BBC agit prop about cannabis grow shops
grim...@yahoo.co.uk
Wasn't there a court case recently. The shop owner was initially found
guilty, but was overturned by the Appeal Court, Judgement saying that
the offence did not exist in law. Sounds like the BBC are trying to
build a case here. I do think cannabis should be legalised NON
commerically so peole can grow and share so that the most auspicious
manifestation of this remarkable consciousness changing drug can
manifest. Or a genuine free market of around £5 per quality onze.
Something has to be done. The current situation of criminality and
egoising abusive scum controlling the weed has to go. £150 for a tiny
bit of a plant (an onze) is sick. Very often its underweight and damp
- absolute rubbish! (generalising). On the other hand it should not be
hyped to young adults. In the right setting it is ok, even for young
people. What is the right setting? Good question! Old school peace
convoy sharing circle? (where consciousness of Mother Earth within
context of respect for tribal people etc can be awoken using these
sorts of drugs and crucially within a context of good works and
positive energy and activity) Sure but most people have absolutely no
idea of that world - how can that be foculised on a community wide
basis? Otherwise I would say to young people to be very careful with
their health and bodies because currently as things are there are many
seemingly sound but actually abusive scenes that can £!!£ you up.
Difficult to explain. If you are REALLY interested in these sorts of
drugs and determined to try them, I would recommend that you WAIT and
make the effort when old enough to travel to the relevant areas of the
world and take them in the native setting of (ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS) a
religious type setting. Thus go to India Himalaya for cannabis, and
away from (western) tourist areas please. There you are likely to have
an auspicious opening of occult as is the prime use of this drug, ok,
rather than the possibility of the western negative parralel, so
called skitzaphrenia - a bad trip that the pot heads are in denial of.
Lets me emphasise - its not the drug per say, its the setting, the
'west', that causes this so called disease due to basically religious/
ritual factors. People do go for years with the trip just contained in
their head, BUT it can open you out to the occult outside the box type
thing, and this can be a negative total freak out opening in the
'west'. Its just much much less likely to have this pyscotic break
thing in the context of the east due to the ordinary peoples religion.
And these days with rave culture especially there are so many wee
assholes dealing this stuff and strutting about on ego trips, pissing
around with buyers heads and all the rest of it. The solution is to
create a 'nice game' senario for cannabis useage - please a situation
of non commercial free supply or free market...in Holland it is very
expensive and all the bull needs to be taken out of the equation so we
can just have sharing and good effect which then leads to positive
action in ones life. I do realise that this world is a million miles
from the mainstream world especially the world of polititons and
tabloid newspaper editors...and thats the point, i.e. radical and
total change of consciousness is required (to be in Balance with
Mother Earth). Cannabis in a ritual context can produce this, and take
it further to real time magic happening aound you. That can happen
without cannabis, in this context cannabis just makes the thought
process and thus the magic stronger.
Blunt Pencil
In my younger day we used to trek to Afghanistan for the delights of
dropping everything going under terrificly religous experience but I
wouldn't like to guess what would happen these days if youngsters took
the journey thanks to Dubyas work. Maybe it was just his way of stopping
people toking?
Mick the spiv
news:e0e5067d-b39e-44d2...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7634371.stm
Wasn't there a court case recently. The shop owner was initially found
guilty, but was overturned by the Appeal Court, Judgement saying that
the offence did not exist in law. Sounds like the BBC are trying to
build a case here. I do think cannabis should be legalised NON
commerically so peole can grow and share so that the most auspicious
manifestation of this remarkable consciousness changing drug can
manifest. Or a genuine free market of around £5 per quality onze.
What's an onze?
grim...@yahoo.co.uk
> <grimus...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:e0e5067d-b39e-44d2...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7634371.stm
>
> Wasn't there a court case recently. The shop owner was initially found
> guilty, but was overturned by the Appeal Court, Judgement saying that
> the offence did not exist in law. Sounds like the BBC are trying to
> build a case here. I do think cannabis should be legalised NON
> commerically so peole can grow and share so that the most auspicious
> manifestation of this remarkable consciousness changing drug can
> manifest. Or a genuine free market of around £5 per quality onze.
