RFG is a detriment to these newsgroups
Joel Crump
likes you Robert. You're much worse than I've ever been, because you
do stupid shit unprovoked. I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to post about
heroin in E. Your flames just make YOU an asshole, and a troll. Go
to hell.
--
Joel Crump
Catfish Rivers
He's fat?
--->Catfish Rivers<---
"Sword of Omens, give me Sight beyond sight!"- Liono \|/
"Oh Fuuuuuddddggguuuuh..."- Ralphie {O O)
"People of zee world, relax!"- Sailor Boy the parrot /U\
"I was contemplating the immortal words of Socrates,who said...I drank what?"RG
DialToneZ
Catfish Rivers <catfish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9o8w7.19795$ev2....@www.newsranger.com...
Joel Crump
>In article <se12st4mifu75h1ni...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump says...
>>I'm sick of this fat mother-fucker attacking everything I say. Nobody
>>likes you Robert. You're much worse than I've ever been, because you
>>do stupid shit unprovoked. I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to post about
>>heroin in E. Your flames just make YOU an asshole, and a troll. Go
>>to hell.
>He's fat?
He's said he is.
--
Joel Crump
jeldrid
4ax.com:
Your comments about heroin in E make you look like a paranoid conspiracy
theorist, but whatever. He has the right to do stupid shit unprovoked all
he wants, just the same. The members of this newsgroup will draw THEIR OWN
conclusions about him AND you. I, for one, don't need you telling robert
that I don't like him, and I'd guess most of the rest of the newsgroup would
probably agree.
Joel Crump
Yeah whatever, troll. RFG posted a message telling people to killfile
me, and then went on to reply to me again. He's flaming the hell out
of assclown over something *RFG* was wrong about. He just plain
sucks.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>Once upon a timeless moment,
>Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> hallucinated:
>> I'm sick of this fat mother-fucker attacking everything I say. Nobody
>> likes you Robert.
>Why wouldn't I like him? As you keep insisting, I am him.
Feel free to like him, then. I was just using an expression, for any
confused people (don't go around admitting you were confused about
that, though, like glog has).
--
Joel Crump
xganon
>do stupid shit unprovoked. I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to post about
>heroin in E. Your flames just make YOU an asshole, and a troll. Go
>to hell.
Joel, you little paranoid faggot. RFG has done more for these groups than you've ever dreamed of, psycho-boy. I'm sick of you polluting this group with unmitigated stupidity, rambling about how the DEA are rigging every pill test ever done. Let me guess, the CIA are following you, too? I have no doubt that your little paranoid fantasies will get you checked into a padded room somewhere sooner or later. I only hope that it's sooner, so we don't have to suffer through any of your mindless drivel any longer. Go back to suckling your mom's limp choad, so we don't have to wade through your nonsense any longer. And, finally...
*PLONK*
---
This post was anonymized at http://www.xganon.com
Come visit the newest xganon server http://www.xganon.org providing
rights and freedom related news.
---
Joel Crump
>>I'm sick of this fat mother-fucker attacking everything I say. Nobody
>>likes you Robert. You're much worse than I've ever been, because you
>>do stupid shit unprovoked. I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to post about
>>heroin in E. Your flames just make YOU an asshole, and a troll. Go
>>to hell.
>Joel, you little paranoid faggot. RFG has done more for these groups than you've ever dreamed of, psycho-boy. I'm sick of you polluting this group with unmitigated stupidity, rambling about how the DEA are rigging every pill test ever done. Let me guess, the CIA are following you, too? I have no doubt that your little paranoid fantasies will get you checked into a padded room somewhere sooner or later. I only hope that it's sooner, so we don't have to suffer through any of your mindless drivel any longer. Go back to suckling your mom's limp choad, so we don't have to wade through your nonsense any longer. And, finally...
>
>*PLONK*
Are you trying to say the DEA would WANT to find heroin in ecstasy???
--
Joel Crump
Cartertine
pertinent to the subject. Not to get involved with this post battle you all
are having, why don't you just bitch at each other via email.........
"Joel Crump" <jo...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:ste2stgnc9omhgbo9...@4ax.com...
gaylord2
> >
> >I'm sick of this fat mother-fucker attacking everything I say. Nobody
> >likes you Robert. You're much worse than I've ever been, because you
> >do stupid shit unprovoked. I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to post about
> >heroin in E. Your flames just make YOU an asshole, and a troll. Go
> >to hell.
> >
> >--
> >Joel Crump
>
> He's fat?
no way, he uses his middle initial, he probably works out a lot
xganon
>>Joel, you little paranoid faggot. RFG has done more for these groups than you've ever dreamed of, psycho-boy. I'm sick of you polluting this group with unmitigated stupidity, rambling about how the DEA are rigging every pill test ever done. Let me guess, the CIA are following you, too? I have no doubt that your little paranoid fantasies will get you checked into a padded room somewhere sooner or later. I only hope that it's sooner, so we don't have to suffer through any of your mindless drivel any longer. Go back to suckling your mom's limp choad, so we don't have to wade through your nonsense any longer. And, finally...
>>
>>*PLONK*
>
>
>Are you trying to say the DEA would WANT to find heroin in ecstasy??? I suck their cocks so I would know.
Joel Crump
>>>Joel, you little paranoid faggot. RFG has done more for these groups than you've ever dreamed of, psycho-boy. I'm sick of you polluting this group with unmitigated stupidity, rambling about how the DEA are rigging every pill test ever done. Let me guess, the CIA are following you, too? I have no doubt that your little paranoid fantasies will get you checked into a padded room somewhere sooner or later. I only hope that it's sooner, so we don't have to suffer through any of your mindless drivel any longer. Go back to suckling your mom's limp choad, so we don't have to wade through your nonsense any longer. And, finally...
>>>
>>>*PLONK*
>>Are you trying to say the DEA would WANT to find heroin in ecstasy??? I suck their cocks so I would know.
>No, you idiot, the DEA couldn't care less about heroin in E. I'd rather IV heroin with a shared needle than touch MDMA. Drugs that screw with seratonin all fuck your brain up bad, screw that shit. You've probably never seen H in your life, pussy-boy. Go do some real drugs for a change, instead of your pussy XTC crap. IV coke and H is where it's at.
Well, troll, if you want to get technical, methamphetamine is "where
it's at". I'm well versed in it.
--
Joel Crump
The State Crew.
I got this from another newsgroup, but needless to say it reminds me of
someone on here:
------
Schizophrenia and NG trolls.
I want to talk quickly here about one aspect of Schizophrenia that
many of you replying to TROLLS might find of interest. It is uncanny
ability of a Schizophrenic to take verifiable proof of facts and
figures and rationalize them away into nothingness. The ability to
hold steadfast to their warped beliefs no matter what truth is
presented to them. Let's look at some examples:
Prognosticators and Doomsayers have this in abundance. 'The world
will end in the new millenium.' and 'Armegeddom will rain down upon
the unbelievers'. Well, as we all know, the world did not end. So
what happened? What did all the doomsayers say? Because of their
twisted and askew view on life, they warped reality and rational and
came up with excuses - excuses they let them hold onto their beliefs!
Now most of these excuses deal with ignoring the facts and figures,
disregarding proof. But yet, they still preach, they still wait for
the day.
As a sane person, our beliefs would be shaken, but we internalize it
and say
'Hey, I guess I was wrong. What I believed was wrong. I will be
learn from this and not try to MAKE THE BELIEF RIGHT! (square peg in a
round hole)' But not a person with Schizophrenia. There is no way
that anyone could prove them wrong - even though they stand on the
very ground that was supposed to have been destroyed - they are not
wrong.
When I was in University taking Psychology, professor Hunt told me an
interesting story about a Schizophrenic man. They were studying this
man who believed that he was going to die tomorrow - that someone was
going to kill him.
Here are some of the excuses and rationals:
1) The first day after the experiment began, when he did not die, he
said that it was not tomorrow yet.
2) So they showed him the date and verified that tomorrow (the date)
was going to be the date of death. When the next day came, and he was
very much alive, they asked him what happened. He said that the
researches were in a on a plot and in fact it was not the next day
3) When they let him see a newspaper of the verifiable dates, he said
the FBI, CIA were in on the conspiracry.
Is this becoming clearer yet?
When a person has this form of Schizophrenia - no proof, no facts,
data, figures will make a bit of difference. While we sit smug in the
knowledge that the proof has been shown, they don't get it. It will
not make a difference in their belief system - in fact, it makes them
more deranged and prone to flights of fantasy and make-believe
rationalization.
Is this becoming clearer yet?
I have just read recently in Robert Cialdini's immensely excellent
book I: TPOP - about a man who thought he was the undead. Nothing
could prove him wrong. So researchers asked him if the Undead could
bleed. He replied 'Of course not!'. So they pricked him and he bled.
Do you know what he said in the face of proof?
'Well, what do you know? The Undead can bleed!'
Is this becoming clearer yet?
For those who can't read between the lines, here it is:
There is nothing you can do to get rid of Trolls except ignore them.
Remember the famous quote 'Don't feed the trolls'. Quoting them,
berating them with facts and figures, gloating about personal triumphs
will do nothing except drive them to come up with more bizarre
rationals and twisted lack-of-logic. Any real person without this
ailment would soon have to admit to their faults and failings and own
up to it. But not people with Schizophrenia. They cannot. They are
incapable of it.
We have the FAQ for newbies. We have a great newsgroups with good
and helpful people. There is no reason or need to prove a troll
wrong. We do not need to quote him because it does not do any good.
We do not need to call them a liar, because they believe they are not
- and nothing can change that. REMEMBER NOTHING CAN CHANGE THEM.
Replying in any kind does nothing except aggrivate others in the NG
and cause the Troll to respond in abundance.
Remember the source of the posting, people. If you think the troll
says something derogatory, remember the source. Would you put
credence in what a 5 year old says?
jeldrid
> Yeah whatever, troll. RFG posted a message telling people to killfile
> me, and then went on to reply to me again. He's flaming the hell out
> of assclown over something *RFG* was wrong about. He just plain
> sucks.
Ease off Joel. I would tell you that you've got serious problems, but I'm
fairly certain you are well aware. I wasn't trolling.. I was simply
excluding myself from the false statements made by you for me. Regardless
of the situation, you're handling it in an extremely juvenile and
ineffective manner. Leave the rest of ADP out of it.
Funny how you call people trolls while at the same time making multiple NEW
posts with the sole purpose of defaming other members of adp. You can
continue banging your head against the brick wall now.
jeldrid
4ax.com:
> Feel free to like him, then. I was just using an expression, for any
> confused people (don't go around admitting you were confused about
> that, though, like glog has).
