happens for real. :lulz:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 16, 2012, 06:49:26 pm
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Tell me it's not puppies.  :sad:

Virology, in a nutshell.

Animal research is in the basement (big surprise), but that usually involves (redacted. Non-canids and to my knowledge, non-primates).

Still sad.

Working under a virology research place sounds creepy. But fascinating.

And now we'll know who to blame when 28 Days Later happens for real. :lulz:

Jeez. Can you imagine that happening in Boston instead of on an island? There would probably be some pretty harsh containment measures.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 16, 2012, 07:41:25 pm
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Tell me it's not puppies.  :sad:

Virology, in a nutshell.

Animal research is in the basement (big surprise), but that usually involves (redacted. Non-canids and to my knowledge, non-primates).

Still sad.

Working under a virology research place sounds creepy. But fascinating.

And now we'll know who to blame when 28 Days Later happens for real. :lulz:

Jeez. Can you imagine that happening in Boston instead of on an island? There would probably be some pretty harsh containment measures.

Uhhhhh.......
The Stand?  :lol:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 16, 2012, 08:14:49 pm
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Tell me it's not puppies.  :sad:

Virology, in a nutshell.

Animal research is in the basement (big surprise), but that usually involves (redacted. Non-canids and to my knowledge, non-primates).

Still sad.

Working under a virology research place sounds creepy. But fascinating.

And now we'll know who to blame when 28 Days Later happens for real. :lulz:

Jeez. Can you imagine that happening in Boston instead of on an island? There would probably be some pretty harsh containment measures.

Uhhhhh.......
The Stand?  :lol:

Never watched it...
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 16, 2012, 08:28:16 pm
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Tell me it's not puppies.  :sad:

Virology, in a nutshell.

Animal research is in the basement (big surprise), but that usually involves (redacted. Non-canids and to my knowledge, non-primates).

Still sad.

Working under a virology research place sounds creepy. But fascinating.

And now we'll know who to blame when 28 Days Later happens for real. :lulz:

Jeez. Can you imagine that happening in Boston instead of on an island? There would probably be some pretty harsh containment measures.

Uhhhhh.......
The Stand?  :lol:

Never watched it...

M-O-O-N that spells what?
Didn't read it either?

DO IT, TWID, DO IT
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 16, 2012, 10:08:04 pm
It also occurs to me that due to my email signature, Nigel also knows what room my desk is in too.  :lulz:

That'll be super-useful if I ever get real observant and also go to Boston again.  :lulz:

Well, you'll run into a few snags if you try to find me there:

It's rather difficult to find the front door. No lie. Everyone always gets lost on their first day.
To get in the front door, you need key card access.
To go anywhere on the elevator except to three floors, you need regular key card access. One is not accessible from the building at all (to keep them out, not us out. We share a structure with another entity), one floor is reception (you won't see much at all on the first floor) and one is special clearance (let's just say that floor does a different sort of research).

Tell me it's not puppies.  :sad:

Virology, in a nutshell.

Animal research is in the basement (big surprise), but that usually involves (redacted. Non-canids and to my knowledge, non-primates).

Still sad.

Working under a virology research place sounds creepy. But fascinating.

And now we'll know who to blame when 28 Days Later happens for real. :lulz:

Jeez. Can you imagine that happening in Boston instead of on an island? There would probably be some pretty harsh containment measures.

Uhhhhh.......
The Stand?  :lol:

Never watched it...

M-O-O-N that spells what?
Didn't read it either?

DO IT, TWID, DO IT

lol, ok. I did however read Earth Abides, which apparently inspired The Stand.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 16, 2012, 10:12:57 pm
Watching it on netflix now.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 17, 2012, 06:12:21 am
Watching it on netflix now.

Pretty good, except for the denim clad and be-mulleted Antichrist.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 17, 2012, 06:42:14 am
The Antichrist wears a mullet and Billy Ray Cyrus is his minion.

TBH, I liked the book better. Ugly stuff is so much uglier in my head than on TV.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 17, 2012, 06:48:36 am
The Antichrist wears a mullet and Billy Ray Cyrus is his minion.

TBH, I liked the book better. Ugly stuff is so much uglier in my head than on TV.