>
> What's an onze?
the grimus drawled..
"A wise guy huh?"
Kendall K Down
ups.com>
grim...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> I do think cannabis should be legalised NON commerically
Why? Don't you think there are enough schizophrenics around already?
Or is "NON commerically" your way of saying "never, ever, not in a
million years"?
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
grim...@yahoo.co.uk
> In message <e0e5067d-b39e-44d2-9fff-124f5e7ed...@x41g2000hsb.googlegro
> ups.com>
> grimus...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> > I do think cannabis should be legalised NON commerically
>
> Why? Don't you think there are enough schizophrenics around already?
> Or is "NON commerically" your way of saying "never, ever, not in a
> million years"?
>
> Ken Down
>
> --
> ================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
> | Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
> | http://www.diggingsonline.com |
> ========================================================
You are a skitzaphrenic Ken - a masonic skitz. Cannabis usually breaks
people out of that program and transcneds consciousness, unless scum
like you are able to screw up and pervert the trip. You're a headcase
Ken, a dinasour. You're going to hell Ken.
Bless.
grim...@yahoo.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kumoan is nice - gotta be one of the most non violent commerical
cannabis growing locations worldwide. Its all head stuff there. Mad!
Religious head games that actually bend reality - altar reality. No
thats devil worshipry say the masonic skitz type 'christians' - Its
incredible there basically because there is non none of that masonic
type 'christian' total and complete f'ing instanity.
13/goddess/Mother Earth connection/ritual being the 'grail' to real
time magic.
Are you annoyed Ken? F'ing egosing fascist piece of dogshit thats
going to hell for real.
Bless
Kendall K Down
ups.com>
grim...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> You are a skitzaphrenic Ken - a masonic skitz. Cannabis usually breaks
> people out of that program and transcneds consciousness, unless scum
> like you are able to screw up and pervert the trip. You're a headcase
> Ken, a dinasour. You're going to hell Ken.
> Bless.
So now we know what smoking the stuff does to one.
grim...@yahoo.co.uk
> In message <65a8bba6-8955-4a93-bd1a-b1c0fd3dc...@a70g2000hsh.googlegro
> ups.com>
> grimus...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> > You are a skitzaphrenic Ken - a masonic skitz. Cannabis usually breaks
> > people out of that program and transcneds consciousness, unless scum
> > like you are able to screw up and pervert the trip. You're a headcase
> > Ken, a dinasour. You're going to hell Ken.
> > Bless.
>
> So now we know what smoking the stuff does to one.
>
> Ken Down
You're a 'christian' right Ken - you believe in the terminology of
heaven and hell in the afterlife (as if it was black and white as
that) - well, a hell type reality is where you're headed to, fascist
headcase. Cannabis is not just OK, but in fact a useful plant, all
things being equal. (i.e. untill masonic robots like you get to work
on the situation). In other words fuk off and die irrelevent
dinasoural scum.
Kendall K Down
ups.com>
grim...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Cannabis is not just OK, but in fact a useful plant
Of course it is. It makes excellent rope.
The problem arises when idiots smoke it.
grim...@yahoo.co.uk
> In message <9e51cd64-262b-4567-9884-ead7f0e37...@k13g2000hse.googlegro
> ups.com>
> grimus...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Cannabis is not just OK, but in fact a useful plant
>
> Of course it is. It makes excellent rope.
>
> The problem arises when idiots smoke it.
>
> Ken Down
>
> --
> ================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
> | Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
> | http://www.diggingsonline.com |
> ========================================================
Its a useful religious/occult sacrament.
Kendall K Down
ups.com>
grim...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Its a useful religious/occult sacrament.
Yes, I suppose if you equate religion with being out of your head,
you're right.
As no one except a druggie uses such a foolish definition, you're
wrong.
Dr John Watson
> In message <4f35e10f-f08a-4a1a...@l42g2000hsc.googlegro
> ups.com>
> grim...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Its a useful religious/occult sacrament.