Nice backpedaling.. So when you don't THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK its ok to just
refer to your words as an "expression?" I'll remember that one.
xganon
>it's at'. I'm well versed in it.
fuckin pussy, meth is for faggots who cant handle COKE. stupid hick, id bet youve got your 'oxycotton' too, right beside your trailer-park meth lab thats gonna blow up in your face cause you dont know jack SHIT about chemistry.
Joel Crump
>"Joel Crump" <jo...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:se12st4mifu75h1ni...@4ax.com...
>> I'm sick of this fat mother-fucker attacking everything I say. Nobody
>> likes you Robert. You're much worse than I've ever been, because you
>> do stupid shit unprovoked. I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to post about
>> heroin in E. Your flames just make YOU an asshole, and a troll. Go
>> to hell.
>I got this from another newsgroup, but needless to say it reminds me of
>someone on here:
>
>------
>
>Schizophrenia and NG trolls.
Very funny. I have yet to say anything like what this little story
here, says schizos say. No one has proven there is no heroin in E.
Pill tests leave the question open. Also, I am not "trolling" by
talking about heroin in E, I'm 'informing'. Dispute my point all you
want, but don't insult me.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote in
>news:5t82stk9q6pdcqlon...@4ax.com:
>> Yeah whatever, troll. RFG posted a message telling people to killfile
>> me, and then went on to reply to me again. He's flaming the hell out
>> of assclown over something *RFG* was wrong about. He just plain
>> sucks.
>Ease off Joel. I would tell you that you've got serious problems, but I'm
>fairly certain you are well aware. I wasn't trolling.. I was simply
>excluding myself from the false statements made by you for me.
You and glog are real geniuses...
>Regardless
>of the situation, you're handling it in an extremely juvenile and
>ineffective manner. Leave the rest of ADP out of it.
Once again, you're very brilliant to interpret what I said literally.
Please tell me how to be so cool.
>Funny how you call people trolls while at the same time making multiple NEW
>posts with the sole purpose of defaming other members of adp. You can
>continue banging your head against the brick wall now.
I defend myself against attack. No question about that. Does that
make me a troll? I think not.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
Troll.
--
Joel Crump
thePriest
----------
In article <e009e8bef6e4fd45...@xganon.com>, xganon
<nob...@xganon.com> wrote:
>>Well, troll, if you want to get technical, methamphetamine is 'where
>>it's at'. I'm well versed in it.
>
>fuckin pussy, meth is for faggots who cant handle COKE. stupid hick, id bet
>youve got your 'oxycotton' too, right beside your trailer-park meth lab
>thats gonna blow up in your face cause you dont know jack SHIT about chemistry.
>
Yee-haw!
xganon
Sounds like somebody's too much of a little GEEK to get real acid, and has to go buy fake-ass morning glory cyanide vomit crap. Get real drugs or get out of these NGs.
jeldrid
> Troll.
Take a look at the original post you made. Do you see any substance?
Nope.. That's the definition of a "troll." As if you actually understand
what the word means in the first place.. You seem to be tossing it around
like some childish insult. Don't hurt me Joel!
BTW, this has turned out as a really, really nice trolling job.. Zero
substance and a ton of replies...very well done.
cghost
> fuckin pussy, meth is for faggots who cant handle COKE. stupid hick.
are you *HONESTLY* trying to say that coke is harder to handle than
METH? smoke some crystal at regular intervals over three days and see
exactly what happens to you. do the same with snorting coke...you'll
probably fall asleep. coke is a fucking pussy drug...even in huge
doses the effects aren't overpowering, and it lasts for like 15
minutes. ok, the comedown is difficult but i would take a lifetime of
depressing cocaine comedowns over one day of even the mildest
amphetamine psychosis.
and glog, that post about schizophrenics' ability to rationalize
factual information into nothing was pretty fucking weak...just
because you are RFGs bitch doesnt mean that you have to hit Joel in
the nuts with personal information he chose to share with you and the
other inhabitants of ADP..RFG asking everyone to killfile Joel was
stupid and cannot rationally be defended...regardless of his personal
problems with Joel, there is no excuse for him abusing the influence
he thinks he has over people in this NG, especially when he didnt even
killfile Joel himself (thats called hypocrisy). I personally think
the whole heroin in ecstasy thing doesnt make any sense, but i'm not
going to tell Joel to shut up like all of you are, because the
defiant, persistent attitude he is taking in this matter is
commendable regardless of its validity, and the last thing i would
expect from a fucking drugs newsgroup is people calling someone
paranoid for questioning the motives of people who have a relationship
with the DEA. without paranoid people we wouldn't know about any
conspiracies.
later
JLaroch113
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
> Very funny. I have yet to say anything like what this little story
> here, says schizos say. No one has proven there is no heroin in E.
> Pill tests leave the question open. Also, I am not "trolling" by
> talking about heroin in E, I'm 'informing'. Dispute my point all you
> want, but don't insult me.
It is true nobody here has proven there is no heroin in E. And, nobody has
proved here that there aren't demons in my cell phone. I say those reading
here should worry about heroin in E as much as they should hop a plane and
perform an exorcism on my cell phone.
--
http://www.rfgdxm.f2s.com. My "Beginner's Guide to DXM"- Version 2.3,
and other DXM related material can be accessed from there.
Revised with new section on known recreational DXM use deaths:
http://www.rfgdxm.f2s.com/dxmdeaths.htm
"Knowledge equals profit."
Ferengi Rules Of Acquisition, #74
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
news:Xns91341DB08D5D...@24.2.10.15...
ROFL. But I feel sorry for the person having to clean that brick wall of
his blood.
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
news:D36A9E37C4BE407B.114BA9BB...@lp.airnews.net...
> being Robert??
He said you are me? I'm sure you aren't. Unless I have multiple personality
disorder. ;)
Joel Crump
>> Troll.
I did not intend this thread as a troll. I truly believe that RFG is
causing trouble unnecessarily.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>You didn't even get what I said. How many times have you accused be of
>being Robert??
Sure I got it. This time I have chosen not to accuse you of that.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
...
>and glog, that post about schizophrenics' ability to rationalize
>factual information into nothing was pretty fucking weak...just
>because you are RFGs bitch doesnt mean that you have to hit Joel in
>the nuts with personal information he chose to share with you and the
>other inhabitants of ADP..RFG asking everyone to killfile Joel was
>stupid and cannot rationally be defended...regardless of his personal
>problems with Joel, there is no excuse for him abusing the influence
>he thinks he has over people in this NG, especially when he didnt even
>killfile Joel himself (thats called hypocrisy). I personally think
>the whole heroin in ecstasy thing doesnt make any sense, but i'm not
>going to tell Joel to shut up like all of you are, because the
>defiant, persistent attitude he is taking in this matter is
>commendable regardless of its validity, and the last thing i would
>expect from a fucking drugs newsgroup is people calling someone
>paranoid for questioning the motives of people who have a relationship
>with the DEA. without paranoid people we wouldn't know about any
>conspiracies.
>
>later
Werd.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>quit wasting everyones time with your posts bitching about RFG.
What about him?
--
Joel Crump
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
news:8ik3stgap80chi9r4...@4ax.com...
Yes, because of me the whole universe may soon collapse.
Windoze 98 Ed
> I'm sick of this fat mother-fucker attacking everything I say. Nobody
> do stupid shit unprovoked. I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to post about
> heroin in E. Your flames just make YOU an asshole, and a troll. Go
> to hell.
after reading all the replies to this post, there's not much left for me to
add. so you're sick of RFG just because he disagrees with you, is that it?
<PSYCHOLOGY MODE="ON">now, i'd like to explore that with you...<PSYCHOLOGY
MODE="OFF">
--
I've got to sit down and work out where I stand.
ICQ: 91418899
http://www.planeted.co.uk
http://www.eduffe.freeserve.co.uk
Very Famous Name
Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
> xganon <nob...@xganon.com> wrote:
>
> >>I'm sick of this fat mother-fucker attacking everything I say. Nobody
> >>likes you Robert. You're much worse than I've ever been, because you
> >>do stupid shit unprovoked. I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to post about
> >>heroin in E. Your flames just make YOU an asshole, and a troll. Go
> >>to hell.
>
> >Joel, you little paranoid faggot. RFG has done more for these groups than
> >you've ever dreamed of, psycho-boy. I'm sick of you polluting this group
> >with unmitigated stupidity, rambling about how the DEA are rigging every
> >pill test ever done. Let me guess, the CIA are following you, too? I have no
> >doubt that your little paranoid fantasies will get you checked into a padded
> >room somewhere sooner or later. I only hope that it's sooner, so we don't
> >have to suffer through any of your mindless drivel any longer. Go back to
> >suckling your mom's limp choad, so we don't have to wade through your
> >nonsense any longer. And, finally...
> >
> >*PLONK*
>
>
> Are you trying to say the DEA would WANT to find heroin in ecstasy???
uhhhh fill me in, why wouldn't the DEA want to find heroin in E?
Joel Crump
Because MDMA is a very legalizible drug, and if it were known that
even the 'real pills' usually aren't pure, it would encourage
legalization. MDMA is a very important drug to keep banned, from the
DEA's perspective, because other soft drugs could quickly become legal
if MDMA does.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>"Joel Crump" <jo...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:se12st4mifu75h1ni...@4ax.com...
>> I'm sick of this fat mother-fucker attacking everything I say. Nobody
>> likes you Robert. You're much worse than I've ever been, because you
>> do stupid shit unprovoked. I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to post about
>> heroin in E. Your flames just make YOU an asshole, and a troll. Go
>> to hell.
>after reading all the replies to this post, there's not much left for me to
>add. so you're sick of RFG just because he disagrees with you, is that it?
><PSYCHOLOGY MODE="ON">now, i'd like to explore that with you...<PSYCHOLOGY
>MODE="OFF">
Maybe you missed him calling for people to killfile me. And then
replying to me again.
--
Joel Crump
mur...@murpledotnet.invalid
ts duke
ts duke
"rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote in message
Joel Crump
>Gee, that was a productive post. You're cool.
I didn't see you responding that way when he wrote his message about
me.
--
Joel Crump
Matthew Isleb
> Very funny. I have yet to say anything like what this little story
> here, says schizos say. No one has proven there is no heroin in E.
> Pill tests leave the question open. Also, I am not "trolling" by
> talking about heroin in E, I'm 'informing'. Dispute my point all you
> want, but don't insult me.
You are, on the other hand, trolling by starting a thread with the subject
"RFG is a detriment to these newsgroups." Don't make me pull out
the definition of a troll. You know this fits exactly.
If you know you are crazy.. and you are "comfortable" with that, you shouldn't
be so insulted when people point out how crazy you are... or can be.
You DO exibit some of the symptoms listed by The Sate Crew.
I would not say that you are a schitzophrenic troll. I would just say that
you can be schitzophrenic.. and you can be a troll at times.
-matthew
Matthew Isleb
> I defend myself against attack. No question about that. Does that
> make me a troll? I think not.