Oh, I believe it. I wasn't about to start up a lengthy novel though when it was readily available to me online though.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on June 17, 2012, 06:55:58 am
True. And the long book is lonnnnnnng.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 17, 2012, 07:03:53 am
True. And the long book is lonnnnnnng.

Oh yeah.

I just watched something that had 4 parts of 90 minutes each.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 17, 2012, 11:35:42 am
The last problem gambling training I went to basically broke it down like this.  If you are gambling to have fun, y ou are fine.  It's no different than dropping dough on a concert, movies, a fancy restaurant, whatever.


But if you are seriously doing it as a way to generate income, to make money, you most likely have a problem.


And it's like only 8 or 9% of people who gamble that ever develop any level of addiction or dependence.

Ironically, you could replace 'gambling' with 'weed' in that statement (well, we'd have to change the bit about making money to 'coping with everyday life', but still) and it would be just as true... even the numbers related to 'addiction are in the same range.

(couldn't find the dead horse emoticon)
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: AFK on June 17, 2012, 01:40:38 pm
It's (marijuana abuse) quite a bit higher amongst youth though.  And the numbers for problem gambling amongst youth are miniscule, only around 3 or 4%, which is mostly the male population. 
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 17, 2012, 02:55:30 pm
Save it up. You don't rehearse improv.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 17, 2012, 03:24:24 pm
The Antichrist wears a mullet and Billy Ray Cyrus is his minion.

TBH, I liked the book better. Ugly stuff is so much uglier in my head than on TV.

Oh, I believe it. I wasn't about to start up a lengthy novel though when it was readily available to me online though.

You should. The miniseries is terrible. The book is awesome, and is hands-down the best thing Stephen King ever wrote.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on June 17, 2012, 03:28:49 pm
The Antichrist wears a mullet and Billy Ray Cyrus is his minion.

TBH, I liked the book better. Ugly stuff is so much uglier in my head than on TV.

Oh, I believe it. I wasn't about to start up a lengthy novel though when it was readily available to me online though.

You should. The miniseries is terrible. The book is awesome, and is hands-down the best thing Stephen King ever wrote.

I'll get to it at some point, but now I have the gist of the story.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: BabylonHoruv on June 19, 2012, 01:11:31 am
The last problem gambling training I went to basically broke it down like this.  If you are gambling to have fun, y ou are fine.  It's no different than dropping dough on a concert, movies, a fancy restaurant, whatever.


But if you are seriously doing it as a way to generate income, to make money, you most likely have a problem.


And it's like only 8 or 9% of people who gamble that ever develop any level of addiction or dependence.

Ironically, you could replace 'gambling' with 'weed' in that statement (well, we'd have to change the bit about making money to 'coping with everyday life', but still) and it would be just as true... even the numbers related to 'addiction are in the same range.

(couldn't find the dead horse emoticon)

I would disagree.  Legitimate users of medical marijuana are, by definition, using it to cope with every day life.  Otherwise they wouldn't have a legitimate medical need.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: N E T on June 19, 2012, 01:13:41 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDss8V2OME4
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 19, 2012, 01:21:20 am
HI GUYS, I'M POSTING IN THIS THREAD AGAIN.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: The Johnny on June 19, 2012, 01:34:15 am

Well, there were some attempts to dissect why conversations went how they went, but it all ended up as "DRUGS, LOL" all over again.

MONKEY NO UNDERSTAND, GRAOOOOON.  :deadhorse: :monkeydance:

:showus:
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: E.O.T. on June 19, 2012, 02:08:13 am


THE

          excuse for smoking pot being a medical thing is fucking retarded.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 19, 2012, 02:49:19 am
I don't know anybody who uses that as an excuse. I know people who have a legitimate medical use for pot, and I know people who enjoy it recreationally who are happy they can give the state some money in exchange for being legally allowed to grow/carry/smoke it, but I really don't know anyone who claims to need it for medicinal purposes when they obviously just want to get stoned for shits and giggles. Except for when they have to tell the state that, obviously.

Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: East Coast Hustle on June 19, 2012, 02:50:33 am
Oops. There I am, posting in this goddamn thread again.
Title: Re: On the recurrence of discussions
Post by: E.O.T. on June 19, 2012, 03:03:20 am
Oops. There I am, posting in this goddamn thread again.

IS THERE

          a mr.t thingy to stick here?