>
> Yes, I suppose if you equate religion with being out of your head,
> you're right.
>
> As no one except a druggie uses such a foolish definition, you're
> wrong.
>
> Ken Down
I suppose xtian priests getting pissed up on the sacrament is ok.
Didn't Jesus use weed?
--
Dr John Watson
Baker Street
Kendall K Down
Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
> Didn't Jesus use weed?
If you were really a doctor you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
Telling it how it is.
> In message <4f35e10f-f08a-4a1a...@l42g2000hsc.googlegro
> ups.com>
> grim...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Its a useful religious/occult sacrament.
>
> Yes, I suppose if you equate religion with being out of your head,
> you're right.
So what we see here is Ken being an ignorant twat again who openly
expresses his "self" as a christian, yet fails to have a grasp of the
fundamental sacrament process of the inner tent of the main temple of the
religion he professes to be party to.
Please note the following is a loose translation from the top of me
head....
"And the alter is to be made of shittim wood", and the incense is to be
made of shittim wood and you burn the shittim until the tent is full of
the sweet smelling smoke of the shittim"
Now wtf is "shittim wood" Well let me tell you Ken, shittim is red acacia
and the bible tells you to make an alter of it, and to make an incense of
the bark thorns and pods of the shittim and burn it on the alter in the
inner temple
But here's the best part, This particular wood "shittim" is that very
tree that God says to make the temple incense from and is in fact the
very tree that has the highest levels in the whole world of a compound
called dimethyltryptamine (DMT), 5-methoxy-dimethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DMT)
and N-methyltryptamine (NMT). Which are the most powerful psychoactive
drugs on our planet. The alkaloids found in Acacia "shittim" are 1000x
more powerful than LSD.
So yet again here is Ken the ignorant fool who sees the world through his
anus blind as can be, leading the other blind fools into a ditch. The
problem is that he Ken does not know a dam thing about any such thing and
is simply taking a moral high ground given to him by the masonic cult he
is part of for the sole purpose of stopping persons experiencing this
sacrament, because when you do use this sacrament you realise that there
are cunts like Ken out there that are like the tax collectors the bible
warns us of and the control systems that man devises to control others
with. Ken knows what will happen if everyone starts to wake the fuck up
by using such sacraments Don't you Ken?. Because in knowing is NOW. And
Ken and his masonic cronies don't want to loose control of a good thing A
ken?
> As no one except a druggie uses such a foolish definition, you're wrong.
This is a classic masonic control system that Ken tries to employ.
So i challenge Ken or another misguided fool who takes the moral high
ground to sit in a small tent and set fire to some shittim just as he has
been instructed to do in the bible and then come back here and tell us
all about this highest of sacraments.
Maybe, just maybe it will have the desired effect that The God of the
Bible wanted it to have and WAKE THIS FUCKING MORON UP before its to late.
--
and thats the truth.
Telling it how it is.
> In message <6m8afuF...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Didn't Jesus use weed?
>
> If you were really a doctor you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
>
> Ken Down
And if you was a proper christian you would know that when God said
something like "and I give man all seed bearing plants as food for the
body"
Ken however fails to agree with God on this subject and in his wisdom
prefers to tell his fellow lost sheep the total opposite to what God has
directed him to do.
Not only does this make Ken a hypocrite but a dam ignorant fool to boot
Dr John Watson
> In message <6m8afuF...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Didn't Jesus use weed?
>
> If you were really a doctor you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
>
> Ken Down
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article811211.ece
Kendall K Down
"Telling it how it is." <nob...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Please note the following is a loose translation from the top of me
> head....
> "And the alter is to be made of shittim wood", and the incense is to be
> made of shittim wood and you burn the shittim until the tent is full of
> the sweet smelling smoke of the shittim"
Please note, we have here a druggie who cannot even spell "altar"
correctly, giving us a translation of Hebrew - which I'll bet he can't
speak, read or understand - that bears no relationship whatsoever to
any passage in the Bible translated by people who *do* know Hebrew.