No, but *starting* a thread titled "RFG is a detriment to these newsgroups" does
make you a troll.
-matthew
Joel Crump
>In article <lvo2st866nb8tb0g3...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Very funny. I have yet to say anything like what this little story
>> here, says schizos say. No one has proven there is no heroin in E.
>> Pill tests leave the question open. Also, I am not "trolling" by
>> talking about heroin in E, I'm 'informing'. Dispute my point all you
>> want, but don't insult me.
>You are, on the other hand, trolling by starting a thread with the subject
>"RFG is a detriment to these newsgroups." Don't make me pull out
>the definition of a troll. You know this fits exactly.
It could be seen that way, but he deserves it in this case.
>If you know you are crazy.. and you are "comfortable" with that, you shouldn't
>be so insulted when people point out how crazy you are... or can be.
>You DO exibit some of the symptoms listed by The Sate Crew.
I disagree. I could be *wrong* about some of my beliefs, but I didn't
pull them out of my ass.
>I would not say that you are a schitzophrenic troll. I would just say that
>you can be schitzophrenic.. and you can be a troll at times.
Well, I am schizophrenic, and have been since I was born. Nothing I
could have done to prevent that. I do troll a little, but not about a
real issue. RFG has been on my case because of the heroin in E thing,
and it's unfair. I've posted about lots of other topics.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
I agree one could take that view. I don't agree that in this case it
truly applies.
--
Joel Crump
Matthew Isleb
> I did not intend this thread as a troll. I truly believe that RFG is
> causing trouble unnecessarily.
Your intentions can't change the effect. Effectively, you are the troll here. And *you* are
causing trouble unnecessarily.
I really wish you could see this. Its actually pretty funny. Every claim you are make
against RFG, you epitomize in yourself. RFG is a troll? You start a trolling thread.
RFG causes trouble unecessarily? You are causing trouble unnecessarily.
Laugh! Goddamnit!
-matthew
Joel Crump
Yeah... I do get it.
--
Joel Crump
Matthew Isleb
>>You are, on the other hand, trolling by starting a thread with the subject
>>"RFG is a detriment to these newsgroups." Don't make me pull out
>>the definition of a troll. You know this fits exactly.
>
> It could be seen that way, but he deserves it in this case.
I am sure you are making him bawl his eyes out sitting there
behind his keyboard too.
Please don't try to justify trolling. There is no justification.
>>If you know you are crazy.. and you are "comfortable" with that, you shouldn't
>>be so insulted when people point out how crazy you are... or can be.
>>You DO exibit some of the symptoms listed by The Sate Crew.
>
> I disagree. I could be *wrong* about some of my beliefs, but I didn't
> pull them out of my ass.
Sure, you *could* be wrong about some of yoru beliefs, but god forbid
you actually admit to being wrong about some of them. Thats the little
catch. You constantly admit that you *could* be wrong. But you never
actually accept that as a real possibility. Your arguments seem to stand
up to even the most well thought out rebuttles. Usually when you are shown to
be wrong you just go off spewing insults.
From now on, I am going to take your anger and insulting as admitting
to being wrong. Every time you refute someone with something like
"Fuck off troll" I will take that as "You are right" or "Good point." Ok?
> Well, I am schizophrenic, and have been since I was born. Nothing I
> could have done to prevent that. I do troll a little, but not about a
> real issue. RFG has been on my case because of the heroin in E thing,
> and it's unfair. I've posted about lots of other topics.
I never said you are always a troll. Or that everything to post is trolling.
I am just saying that this.. and other threads that you have started are
very troll-like. And they have no moral or ethical justification.
So, is it Ok to troll if it isn't about a "real" issue?
-matthew
Matthew Isleb
Right, because Joel Crump, in his world of schitzophrenia, isn't bound by any
common sense of ethics or morals. He has his own world. His own rules. Even
certain aspects of logic are thrown to the wind when you enter the head of
Joel Crump.
I understand that you dont' agree that you are being a troll. I also understand that
you are not interested in the truth. You are only interested in what you think.
So, I will come away with 2 facts.
1) Joel does not think that he is a troll
2) In concensual reality he is. By all common definitions of the word.
You really do facinate me, Joel. Your level of delusion humbles me. I am in
awe. I can only wish to be as sure of myself as you are. Unfortunately I
live in a world of doubt. I constantly doubt what I know. I am subject to
the opinions and evidence of others. I have a connection to others that
just can't be broken. You are truely a free spirit. Living in a state of almost
complete dettachment but with some odd level of synchronicity. Somehow
you manage to obey at least the most basic laws of physics. Even if
you don't obey the common laws of logic and reasoning.
-matthew
Joel Crump
>In article <hv34st86jie1a4q9c...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>> I disagree. I could be *wrong* about some of my beliefs, but I didn't
>> pull them out of my ass.
>Sure, you *could* be wrong about some of yoru beliefs, but god forbid
>you actually admit to being wrong about some of them. Thats the little
>catch. You constantly admit that you *could* be wrong. But you never
>actually accept that as a real possibility. Your arguments seem to stand
>up to even the most well thought out rebuttles.
As defined by *you*? I have yet to hear a real rebuttal to anything
I've told you.
>Usually when you are shown to
>be wrong you just go off spewing insults.
Once again, I DON'T BUY YOUR POV. You gotta show me some real
rebuttal just like I gotta show you some real evidence. Or, since in
this case we're never likely to agree either has done either, we could
agree to disagree. Disagreeing is a lot different than calling people
lunatics and such.
>From now on, I am going to take your anger and insulting as admitting
>to being wrong. Every time you refute someone with something like
>"Fuck off troll" I will take that as "You are right" or "Good point." Ok?
No, it's not OK.
>> Well, I am schizophrenic, and have been since I was born. Nothing I
>> could have done to prevent that. I do troll a little, but not about a
>> real issue. RFG has been on my case because of the heroin in E thing,
>> and it's unfair. I've posted about lots of other topics.
>I never said you are always a troll. Or that everything to post is trolling.
>I am just saying that this.. and other threads that you have started are
>very troll-like. And they have no moral or ethical justification.
>
>So, is it Ok to troll if it isn't about a "real" issue?
Trolling is an intent. This thread by its nature trolls, but the
intent ain't there.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>In article <h044stkcc8j7uidb2...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Matthew Isleb <mis...@NOSPA.Monshore.com> wrote:
>>>In article <p0p2stcush0p72q4h...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> I defend myself against attack. No question about that. Does that
>>>> make me a troll? I think not.
>>>No, but *starting* a thread titled "RFG is a detriment to these newsgroups" does
>>>make you a troll.
>> I agree one could take that view. I don't agree that in this case it
>> truly applies.
>Right, because Joel Crump, in his world of schitzophrenia, isn't bound by any
>common sense of ethics or morals. He has his own world. His own rules. Even
>certain aspects of logic are thrown to the wind when you enter the head of
>Joel Crump.
Untrue.
>I understand that you dont' agree that you are being a troll. I also understand that
>you are not interested in the truth. You are only interested in what you think.
>So, I will come away with 2 facts.
>
>1) Joel does not think that he is a troll
>2) In concensual reality he is. By all common definitions of the word.
>
>You really do facinate me, Joel. Your level of delusion humbles me. I am in
>awe. I can only wish to be as sure of myself as you are. Unfortunately I
>live in a world of doubt. I constantly doubt what I know. I am subject to
>the opinions and evidence of others. I have a connection to others that
>just can't be broken. You are truely a free spirit. Living in a state of almost
>complete dettachment but with some odd level of synchronicity. Somehow
>you manage to obey at least the most basic laws of physics. Even if
>you don't obey the common laws of logic and reasoning.
You don't understand me. I'm very much interested in evidence for
things. In fact, I don't believe anything without some kind of
compelling evidence.
--
Joel Crump
Matthew Isleb
> As defined by *you*? I have yet to hear a real rebuttal to anything
> I've told you.
Yes, I know. Part of your illness is that you don't even really hear rebuttals.
> Once again, I DON'T BUY YOUR POV.
I know you don't buy my POV. You never will. You have stated plenty
of times that you are not really interesting in anybody's POV but your
own. You have to be interested in my POV before you will even hear
it. You seem to have some knowledge that there are other POV's out
there, but you are pretty much stuck in your own. Of course, we are all
this way to some extent. We can't ACTUALLY know someone else's
POV, but some people can get closer than others. You just happen
to be particularly bad at it.
> You gotta show me some real
> rebuttal just like I gotta show you some real evidence.
You have made it clear that you are exempt from providing
"real" evidence. Rather, we are urged to settle for distinct possibilities.
You admitted that your H in E theory isn't based on any real
evidence. Its just a good possibility.
>>So, is it Ok to troll if it isn't about a "real" issue?
>
> Trolling is an intent. This thread by its nature trolls, but the
> intent ain't there.
Does this mean that anybody can get out of being called a troll if
they say that the intent wasn't there?
Sure, I killed the guy, but the intent wasn't there. I only meant to
put a hole bullet through his head. I didn't mean to kill him. :P
Sure, I trolled, but the intent wasn't there. I only meant
to be off topic, insulting, and devoid of content. I didn't
mean to troll.
See the absurdity there? Probably not. But I thought it would be interesting
to point it out anyway.
-matthew
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
Actually, popular perception of MDMA today is more like it is the crack
cocaine of the 21st century. It tends to be seen more as "sinister" than a
"soft" drug. Besides, if your logic was valid the DEA would also be
suppressing that PMA, DXM, etc. are being found in E pills. If there was
heroin in E pills, it would not be enough to likely be harmful. If you check
recent E pill test results, adulteration is not rare.
Joel Crump
>In article <6s84st0k2aaqaodng...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>> As defined by *you*? I have yet to hear a real rebuttal to anything
>> I've told you.
>Yes, I know. Part of your illness is that you don't even really hear rebuttals.
You're exasperating. I listened to your lalala rebuttals of what I
told you, and I disagreed with them. Why don't you see that?
>> Once again, I DON'T BUY YOUR POV.
>I know you don't buy my POV. You never will. You have stated plenty
>of times that you are not really interesting in anybody's POV but your
>own. You have to be interested in my POV before you will even hear
>it. You seem to have some knowledge that there are other POV's out
>there, but you are pretty much stuck in your own. Of course, we are all
>this way to some extent. We can't ACTUALLY know someone else's
>POV, but some people can get closer than others. You just happen
>to be particularly bad at it.
I can see your POV just like anyone could. I don't AGREE with it.
>> You gotta show me some real
>> rebuttal just like I gotta show you some real evidence.
>You have made it clear that you are exempt from providing
>"real" evidence. Rather, we are urged to settle for distinct possibilities.
>You admitted that your H in E theory isn't based on any real
>evidence. Its just a good possibility.
Wrong. It's not based on HARD evidence. The evidence is quite real
in my mind though. I just have no way to physically show it to
someone else. That's why it'd be nice if it were humanly fucking
possible to get a neutral test done of pills, but I currently don't
know how to accomplish that.