Even better, the Bible actually gives us the recipe for the incense
burned in the temple - you can find it in Exodus - and shittim wood is
*not* one of the ingredients.
Just go back to your drug-fuelled fantasies, mate. It's about all your
brain is good for now.
Kendall K Down
"Telling it how it is." <nob...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Didn't Jesus use weed?
>> If you were really a doctor you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
> And if you was a proper christian you would know that when God said
> something like "and I give man all seed bearing plants as food for the
> body"
A Palin-like sentence that is incomplete - and the twit expects us to
believe that he knows what he is talking about!
grim...@yahoo.co.uk
> In message <4f35e10f-f08a-4a1a-8880-2e4135f2f...@l42g2000hsc.googlegro
> ups.com>
> grimus...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Its a useful religious/occult sacrament.
>
> Yes, I suppose if you equate religion with being out of your head,
> you're right.
>
> As no one except a druggie uses such a foolish definition, you're
> wrong.
>
> Ken Down
>
> --
> ================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
> | Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
> | http://www.diggingsonline.com |
> ========================================================
So you dismiss traditional Hindu religious use out of hand then Ken?
Religious use of cannabis is documented. Its a fact. Millions of
people worldwide for thousands of years. Its not a matter of being
'off your head', in this context cannabis is a mechanism in
ritual...it makes the ritual more powerful. Real religion is ABOUT the
occult Ken (rather than some anti 13/goddess aspect masonicly built
paranoia trip), and as an occult/magic sacrament, cannabis is
excellent. All these words frighten you masonic paradigm 'christian'?
- well they shouldn't because thats what real religion is about -
magic, real time magic, that here in the west is dismissed and blocked
as the 'devil' or insanity or something.
Alpha
<179f8d00-5144-466c...@k16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
grim...@yahoo.co.uk writes
What does frighten me grimus, is that your rantings here demonstrate the
results of the use of cannabis (and of anything/everything else that you
self-abuse on).
You are all the evidence that is needed that cannabis affects the brain.
If your brain was not addled you would be able to see that for yourself.
Since your brain is so affected, we all have to sympathise with you and
your family, though I would hazard a guess that you are the result of
either the genes that your parents passed on, or the environment in
which they raised you in. All very sad.
--
Zillion
Kendall K Down
Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Didn't Jesus use weed?
>> If you were really a doctor you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article811211.ece
And if you were really a doctor, you wouldn't believe nonsense just
because some journalist writes it in an on-line newspaper.
Gee! You'll be believing in aliens next.
Kendall K Down
Alpha <al...@fireflyuk.net> wrote:
> What does frighten me grimus, is that your rantings here demonstrate the
> results of the use of cannabis (and of anything/everything else that you
> self-abuse on).
> You are all the evidence that is needed that cannabis affects the brain.
> If your brain was not addled you would be able to see that for yourself.
> Since your brain is so affected, we all have to sympathise with you and
> your family, though I would hazard a guess that you are the result of
> either the genes that your parents passed on, or the environment in
> which they raised you in. All very sad.
He he! I've just posted something to pretty much the same effect. It's
nice to know that I'm not the only one to think that our friend here
has fried his brain with drugs.
Kendall K Down
ups.com>
grim...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> So you dismiss traditional Hindu religious use out of hand then Ken?
> Religious use of cannabis is documented. Its a fact. Millions of
> people worldwide for thousands of years. Its not a matter of being
> 'off your head', in this context cannabis is a mechanism in
> ritual...it makes the ritual more powerful. Real religion is ABOUT the
> occult Ken (rather than some anti 13/goddess aspect masonicly built
> paranoia trip), and as an occult/magic sacrament, cannabis is
> excellent. All these words frighten you masonic paradigm 'christian'?
> - well they shouldn't because thats what real religion is about -
> magic, real time magic, that here in the west is dismissed and blocked
> as the 'devil' or insanity or something.
If, by "magic", you mean things contrary to nature - supernatural or
miraculous - then I might agree with you that "real religion" is
indeed about such things.