>>>So, is it Ok to troll if it isn't about a "real" issue?
>> Trolling is an intent. This thread by its nature trolls, but the
>> intent ain't there.
>Does this mean that anybody can get out of being called a troll if
>they say that the intent wasn't there?
>
>Sure, I killed the guy, but the intent wasn't there. I only meant to
>put a hole bullet through his head. I didn't mean to kill him. :P
>
>Sure, I trolled, but the intent wasn't there. I only meant
>to be off topic, insulting, and devoid of content. I didn't
>mean to troll.
>
>See the absurdity there? Probably not. But I thought it would be interesting
>to point it out anyway.
Of course I see it. I'm just saying that I didn't intend to troll. I
know it's a troll post nonetheless. I didn't deny that.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>"Joel Crump" <jo...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:4nt3stoo5g875lpva...@4ax.com...
>> Very Famous Name <salvia*underscore*divinorum*at@*mac.com> wrote:
>> >In article <ste2stgnc9omhgbo9...@4ax.com>,
>> > Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >> Are you trying to say the DEA would WANT to find heroin in ecstasy???
>> >uhhhh fill me in, why wouldn't the DEA want to find heroin in E?
>> Because MDMA is a very legalizible drug, and if it were known that
>> even the 'real pills' usually aren't pure, it would encourage
>> legalization. MDMA is a very important drug to keep banned, from the
>> DEA's perspective, because other soft drugs could quickly become legal
>> if MDMA does.
> Actually, popular perception of MDMA today is more like it is the crack
>cocaine of the 21st century. It tends to be seen more as "sinister" than a
>"soft" drug. Besides, if your logic was valid the DEA would also be
>suppressing that PMA, DXM, etc. are being found in E pills. If there was
>heroin in E pills, it would not be enough to likely be harmful. If you check
>recent E pill test results, adulteration is not rare.
You once again fail to properly respond to my points.
--
Joel Crump
Matthew Isleb
>>You really do facinate me, Joel. Your level of delusion humbles me. I am in
>>awe. I can only wish to be as sure of myself as you are. Unfortunately I
>>live in a world of doubt. I constantly doubt what I know. I am subject to
>>the opinions and evidence of others. I have a connection to others that
>>just can't be broken. You are truely a free spirit. Living in a state of almost
>>complete dettachment but with some odd level of synchronicity. Somehow
>>you manage to obey at least the most basic laws of physics. Even if
>>you don't obey the common laws of logic and reasoning.
>
> You don't understand me. I'm very much interested in evidence for
> things. In fact, I don't believe anything without some kind of
> compelling evidence.
You should really get in the habit of saying what you really mean. You are
very much interested in evidence that supports what you already believe to
be true. If it doesn't agree with you, it isn't compelling evidence. Nice
little loophole you have there in your little world.
Joel, I spent like 5 hours chatting with your online about your various delusions
concerning drugs. I don't claim to understand you, but I can tell that you
don't use the same sense of logic and reason that most people do. Its pretty
warped if you ask me. You told me some things that are just insane. ANd some
of that insanity has leaked into various discussions here on ADP.
I know you THINK that we should be able to discern from you being crazy and
you being "correct." But the line is very thin.. and VERY blurry. You might have
a point about htings like H in E.. but as soon as you start getting "crazy"
and claiming that eveyrone is involved in some kind of mass coverup, your
whole argument falls apart. Sorry, but thats what happens. Its very difficult
to trust what you say sometimes because I know that you have a diagnosed
mental disorder. It boggles my mind that this diagnosis doesn't make you
doubt some of your own beliefs. But I think part of your illness is that you
can't doubt yourself. Not once you have made up your mind.
-matthew
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
Actually, I did respond to your point. You are just too ignorant to realize
it.
Joel Crump
Now you're really pissing me off. OK, so I'm not a slave to the
collective like you. Does that make me *WRONG*? You better have more
evidence than 'your thinking doesn't compute with consensual reality'
if you want to convince me of something. Maybe if you weren't so
caught up in this "illness" train of thought, you'd realize that
schizophrenia is just a *difference* from normal, and that it could
actually be useful. Maybe my destiny is to be the guy who tells about
heroin in E where normal people wouldn't. You are prejudiced against
people with schizophrenia.
--
Joel Crump
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
news:10025814...@horchata.onshore.com...
The interesting thing is that this mass cover-up would necessarily involve
people with different philosophies about drugs all making sure to lie in the
exact same way. I can at least accept it would be possible for the DEA to
cover up the truth about E pills, or that Bob Wallace could possibly do the
same. However, both the DEA and Bob Wallace conspiring together?
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
> Matthew Isleb <mis...@NOSPA.Monshore.com> wrote:
Actually, you are a slave to your own delusions. If there were H in E,
there would be plenty of "normal" people who would not hesitate to let this be
known. However, in your delusional world you believe all these people are
covering up H in E, despite the fact you have no actual evidence there is H in
E.
Matthew Isleb
>>> As defined by *you*? I have yet to hear a real rebuttal to anything
>>> I've told you.
>
>>Yes, I know. Part of your illness is that you don't even really hear rebuttals.
>
> You're exasperating. I listened to your lalala rebuttals of what I
> told you, and I disagreed with them. Why don't you see that?
You listen, but you don't hear. Or is that the other way around? I am
not sure. Whatever you do, it allows you to ignore evidence that
contradicts your own pre-determined ideas.
>>I know you don't buy my POV. You never will. You have stated plenty
>>of times that you are not really interesting in anybody's POV but your
>>own. You have to be interested in my POV before you will even hear
>>it. You seem to have some knowledge that there are other POV's out
>>there, but you are pretty much stuck in your own. Of course, we are all
>>this way to some extent. We can't ACTUALLY know someone else's
>>POV, but some people can get closer than others. You just happen
>>to be particularly bad at it.
>
> I can see your POV just like anyone could. I don't AGREE with it.
No. Some people are better at seeing and understanding another's
POV than others. You don't see mine. You can't. Thats part of your
illness. Arguing with you is like trying to explain the color red to
a blind man. A violent and defensive blind man.
All the blind man can do is admit that the color red exists somewhere,
somehow. He can never really percieve it. Just like you can only admit
that there are other POV's out there somewhere, somehow. You can
never really percieve them or begin to understand them. Thats part
of your illness. I would call it a lack of empathy.
>>You have made it clear that you are exempt from providing
>>"real" evidence. Rather, we are urged to settle for distinct possibilities.
>>You admitted that your H in E theory isn't based on any real
>>evidence. Its just a good possibility.
>
> Wrong. It's not based on HARD evidence. The evidence is quite real
> in my mind though.
^^^^^^^^^^
Right. In your mind.... This is part of you living in your own little world.
> I just have no way to physically show it to
> someone else.
How convenient.
That's why it'd be nice if it were humanly fucking
> possible to get a neutral test done of pills, but I currently don't
> know how to accomplish that.
We have been over this. There are plenty of ways that you can do the tests
yourself. But a convenient aspect of your illness is that you won't see anything
that would contradict your pre-concieved notions. How convenient that you
can spout off the enzymes that break down DXM in the brain, you know
all the interactions between the drugs that you do, you know how to
synthesize certain drugs.. or at least you know some of the theory.
But you can't get yourself to buy a simple opiate reagent test that would tell you
if any given pill has opiates in it? Come on Joel. You are so transparent.
> Of course I see it. I'm just saying that I didn't intend to troll. I
> know it's a troll post nonetheless. I didn't deny that.
Yes, but somehow you will never actually admit to being a troll. Because
it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion or yourself. Somehow *you* can
make troll posts, and not be a troll. But anyone else that even insults you
in the slightest is a troll.
-matthew
Shane
Joel Crump wrote:
> I'm sick of this fat mother-fucker attacking everything I say. Nobody
> likes you Robert. You're much worse than I've ever been, because you
> do stupid shit unprovoked. I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to post about
> heroin in E. Your flames just make YOU an asshole, and a troll. Go
> to hell.
>
> --
> Joel Crump
(sung) Can you feel the love tonight...
--
-Shane
(Silver Ladder Studios - http://www.silverladder.com - original art,
poetry/lyrics, music, MP3s, humor, photography, opinion, dream journals,
and a healthy dose of insanity.)
Matthew Isleb
> Now you're really pissing me off. OK, so I'm not a slave to the
> collective like you. Does that make me *WRONG*?
I have always believed that right and wrong, good and evil are all completely
relative. So, you are not "wrong" in any absolute sense.
But relative to the "collective" you are wrong. In many cases. When I apply
the reasoning I am used to using, you turn out to be wrong, crazy, etc.
I am not sure I can help that. Would you have me try to think
like a schitzophrenic? I don't know if it is possible. Part of me would
love to be able to. Honestly, some of your reasoning is just creepy at
times. WHen you go off about MDMA in Altoids, I don't even know
where to start. When you see speakers on morning shows "grimace"
when talking about caffeine in root beer and take that to mean there
is meth in them... I don't even know how to compute that. I would
have to be tripping pretty hard to make that logical leap.
> You better have more
> evidence than 'your thinking doesn't compute with consensual reality'
Your "evidence" doesn't compute in many cases. *shrug*
> if you want to convince me of something. Maybe if you weren't so
> caught up in this "illness" train of thought, you'd realize that
> schizophrenia is just a *difference* from normal, and that it could
> actually be useful. Maybe my destiny is to be the guy who tells about
> heroin in E where normal people wouldn't. You are prejudiced against
> people with schizophrenia.
Joel, I am not much interested in trying to convince you of anything. I will
admit right now that much of what I am saying is completely pointless. I know
that I will probably never get through to you. I have come to terms with this.
Perhaps you should come to terms with the real possibility that you may
never get through to the rest of the world. You fight so hard. Where
does it get you?
When it comes to reasonable debate, yes, I am prejudiced against
people with schitzophrenia. *shrug*
-matthew
Joel Crump
>In article <s4b4stc9jr7v569jf...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>> You're exasperating. I listened to your lalala rebuttals of what I
>> told you, and I disagreed with them. Why don't you see that?
>You listen, but you don't hear. Or is that the other way around? I am
>not sure. Whatever you do, it allows you to ignore evidence that
>contradicts your own pre-determined ideas.
That's hardly the case. You want me to accept pills tests? Dream on.
>> I can see your POV just like anyone could. I don't AGREE with it.
>No. Some people are better at seeing and understanding another's
>POV than others. You don't see mine. You can't. Thats part of your
>illness. Arguing with you is like trying to explain the color red to
>a blind man. A violent and defensive blind man.
>
>All the blind man can do is admit that the color red exists somewhere,
>somehow. He can never really percieve it. Just like you can only admit
>that there are other POV's out there somewhere, somehow. You can
>never really percieve them or begin to understand them. Thats part
>of your illness. I would call it a lack of empathy.
You're very wrong. I know, you won't accept that I could see things
differently, except to make the point that I have an "illness", but
the fact is that I do. And I haven't claimed to *prove* there is
heroin in E.
>>>You have made it clear that you are exempt from providing
>>>"real" evidence. Rather, we are urged to settle for distinct possibilities.
>>>You admitted that your H in E theory isn't based on any real
>>>evidence. Its just a good possibility.
>> Wrong. It's not based on HARD evidence. The evidence is quite real
>> in my mind though.
>Right. In your mind.... This is part of you living in your own little world.
No, it's because the evidence TOOK PLACE in my mind. My brain, to be
exact. You were somewhat right to say that my "feeling" heroin in E
is part of my belief in it, but it ain't just a matter of feeling the
heroin in the E... it wasn't until I compared combining DXM with pure
MDMA that I realized I had taken heroin-E. I didn't believe in heroin
in E even after taking heroin in E, for a while!
>> I just have no way to physically show it to
>> someone else.
>How convenient.
No, it isn't. It's quite terrible. Here I am being called a lunatic
just because I accuse the DEA of being sneaky bastards. Heh!
> That's why it'd be nice if it were humanly fucking
>> possible to get a neutral test done of pills, but I currently don't
>> know how to accomplish that.
>We have been over this. There are plenty of ways that you can do the tests
>yourself. But a convenient aspect of your illness is that you won't see anything
>that would contradict your pre-concieved notions. How convenient that you
>can spout off the enzymes that break down DXM in the brain, you know
>all the interactions between the drugs that you do, you know how to
>synthesize certain drugs.. or at least you know some of the theory.
>But you can't get yourself to buy a simple opiate reagent test that would tell you
>if any given pill has opiates in it? Come on Joel. You are so transparent.
I'd like to try that, actually. I need to obtain some pills, take one
to see if they're laced, and then prove I'm right with a test (which
also requires figuring out just how to do this). Right at this
particular moment, I'm unable to do so.
>> Of course I see it. I'm just saying that I didn't intend to troll. I
>> know it's a troll post nonetheless. I didn't deny that.
>Yes, but somehow you will never actually admit to being a troll. Because
>it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion or yourself. Somehow *you* can
>make troll posts, and not be a troll. But anyone else that even insults you
>in the slightest is a troll.
If they insult me without basis, yes, they are liars and trolls. If
someone called me a psychopath for some of the things I used to post
when I was doing too much speed, they'd be right. That's not an
insult. To call me a lunatic because I don't trust the DEA is an
insult.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>In article <26c4stop4g81dg38u...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Now you're really pissing me off. OK, so I'm not a slave to the
>> collective like you. Does that make me *WRONG*?
>I have always believed that right and wrong, good and evil are all completely
>relative. So, you are not "wrong" in any absolute sense.
>But relative to the "collective" you are wrong. In many cases. When I apply
>the reasoning I am used to using, you turn out to be wrong, crazy, etc.
>I am not sure I can help that. Would you have me try to think
>like a schitzophrenic? I don't know if it is possible. Part of me would
>love to be able to. Honestly, some of your reasoning is just creepy at
>times. WHen you go off about MDMA in Altoids, I don't even know
>where to start. When you see speakers on morning shows "grimace"
>when talking about caffeine in root beer and take that to mean there
>is meth in them... I don't even know how to compute that. I would
>have to be tripping pretty hard to make that logical leap.
I had already believed there were amphetamines in the flavors that guy
mentioned, before he mentioned them. It was a confirmation of what I
already thought.
>> You better have more
>> evidence than 'your thinking doesn't compute with consensual reality'
>Your "evidence" doesn't compute in many cases. *shrug*
Fine. Don't tell me I'm wrong just because I don't have hard
evidence. Say it's unlikely to be true... that wouldn't be a false
statement.
>> if you want to convince me of something. Maybe if you weren't so
>> caught up in this "illness" train of thought, you'd realize that
>> schizophrenia is just a *difference* from normal, and that it could
>> actually be useful. Maybe my destiny is to be the guy who tells about
>> heroin in E where normal people wouldn't. You are prejudiced against
>> people with schizophrenia.
>Joel, I am not much interested in trying to convince you of anything. I will
>admit right now that much of what I am saying is completely pointless. I know
>that I will probably never get through to you. I have come to terms with this.
>Perhaps you should come to terms with the real possibility that you may
>never get through to the rest of the world. You fight so hard. Where
>does it get you?
See this is exactly why you're having this argument. You're showing
your religion here. White secularism is not something I buy into.
It's not something I despise, though. You have your place in the
world just like I do.
>When it comes to reasonable debate, yes, I am prejudiced against
>people with schitzophrenia. *shrug*
Well, in this case, a schizo has shown some compelling reasons for his
"delusions". You simply ignore them and assail the messenger.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
> The interesting thing is that this mass cover-up would necessarily involve
>people with different philosophies about drugs all making sure to lie in the
>exact same way. I can at least accept it would be possible for the DEA to
>cover up the truth about E pills, or that Bob Wallace could possibly do the
>same. However, both the DEA and Bob Wallace conspiring together?
Ever hear of an unholy alliance?
--
Joel Crump
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
> Matthew Isleb <mis...@NOSPA.Monshore.com> wrote:
> >Right. In your mind.... This is part of you living in your own little
world.
>
> No, it's because the evidence TOOK PLACE in my mind. My brain, to be
> exact. You were somewhat right to say that my "feeling" heroin in E
> is part of my belief in it, but it ain't just a matter of feeling the
> heroin in the E... it wasn't until I compared combining DXM with pure
> MDMA that I realized I had taken heroin-E. I didn't believe in heroin
> in E even after taking heroin in E, for a while!
And how would you combining MDMA with DXM make you realize that you had
taken E with heroin in it?
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
An unholy alliance gets formed when 2 or more parties that are usually
adversaries join together because there is one area of common interest where
it makes sense for them to cooperate. However, in this case the obvious
interest of the DEA would want to be to keep MDMA illegal, while it appears
that Bob Wallace would prefer to see MDMA either decriminalized or legalized
(if I am wrong about that Mr. Wallace, feel free to correct me.) Why would Bob
Wallace conspire with the DEA to keep MDMA highly illegal?
Joel Crump
>news:hhg4sto3j9kdira8h...@4ax.com...
>> Matthew Isleb <mis...@NOSPA.Monshore.com> wrote:
>> >Right. In your mind.... This is part of you living in your own little
>world.
>> No, it's because the evidence TOOK PLACE in my mind. My brain, to be
>> exact. You were somewhat right to say that my "feeling" heroin in E
>> is part of my belief in it, but it ain't just a matter of feeling the
>> heroin in the E... it wasn't until I compared combining DXM with pure
>> MDMA that I realized I had taken heroin-E. I didn't believe in heroin
>> in E even after taking heroin in E, for a while!
> And how would you combining MDMA with DXM make you realize that you had
>taken E with heroin in it?
The effects were remarkably similar. Experiments this spring with
combining known-pure MDMA-powder with ~100 mg DXO, were my most
comparable yet, since DXO has much the same metabolic path as heroin,
and I was using barely-active amounts. It was very much akin to
typical illicit-E I've done.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>"Joel Crump" <jo...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:rlg4stsnv868958sn...@4ax.com...
>> "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote:
>> > The interesting thing is that this mass cover-up would necessarily
>involve
>> >people with different philosophies about drugs all making sure to lie in
>the
>> >exact same way. I can at least accept it would be possible for the DEA to
>> >cover up the truth about E pills, or that Bob Wallace could possibly do the
>> >same. However, both the DEA and Bob Wallace conspiring together?
>> Ever hear of an unholy alliance?
> An unholy alliance gets formed when 2 or more parties that are usually
>adversaries join together because there is one area of common interest where
>it makes sense for them to cooperate. However, in this case the obvious
>interest of the DEA would want to be to keep MDMA illegal, while it appears
>that Bob Wallace would prefer to see MDMA either decriminalized or legalized
>(if I am wrong about that Mr. Wallace, feel free to correct me.) Why would Bob
>Wallace conspire with the DEA to keep MDMA highly illegal?
Don't you see Robert... ravers LOVE heroin-E. When MDMA is legal, a
lot of peeps will still be buying those street pills, mark my words.
It's just not as 'fun' for them if they talk about it being laced with
opiates, and scares off newcomers. Well, they SHOULD be scared. If
you value your brain, people, stick to weed until MDMA is legal
(unless you have a source for pure MDMA).
--
Joel Crump
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
If the effects were remarkably similar, than why would you not conclude
that DXO is being commonly added to E? In fact, if what you have posted about
MDMA + DXO is true, then an E pill maker would be a fool to add H. Why not
just buy lots of cheap DXM, convert it to DXO (quite easy) and add that DXO to
E pills rather than use expensive heroin?
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
You evaded my question. Why would Bob Wallace conspire with the DEA to keep
MDMA highly illegal?
Matthew Isleb
>>Yes, but somehow you will never actually admit to being a troll. Because
>>it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion or yourself. Somehow *you* can
>>make troll posts, and not be a troll. But anyone else that even insults you
>>in the slightest is a troll.
>
> If they insult me without basis, yes, they are liars and trolls. If
> someone called me a psychopath for some of the things I used to post
> when I was doing too much speed, they'd be right. That's not an
> insult. To call me a lunatic because I don't trust the DEA is an
> insult.
But you are not a troll? Despite this and a more recent thread directed at
jboyle?
I rest my case.
-matthew
Matthew Isleb
>>I have always believed that right and wrong, good and evil are all completely
>>relative. So, you are not "wrong" in any absolute sense.
>>But relative to the "collective" you are wrong. In many cases. When I apply
>>the reasoning I am used to using, you turn out to be wrong, crazy, etc.
>>I am not sure I can help that. Would you have me try to think
>>like a schitzophrenic? I don't know if it is possible. Part of me would
>>love to be able to. Honestly, some of your reasoning is just creepy at
>>times. WHen you go off about MDMA in Altoids, I don't even know
>>where to start. When you see speakers on morning shows "grimace"
>>when talking about caffeine in root beer and take that to mean there
>>is meth in them... I don't even know how to compute that. I would
>>have to be tripping pretty hard to make that logical leap.
>
> I had already believed there were amphetamines in the flavors that guy
> mentioned, before he mentioned them. It was a confirmation of what I
> already thought.
Exactly. You look around in the world for things that will confirm what you
already think. No matter how subtle (a grimace is pretty subtle, you have to
admit). And you ignore evidence that
contradicts what you already think no matter how strong (the fact that nobody
has actually found H in E). The whole point is that you
get something in your head and you run with it. You seem to have
absolutely no capacity to admit to being wrong in any real way.
When you are wrong you dick around with meaning and implication.