Getting out of your head on cannabis or magic mushrooms or whatever is
not magic. It is a simple chemical process, the result of which is
that the subject of that process - the drug user, in other words -
becomes unable to comprehend the world correctly.
Your ravings are the finest example one could wish for of how drug use
results in mental impairment.
Telling it how it is.
> If, by "magic", you mean things contrary to nature - supernatural or
> miraculous - then I might agree with you that "real religion" is indeed
> about such things.
>
> Getting out of your head on cannabis or magic mushrooms or whatever is
> not magic. It is a simple chemical process, the result of which is that
> the subject of that process - the drug user, in other words - becomes
> unable to comprehend the world correctly.
>
> Your ravings are the finest example one could wish for of how drug use
> results in mental impairment.
>
> Ken Down
contrary to nature?
How can such complex chemical compounds found in nature and created by
God fit the correct chemical receptors in the brain also created by God
be contrary to nature?
Are we not made in the image of God? Are not all things created by God in
nature?
Simple chemical process?
Oh you mean the way complex chemical compounds that have the very same
shape and size of the natural receptors in the brain and lock together by
chance?
unable to comprehend?
How do you KNOW the user is unable to comprehend Ken.
Isn't it your SELF that cannot comprehend ken. are you not just
transferring your lack on comprehension? Unless your offering first hand
experience of drug use that is? Is that what your saying Ken?
That when you took drugs you could not comprehend it? and for you it was
like mental impairment, after all you could only truly say such things in
all honesty if you in fact are admitting that you to have used these
compounds, and this is what you "KNOW"
Otherwise your a telling lies. because without first hand experience your
just a parrot telling something that some other parrot has told you, even
if the person that told you is a doctor. if they have no first hand
experience then they too are telling lies
What your problem is is that there are more people with first hand
experience telling the liars that they are in fact liars and that there
premise is false. Prohibition from the moral high ground can never win
over knowing the truth. No matter how long you stand there calling names.
All it does is prolong your own ignorance and the suffering caused by
such draconian rules of prohibition, made i might add by other ignorant
fools standing on a block of moral high ground.
So unless your going to explain what drugs you have taken and for how
long. Your arguments don't have any value here, your foundation is based
on a false premise. You have no first person real life experience and so
have no valid point.
Kendall K Down
"Telling it how it is." <nob...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> How can such complex chemical compounds found in nature and created by
> God fit the correct chemical receptors in the brain also created by God
> be contrary to nature?
Simple: there are all sorts of things which are beneficial - for the
proper use. Digitalis, for example, is a splendid treatment for some
forms of heart disease. It is not good for recreation, however.
In the same way marijuana may have medicinal uses; you, however, want
to use it for no other purpose than to reduce your brain power.
> So unless your going to explain what drugs you have taken and for how
> long. Your arguments don't have any value here, your foundation is based
> on a false premise. You have no first person real life experience and so
> have no valid point.
1. I am proud to say that I have not taken any drugs except for
medical treatment. That is why I can write English and use logic when
you can't.
2. Demanding that I have "first person real life experience" of
harmful drugs is a bit like demanding that I hang myself before
telling anyone that suicide is a bad idea. See my comments above about
logic.
Dr John Watson
> In message <6mdju5F...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Didn't Jesus use weed?
>
>>> If you were really a doctor you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article811211.ece
>
> And if you were really a doctor, you wouldn't believe nonsense just
> because some journalist writes it in an on-line newspaper.
As I don't believe Jesus existed, I can hardly believe he smoked it, could
I?
> Gee! You'll be believing in aliens next.
I do, which is why I run SETI at home.
> Ken Down
Telling it how it is.
> In message <e%DMk.82626$IX7....@newsfe20.ams2>
> "Telling it how it is." <nob...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> How can such complex chemical compounds found in nature and created by
>> God fit the correct chemical receptors in the brain also created by God
>> be contrary to nature?
>
> Simple: there are all sorts of things which are beneficial - for the
> proper use. Digitalis, for example, is a splendid treatment for some
> forms of heart disease. It is not good for recreation, however.