Or you lash out and start calling people names.
>>> You better have more
>>> evidence than 'your thinking doesn't compute with consensual reality'
>
>>Your "evidence" doesn't compute in many cases. *shrug*
>
> Fine. Don't tell me I'm wrong just because I don't have hard
> evidence. Say it's unlikely to be true... that wouldn't be a false
> statement.
Sure, sure, sure.. its all "likely." Alright. Whatever Joel. Do youwant me
to patronize you? Maybe pat you on the head and tell youthat I agree with
your little fantasies? Sure. I'll do it. You are right Joel. What was I thinking?
I bow to your all powerful and all knowing schitzo insight. *bow*
>>Joel, I am not much interested in trying to convince you of anything. I will
>>admit right now that much of what I am saying is completely pointless. I know
>>that I will probably never get through to you. I have come to terms with this.
>>Perhaps you should come to terms with the real possibility that you may
>>never get through to the rest of the world. You fight so hard. Where
>>does it get you?
>
> See this is exactly why you're having this argument. You're showing
> your religion here. White secularism is not something I buy into.
> It's not something I despise, though. You have your place in the
> world just like I do.
Religion? What are you talking about? I don't understand. What is
"white secularism?" You lost me here.
>>When it comes to reasonable debate, yes, I am prejudiced against
>>people with schitzophrenia. *shrug*
>
> Well, in this case, a schizo has shown some compelling reasons for his
> "delusions". You simply ignore them and assail the messenger.
Compelling only to the schitzo. Thats the whole point! Your delisions,
no matter now many reasons you might have for them, are still delusions.
-matthew
Joel Crump
>"Joel Crump" <jo...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:3mi4stg6j8oe5du3u...@4ax.com...
>> "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote:
>> > And how would you combining MDMA with DXM make you realize that you had
>> >taken E with heroin in it?
>> The effects were remarkably similar. Experiments this spring with
>> combining known-pure MDMA-powder with ~100 mg DXO, were my most
>> comparable yet, since DXO has much the same metabolic path as heroin,
>> and I was using barely-active amounts. It was very much akin to
>> typical illicit-E I've done.
> If the effects were remarkably similar, than why would you not conclude
>that DXO is being commonly added to E? In fact, if what you have posted about
>MDMA + DXO is true, then an E pill maker would be a fool to add H. Why not
>just buy lots of cheap DXM, convert it to DXO (quite easy) and add that DXO to
>E pills rather than use expensive heroin?
Maybe they started doing that and that's why JLF got raided for DXM.
Who the fuck knows. I don't think heroin would cost any more for this
purpose, though.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
I am a troll, but not because of that.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>In article <dkg4st0tc87gkq2ei...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>Joel, I am not much interested in trying to convince you of anything. I will
>>>admit right now that much of what I am saying is completely pointless. I know
>>>that I will probably never get through to you. I have come to terms with this.
>>>Perhaps you should come to terms with the real possibility that you may
>>>never get through to the rest of the world. You fight so hard. Where
>>>does it get you?
>> See this is exactly why you're having this argument. You're showing
>> your religion here. White secularism is not something I buy into.
>> It's not something I despise, though. You have your place in the
>> world just like I do.
>Religion? What are you talking about? I don't understand. What is
>"white secularism?" You lost me here.
You clearly buy into a thinking style that works, but doesn't
accomplish much. Change doesn't happen because people keep the status
quo. It happens because people surpass the status quo.
>>>When it comes to reasonable debate, yes, I am prejudiced against
>>>people with schitzophrenia. *shrug*
>> Well, in this case, a schizo has shown some compelling reasons for his
>> "delusions". You simply ignore them and assail the messenger.
>Compelling only to the schitzo. Thats the whole point! Your delisions,
>no matter now many reasons you might have for them, are still delusions.
I have no delusions.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>"Joel Crump" <jo...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:1ni4st8mre3i77vnv...@4ax.com...
>> "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote:
>> >... Why would
>Bob
>> >Wallace conspire with the DEA to keep MDMA highly illegal?
>> Don't you see Robert... ravers LOVE heroin-E. When MDMA is legal, a
>> lot of peeps will still be buying those street pills, mark my words.
>> It's just not as 'fun' for them if they talk about it being laced with
>> opiates, and scares off newcomers. Well, they SHOULD be scared. If
>> you value your brain, people, stick to weed until MDMA is legal
>> (unless you have a source for pure MDMA).
> You evaded my question. Why would Bob Wallace conspire with the DEA to keep
>MDMA highly illegal?
The answer is in there. Bob sympathizes with the Dancesafe drones.
He wants them to have fun. I think they're having fun at the expense
of their mental capacity.
--
Joel Crump
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
DXO, like DXM is federally unscheduled. As such, neither would be worth
raiding JLF for. Take a look at wholesale prices of DXM. Less than $1 a gram.
Heroin is orders of magnitude more expensive. Assuming adding 100 mg of DXO to
E would give a better roll, that is like just ten cents worth of DXO. However,
there has yet to be an E pill tested with DXO, or DXM + MDMA.
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
Mr. Wallace likely does sympathize with those at Dancesafe. Now, why would
someone who sympathizes with Dancesafe want to conspire with the DEA to keep
MDMA illegal?
Joel Crump
>"Joel Crump" <jo...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:etr4sts9983ij9rvc...@4ax.com...
>> "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote:
>> > If the effects were remarkably similar, than why would you not conclude
>> >that DXO is being commonly added to E? In fact, if what you have posted
>about
>> >MDMA + DXO is true, then an E pill maker would be a fool to add H. Why not
>> >just buy lots of cheap DXM, convert it to DXO (quite easy) and add that DXO
>to
>> >E pills rather than use expensive heroin?
>> Maybe they started doing that and that's why JLF got raided for DXM.
>> Who the fuck knows. I don't think heroin would cost any more for this
>> purpose, though.
> DXO, like DXM is federally unscheduled. As such, neither would be worth
>raiding JLF for. Take a look at wholesale prices of DXM. Less than $1 a gram.
>Heroin is orders of magnitude more expensive. Assuming adding 100 mg of DXO to
>E would give a better roll, that is like just ten cents worth of DXO. However,
>there has yet to be an E pill tested with DXO, or DXM + MDMA.
Hmm. Well, anyway, I believe there is commonly heroin/morphine in E.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>"Joel Crump" <jo...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:v0s4stsaveeieb9vb...@4ax.com...
>> "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski" <rfg...@mochamail.com> wrote:
>> > You evaded my question. Why would Bob Wallace conspire with the DEA to
>keep
>> >MDMA highly illegal?
>> The answer is in there. Bob sympathizes with the Dancesafe drones.
>> He wants them to have fun. I think they're having fun at the expense
>> of their mental capacity.
> Mr. Wallace likely does sympathize with those at Dancesafe. Now, why would
>someone who sympathizes with Dancesafe want to conspire with the DEA to keep
>MDMA illegal?
That isn't the issue.
--
Joel Crump
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
Lots of people believe in God, but that is a far cry from proof of the
existence of God. Hard to imagine that *commonly* heroin/morphine is in E, yet
nobody is finding it. Please not that access to proper testing technology to
test for heroin/morphine in E is not rare. If we assume this is found in 10%
of E, all kinds of odd that none of the E users at universities, hospitals
etc. has never used any of this available test equipment and found it. And, if
*commonly* heroin/morphine is in E, why aren't ravers coming up opiate
positive in employment/court ordered urine tests? Why *no* posts in this NG
"There is heroin in E and I know it. A few days after rolling at a rave my
urine test came up opiate positive and I got fired"?
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
IOW, you believe it is happening even though you can't even think of a
logical reason why he might. OK. I'm sure everyone now believes Bob Wallace is
cahoots with the DEA.
Matthew Isleb
>>You listen, but you don't hear. Or is that the other way around? I am
>>not sure. Whatever you do, it allows you to ignore evidence that
>>contradicts your own pre-determined ideas.
>
> That's hardly the case. You want me to accept pills tests? Dream on.
I will keep dreaming I guess. I just think it is awefully convenient that you
won't accept the VERY bit of hard evidence that would show your
theory wrong.
> You're very wrong. I know, you won't accept that I could see things
> differently, except to make the point that I have an "illness", but
> the fact is that I do. And I haven't claimed to *prove* there is
> heroin in E.
I accept that you do see things differently. And I am here to tell you
that in some cases, you are flat out delusional. Your reasoning just
doesn't compute.
> No, it's because the evidence TOOK PLACE in my mind. My brain, to be
> exact.
Exactly. How can you expect anyone else to care about evidence that takes
place in your brain? We can't reproduce it. Its your private evidence. This
H in E theory is all yours. Nobody else will believe it because all the evidence
is in your head.
>>> I just have no way to physically show it to
>>> someone else.
>
>>How convenient.
>
> No, it isn't. It's quite terrible. Here I am being called a lunatic
> just because I accuse the DEA of being sneaky bastards. Heh!
It is convenient because you get to be right in the face of evidence that
contradicts you. Because you have evidence that originates in your
brain that nobody else is privy to.
>>We have been over this. There are plenty of ways that you can do the tests
>>yourself. But a convenient aspect of your illness is that you won't see anything
>>that would contradict your pre-concieved notions. How convenient that you
>>can spout off the enzymes that break down DXM in the brain, you know
>>all the interactions between the drugs that you do, you know how to
>>synthesize certain drugs.. or at least you know some of the theory.
>>But you can't get yourself to buy a simple opiate reagent test that would tell you
>>if any given pill has opiates in it? Come on Joel. You are so transparent.
>
> I'd like to try that, actually. I need to obtain some pills, take one
> to see if they're laced, and then prove I'm right with a test (which
> also requires figuring out just how to do this). Right at this
> particular moment, I'm unable to do so.
If you would like to do the test, how come just a couple of posts ago you
were whining about how a pill test just wouldn't be valid.
Just like any other schitzo, you would find 101 excuses why the pill test was
not valid if it showed you to be wrong. You would say, "well, there must be something
in the pill that prevents a positive opiate test."
I don't know you very well Joel, but I know you at least that well. I have been over this
with you. I argued with you in private and every time I came up with a way of testing
your theories about drugs you made up to silly excuse as to why the test or whatever
wouldn't work. When you run out of silly excuses you fall back on massive conspiracy
theories. This is what a schitzo does. The schitzo gets something in his head and
he will rationalize it, and justify it till the cows come home. Completely ignoring any
external evidence. This is you, dude! You trust the "evidence in your head" more than
any other source.
>>Yes, but somehow you will never actually admit to being a troll. Because
>>it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion or yourself. Somehow *you* can
>>make troll posts, and not be a troll. But anyone else that even insults you
>>in the slightest is a troll.
>
> If they insult me without basis, yes, they are liars and trolls. If
> someone called me a psychopath for some of the things I used to post
> when I was doing too much speed, they'd be right. That's not an
> insult. To call me a lunatic because I don't trust the DEA is an
> insult.
Oh, but YOU are not a troll. Because every insult that YOU sling has "basis."
The insults that other people sling are without basis. How convenient, Joel.
You just keep on rationalizing and justifying things until you are left in the
clear and "correct." And everyone else is wrong and part of some conspiracy.
You say that part of your condition is that you are isolated from the collective
consciousness. I am here tell you that you isolate yourself. Everything you
do pushes the rest of the world away.
-matthew
Matthew Isleb
> Matthew Isleb <mis...@onshore.com> wrote:
>>In article <dkg4st0tc87gkq2ei...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Joel, I am not much interested in trying to convince you of anything. I will
>>>>admit right now that much of what I am saying is completely pointless. I know
>>>>that I will probably never get through to you. I have come to terms with this.
>>>>Perhaps you should come to terms with the real possibility that you may
>>>>never get through to the rest of the world. You fight so hard. Where
>>>>does it get you?
>
>>> See this is exactly why you're having this argument. You're showing
>>> your religion here. White secularism is not something I buy into.
>>> It's not something I despise, though. You have your place in the
>>> world just like I do.
>
>>Religion? What are you talking about? I don't understand. What is
>>"white secularism?" You lost me here.
>
> You clearly buy into a thinking style that works, but doesn't
> accomplish much. Change doesn't happen because people keep the status
> quo. It happens because people surpass the status quo.
I still don't follow. What does this have to do with religion or "white secularism?"
>>Compelling only to the schitzo. Thats the whole point! Your delisions,
>>no matter now many reasons you might have for them, are still delusions.
>
> I have no delusions.
Right. Sorry. You are always right. Sorry Joel. I forgot. Every idea you have...
every interpretation you make is the right one. And we shoould all bow down to
your, obviously superior, knowledge and insight. Pardon me for even arguing with
you.
My new mantra:
"Joel has no delusions. Joel is always right. I should learn to trust the evidence the
originates in Joel's brain. His insight surpasses the status quo. He, and people like
him, are the force of great change in our society. Ommmmmmmmmmmmm"
-matthew
Joel Crump
>"Joel Crump" <jo...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:ec65st40fq906st54...@4ax.com...
>> Hmm. Well, anyway, I believe there is commonly heroin/morphine in E.
> Lots of people believe in God, but that is a far cry from proof of the
>existence of God. Hard to imagine that *commonly* heroin/morphine is in E, yet
>nobody is finding it. Please not that access to proper testing technology to
>test for heroin/morphine in E is not rare. If we assume this is found in 10%
>of E, all kinds of odd that none of the E users at universities, hospitals
>etc. has never used any of this available test equipment and found it. And, if
>*commonly* heroin/morphine is in E, why aren't ravers coming up opiate
>positive in employment/court ordered urine tests? Why *no* posts in this NG
>"There is heroin in E and I know it. A few days after rolling at a rave my
>urine test came up opiate positive and I got fired"?
You know as well as I do that urine screens look for certain
minimum-levels of metabolites. Heroin in E likely wouldn't show up on
a GC/MS screen.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>In article <hhg4sto3j9kdira8h...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>You listen, but you don't hear. Or is that the other way around? I am
>>>not sure. Whatever you do, it allows you to ignore evidence that
>>>contradicts your own pre-determined ideas.
>> That's hardly the case. You want me to accept pills tests? Dream on.
>I will keep dreaming I guess. I just think it is awefully convenient that you
>won't accept the VERY bit of hard evidence that would show your
>theory wrong.
Why would I accept tests under these circumstances? I'm not saying
with absolute certainty that I'm right, but I do believe I am right.
>> You're very wrong. I know, you won't accept that I could see things
>> differently, except to make the point that I have an "illness", but
>> the fact is that I do. And I haven't claimed to *prove* there is
>> heroin in E.
>I accept that you do see things differently. And I am here to tell you
>that in some cases, you are flat out delusional. Your reasoning just
>doesn't compute.
Wrong.
>> No, it's because the evidence TOOK PLACE in my mind. My brain, to be
>> exact.
>Exactly. How can you expect anyone else to care about evidence that takes
>place in your brain? We can't reproduce it. Its your private evidence. This
>H in E theory is all yours. Nobody else will believe it because all the evidence
>is in your head.
The theory isn't all in my head, though. I largely have left out this
private evidence in my presentations of the theory.
>>>> I just have no way to physically show it to
>>>> someone else.
>>>How convenient.
>> No, it isn't. It's quite terrible. Here I am being called a lunatic
>> just because I accuse the DEA of being sneaky bastards. Heh!
>It is convenient because you get to be right in the face of evidence that
>contradicts you. Because you have evidence that originates in your
>brain that nobody else is privy to.
I'm not sure I'd say nobody else is privy to it. They may have
experienced differences between pure and laced pills themselves, and
my theory could help them piece it all together.
>>>We have been over this. There are plenty of ways that you can do the tests
>>>yourself. But a convenient aspect of your illness is that you won't see anything
>>>that would contradict your pre-concieved notions. How convenient that you
>>>can spout off the enzymes that break down DXM in the brain, you know
>>>all the interactions between the drugs that you do, you know how to
>>>synthesize certain drugs.. or at least you know some of the theory.
>>>But you can't get yourself to buy a simple opiate reagent test that would tell you
>>>if any given pill has opiates in it? Come on Joel. You are so transparent.
>> I'd like to try that, actually. I need to obtain some pills, take one
>> to see if they're laced, and then prove I'm right with a test (which
>> also requires figuring out just how to do this). Right at this
>> particular moment, I'm unable to do so.
>If you would like to do the test, how come just a couple of posts ago you
>were whining about how a pill test just wouldn't be valid.
I did that "a couple of posts ago"? I remember when we discussed a
homebrew test before, I suggested that it wouldn't be truly
conclusive, which is true, but it would be something as we agreed on
then.
>Just like any other schitzo, you would find 101 excuses why the pill test was
>not valid if it showed you to be wrong. You would say, "well, there must be something
>in the pill that prevents a positive opiate test."
>
>I don't know you very well Joel, but I know you at least that well. I have been over this
>with you. I argued with you in private and every time I came up with a way of testing
>your theories about drugs you made up to silly excuse as to why the test or whatever
>wouldn't work. When you run out of silly excuses you fall back on massive conspiracy
>theories. This is what a schitzo does. The schitzo gets something in his head and
>he will rationalize it, and justify it till the cows come home. Completely ignoring any
>external evidence. This is you, dude! You trust the "evidence in your head" more than
>any other source.
You're assuming. Why wouldn't I just MAKE my own heroin-laced pill
and do the same test on it, to verify that the test works? I wouldn't
have any need for rationalizing then. I would either be wrong or
right.
>>>Yes, but somehow you will never actually admit to being a troll. Because
>>>it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion or yourself. Somehow *you* can
>>>make troll posts, and not be a troll. But anyone else that even insults you
>>>in the slightest is a troll.
>> If they insult me without basis, yes, they are liars and trolls. If
>> someone called me a psychopath for some of the things I used to post
>> when I was doing too much speed, they'd be right. That's not an
>> insult. To call me a lunatic because I don't trust the DEA is an
>> insult.
>Oh, but YOU are not a troll. Because every insult that YOU sling has "basis."
>The insults that other people sling are without basis. How convenient, Joel.
>You just keep on rationalizing and justifying things until you are left in the
>clear and "correct." And everyone else is wrong and part of some conspiracy.
If people disagree with my analysis of who's cool and who's not, good
for them...
>You say that part of your condition is that you are isolated from the collective
>consciousness. I am here tell you that you isolate yourself. Everything you
>do pushes the rest of the world away.
I can see your point.
--
Joel Crump
Joel Crump
>In article <5vr4st86ei7bendnh...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Matthew Isleb <mis...@onshore.com> wrote:
>>>Religion? What are you talking about? I don't understand. What is
>>>"white secularism?" You lost me here.
>> You clearly buy into a thinking style that works, but doesn't
>> accomplish much. Change doesn't happen because people keep the status
>> quo. It happens because people surpass the status quo.
>I still don't follow. What does this have to do with religion or "white secularism?"
I'll never be able to explain it to you.
>>>Compelling only to the schitzo. Thats the whole point! Your delisions,
>>>no matter now many reasons you might have for them, are still delusions.
>> I have no delusions.
>Right. Sorry. You are always right. Sorry Joel. I forgot. Every idea you have...
>every interpretation you make is the right one. And we shoould all bow down to
>your, obviously superior, knowledge and insight. Pardon me for even arguing with
>you.
>
>My new mantra:
>
>"Joel has no delusions. Joel is always right. I should learn to trust the evidence the
>originates in Joel's brain. His insight surpasses the status quo. He, and people like
>him, are the force of great change in our society. Ommmmmmmmmmmmm"
It's kind of funny that you seem to be using a mocking tone there...
--
Joel Crump
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
If it were too low to show up on a gc/ms test, then it likely also would be
too low to be psychoactive. Not to mention, some ravers have been known to
swallow multiple E pills at once. I find it all kinds of inconceivable H can
be commonly in E, yet for some odd reason *never* causes urinalysis positives.
Matthew Isleb
>>I will keep dreaming I guess. I just think it is awefully convenient that you
>>won't accept the VERY bit of hard evidence that would show your
>>theory wrong.
> Why would I accept tests under these circumstances? I'm not saying
> with absolute certainty that I'm right, but I do believe I am right.
Under what circumstances? Your conspiracy theory about everyone in the world
wanting to cover up findings of H in E?
>>I accept that you do see things differently. And I am here to tell you
>>that in some cases, you are flat out delusional. Your reasoning just
>>doesn't compute.
>
> Wrong.
I am wrong because I can't get your reasoning to compute?
>>Exactly. How can you expect anyone else to care about evidence that takes
>>place in your brain? We can't reproduce it. Its your private evidence. This
>>H in E theory is all yours. Nobody else will believe it because all the evidence
>>is in your head.
>
> The theory isn't all in my head, though. I largely have left out this
> private evidence in my presentations of the theory.
It would seem that the large part you have left out is pretty vital. Clearly,
nobody is buying your theory.
But then again, you probably rationalize it like such: "There are plenty of people
who agree, they are just lurking and not responding."
>>It is convenient because you get to be right in the face of evidence that
>>contradicts you. Because you have evidence that originates in your
>>brain that nobody else is privy to.
>
> I'm not sure I'd say nobody else is privy to it. They may have
> experienced differences between pure and laced pills themselves, and
> my theory could help them piece it all together.
See, here is another hole. You have never done pill tests. When you say you have
experience with "laced" pills, you really have no basis because you never actually
did the tests to see with what, if anything, the pills are laced with. You are
working purely off of anecdotal evidence. ANd frankly, nobody trusts it.
>>I don't know you very well Joel, but I know you at least that well. I have been over this
>>with you. I argued with you in private and every time I came up with a way of testing
>>your theories about drugs you made up to silly excuse as to why the test or whatever
>>wouldn't work. When you run out of silly excuses you fall back on massive conspiracy
>>theories. This is what a schitzo does. The schitzo gets something in his head and
>>he will rationalize it, and justify it till the cows come home. Completely ignoring any
>>external evidence. This is you, dude! You trust the "evidence in your head" more than
>>any other source.
>
> You're assuming. Why wouldn't I just MAKE my own heroin-laced pill
> and do the same test on it, to verify that the test works? I wouldn't
> have any need for rationalizing then. I would either be wrong or
> right.
You wouldn't do this. The more you can leave unknown, the more you can make
unsubstantiated claims. When you actually do some controlled tests, we can talk
about this. But so far almost EVERY argument you have made is based on
very shaky ground. Almost all of it comes from your brain and has almost 0
external evidence.
-matthew
Joel Crump
>In article <nta6stcpsgj3lftmf...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Why would I accept tests under these circumstances? I'm not saying
>> with absolute certainty that I'm right, but I do believe I am right.
>Under what circumstances? Your conspiracy theory about everyone in the world
>wanting to cover up findings of H in E?
Yep.
>>>I accept that you do see things differently. And I am here to tell you
>>>that in some cases, you are flat out delusional. Your reasoning just
>>>doesn't compute.
>> Wrong.
>I am wrong because I can't get your reasoning to compute?
You're wrong to project your own inability to compute it onto others.
>> The theory isn't all in my head, though. I largely have left out this
>> private evidence in my presentations of the theory.
>It would seem that the large part you have left out is pretty vital. Clearly,
>nobody is buying your theory.
>
>But then again, you probably rationalize it like such: "There are plenty of people
>who agree, they are just lurking and not responding."
Yep. Or blissfully unaware of the existence of newsgroups.
>>>It is convenient because you get to be right in the face of evidence that
>>>contradicts you. Because you have evidence that originates in your
>>>brain that nobody else is privy to.
>> I'm not sure I'd say nobody else is privy to it. They may have
>> experienced differences between pure and laced pills themselves, and
>> my theory could help them piece it all together.
>See, here is another hole. You have never done pill tests. When you say you have
>experience with "laced" pills, you really have no basis because you never actually
>did the tests to see with what, if anything, the pills are laced with. You are
>working purely off of anecdotal evidence. ANd frankly, nobody trusts it.
That's their prerogative to not trust it. I'm still gonna tell it
like it is.
>>>I don't know you very well Joel, but I know you at least that well. I have been over this
>>>with you. I argued with you in private and every time I came up with a way of testing
>>>your theories about drugs you made up to silly excuse as to why the test or whatever
>>>wouldn't work. When you run out of silly excuses you fall back on massive conspiracy
>>>theories. This is what a schitzo does. The schitzo gets something in his head and
>>>he will rationalize it, and justify it till the cows come home. Completely ignoring any
>>>external evidence. This is you, dude! You trust the "evidence in your head" more than
>>>any other source.
>> You're assuming. Why wouldn't I just MAKE my own heroin-laced pill
>> and do the same test on it, to verify that the test works? I wouldn't
>> have any need for rationalizing then. I would either be wrong or
>> right.
>You wouldn't do this.
Yes I would. I would *not* want to prove myself wrong when I hadn't!
Think about it. If I was sure in my mind that the E contained heroin,
and the test did not show it, I would want to make for damn sure that
the test was correct.
>The more you can leave unknown, the more you can make
>unsubstantiated claims. When you actually do some controlled tests, we can talk
>about this. But so far almost EVERY argument you have made is based on
>very shaky ground. Almost all of it comes from your brain and has almost 0
>external evidence.
I still believe it.
--
Joel Crump
phreaky p
time and energy you are both wasting on these futilities.
just an innocent passer-by
"Shane" <sh...@silverladder.com> wrote in message
news:3BC23510...@silverladder.com...
>
>
> Joel Crump wrote:
>
> > I'm sick of this fat mother-fucker attacking everything I say. Nobody
> > likes you Robert. You're much worse than I've ever been, because you
> > do stupid shit unprovoked. I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to post about
> > heroin in E. Your flames just make YOU an asshole, and a troll. Go
> > to hell.
> >
> > --
> > Joel Crump
>
> (sung) Can you feel the love tonight...
>
> --
>
> -Shane
>
> (Silver Ladder Studios - http://www.silverladder.com - original art,
> poetry/lyrics, music, MP3s, humor, photography, opinion, dream journals,
> and a healthy dose of insanity.)
>
>
Matthew Isleb
>>I am wrong because I can't get your reasoning to compute?
>
> You're wrong to project your own inability to compute it onto others.
I don't have to. Plenty of other people around here are speaking up about
their inability to compute your reasoning as well.
>>See, here is another hole. You have never done pill tests. When you say you have
>>experience with "laced" pills, you really have no basis because you never actually
>>did the tests to see with what, if anything, the pills are laced with. You are
>>working purely off of anecdotal evidence. ANd frankly, nobody trusts it.
>
> That's their prerogative to not trust it. I'm still gonna tell it
> like it is.
You are going to tell it like you think it is. Until you have proof, you can't tell it
like it is.
> Yes I would. I would *not* want to prove myself wrong when I hadn't!
> Think about it. If I was sure in my mind that the E contained heroin,
> and the test did not show it, I would want to make for damn sure that
> the test was correct.
As a schitzo, you will never be "damn sure" the test was correct. You will
always find a way to make yourself right. Your delusions are that strong.
If a pill test showed you wrong, you would find a reason why the test could
be inaccurate. Its clear to me that external evidence really has no bearing
on how you think. You never seem to trust any external evidence.
If it disagrees with you, its part of a conspiracy. You only really trust evidence
that originates in your brain. Which is fine. But don't expect anyone else
to care about your internal evidence.
Go ahead. Do pill tests. But I can guarantee that no matter what the result,
you will still believe in H in E. Because thats what your internal "evidence"
tells you.
>>The more you can leave unknown, the more you can make
>>unsubstantiated claims. When you actually do some controlled tests, we can talk
>>about this. But so far almost EVERY argument you have made is based on
>>very shaky ground. Almost all of it comes from your brain and has almost 0
>>external evidence.
>
> I still believe it.
And you always will.
See, my issue with you isn't so much your particular POV. I don't really care if you
think there is H in E. What disturbs me is your complete unwillingness to listen to
external evidence for things. You get "ideas" in your head and you believe in them
no matter what. You never really seem to let go of ideas when they no longer
work. You alter your perception of the world to fit your pre-conceived notions.
Is this not a symptom of schitzophrenia? From what I understand, a schitzo is prone
to getting "ideas" or flashes of knowledge. Some kind of gnosis. ANd for some
reason a schitzo is compelled to believe these ideas. No matter how absurd.
this seems to be you in many cases.
Then again, I really don't want to isolate you. This gnostic tendancy isn't something
unique to you or even schitzophrenia. Obviously, there are whole gnostic philosophies.
Its just that they tend to confine themselves to issues of religion and God.
You just take gnosticism to a whole new level. You will get flashes of knowledge
on a whole range of subjects. And just like a stuborn Christian, you cling to
them. Essentiallly, you have faith in your ideas. Where I might be inclined to have
a more methodical process for gaining insight. Not that I am not open to
intuitive insight, i just remain more skeptical than you.
-matthew
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
> Matthew Isleb <mis...@NOSPA.Monshore.com> wrote:
> >In article <nta6stcpsgj3lftmf...@4ax.com>, Joel Crump
<jo...@usa.net> wrote:
> >It would seem that the large part you have left out is pretty vital.
Clearly,
> >nobody is buying your theory.
> >
> >But then again, you probably rationalize it like such: "There are plenty of
people
> >who agree, they are just lurking and not responding."
>
> Yep. Or blissfully unaware of the existence of newsgroups.
Actually, those who are blissfully unaware of the existence of newsgroups
would not be buying into your theory. To do that they would have to have read
your arguments and became convinced because of them. Almost everyone who
believes there is H in E has as the basis of that belief evidence as
meaningless as those who think there is strychnine in acid: they heard rumors
on the street and just believed them. I dunno anyone else other than you who
believes there is H in E after seriously reviewing the available evidence.
rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski
news:CbIw7.1330$Z16.1...@amsnews02.chello.com...
> My question is: why can't we all just get along? Just look at the amount of
> time and energy you are both wasting on these futilities.
>
> just an innocent passer-by
Good point.
Joel Crump
<>
I give up. You don't listen to anything I say. Your superiority
complex is deep rooted.
--
Joel Crump
Catfish Rivers
>
>> Yeah whatever, troll. RFG posted a message telling people to killfile
>> me, and then went on to reply to me again. He's flaming the hell out
>> of assclown over something *RFG* was wrong about. He just plain
>> sucks.
>
>Ease off Joel. I would tell you that you've got serious problems, but I'm
>fairly certain you are well aware. I wasn't trolling.. I was simply
>excluding myself from the false statements made by you for me. Regardless
>of the situation, you're handling it in an extremely juvenile and
>ineffective manner. Leave the rest of ADP out of it.
>
>Funny how you call people trolls while at the same time making multiple NEW
>posts with the sole purpose of defaming other members of adp. You can
>continue banging your head against the brick wall now.
Takes one to know one?
--->Catfish Rivers<---
"Sword of Omens, give me Sight beyond sight!"- Liono \|/
"Oh Fuuuuuddddggguuuuh..."- Ralphie {O O)
"People of zee world, relax!"- Sailor Boy the parrot /U\
"I was contemplating the immortal words of Socrates,who said...I drank what?"RG
Catfish Rivers
>
>jeldrid <jel...@home.com> wrote:
>>Joel Crump <jo...@usa.net> wrote in
>>news:5t82stk9q6pdcqlon...@4ax.com:
>
>>> Yeah whatever, troll. RFG posted a message telling people to killfile
>>> me, and then went on to reply to me again. He's flaming the hell out
>>> of assclown over something *RFG* was wrong about. He just plain
>>> sucks.
>
>>Ease off Joel. I would tell you that you've got serious problems, but I'm
>>fairly certain you are well aware. I wasn't trolling.. I was simply
>>excluding myself from the false statements made by you for me.
>
>
>
>
>>Regardless
>>of the situation, you're handling it in an extremely juvenile and
>>ineffective manner. Leave the rest of ADP out of it.
>
>Please tell me how to be so cool.
>
>
>>Funny how you call people trolls while at the same time making multiple NEW
>>posts with the sole purpose of defaming other members of adp. You can
>>continue banging your head against the brick wall now.
>
>make me a troll? I think not.
>
>--
>Joel Crump
A good defense is a good offense, right?