But this is my point Ken, below you state, "I am proud to say that I have
not taken any drugs except for medical treatment" If this is true, How
would you know that it is not good for recreation? That's Logic right ?
> In the same way marijuana may have medicinal uses; you, however, want to
> use it for no other purpose than to reduce your brain power.
Reduce brain power? Another assumption right? Because after all you said
below. "I am proud to say that I have not taken any drugs except for
medical treatment" Logic? are you sure you know the meaning of the word?
>> So unless your going to explain what drugs you have taken and for how
>> long. Your arguments don't have any value here, your foundation is
>> based on a false premise. You have no first person real life experience
>> and so have no valid point.
>
> 1. I am proud to say that I have not taken any drugs except for medical
> treatment. That is why I can write English and use logic when you can't.
>
> 2. Demanding that I have "first person real life experience" of harmful
> drugs is a bit like demanding that I hang myself before telling anyone
> that suicide is a bad idea. See my comments above about logic.
I demand no such thing, My imply is that if you have not had any such
personal experience then you have no authority to make such claims, you
are simply relaying 2nd hand information in a parrot fashion.
What is obvious is that your frightened of your "self" and how "self"
might or might not have to change or reconsider its position should you
go check out the snow cat >:) I'M not promoting or prohibiting here. I'M
just pointing to the truth. I,am sorry that your ego doesn't allow you to
see it.
No one can have a true opinion about honey, if not first having tasted it.
But by your logic you could ?
Kendall K Down
Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>> And if you were really a doctor, you wouldn't believe nonsense just
>> because some journalist writes it in an on-line newspaper.
> As I don't believe Jesus existed, I can hardly believe he smoked it, could
> I?
Ah, so you're not really a doctor; you're just an ignorant and
opiniated atheist. Historians and scholars are quite happy to accept
the evidence that Jesus existed: they may doubt that Jesus was God,
but they have no doubt that a Jew of that name existed and was put to
death around 30 AD.
>> Gee! You'll be believing in aliens next.
> I do, which is why I run SETI at home.
Now, does that prove my point or not?
Kendall K Down
"Telling it how it is." <nob...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> But this is my point Ken, below you state, "I am proud to say that I have
> not taken any drugs except for medical treatment" If this is true, How
> would you know that it is not good for recreation? That's Logic right ?
No, that's stupidity.
I don't need to crash my car at 80mph into a concrete block to know
that doing so it a very Bad Idea. I just look at people who have done
so and at medical and scientific studies of the results.
In the same way, I don't need to take drugs for recreation to know
that they are not a good idea: I just look at King Amdo and, indeed,
yourself - as well as the medical and scientific studies - and that is
all I need. *That* is logic - though I don't expect your drug-addled
brain to recognise it.
>> In the same way marijuana may have medicinal uses; you, however, want to
>> use it for no other purpose than to reduce your brain power.
> Reduce brain power? Another assumption right?
No, another medical statistic.
> Because after all you said below. "I am proud to say that I have not
> taken any drugs except for medical treatment" Logic? are you sure you
> know the meaning of the word?
Definitely: but you, having addled your brain with recreational drugs,
are in no position to lecture me on the subject.
> I demand no such thing, My imply is that if you have not had any such
> personal experience then you have no authority to make such claims, you
> are simply relaying 2nd hand information in a parrot fashion.
Sure, just as, in parrot fashion, I taught my children that jumping
off a cliff was very bad for them, that crossing the road without
looking both ways was very bad for them, and so on. We parrots tend to
live long and healthy lives.
> What is obvious is that your frightened of your "self" and how "self"
> might or might not have to change or reconsider its position should you
> go check out the snow cat
Seeing how King Amdo has changed, I have about as much desire to find
out as I have a desire to discover what happens if I crash my car into
a concrete block at 80mph. I've seen crash victims and that's enough
for me.
> No one can have a true opinion about honey, if not first having tasted it.
> But by your logic you could ?
It depends on what the opinion is supposed to be. If an opinion on the
taste of honey, I agree. If an opinion on the medical and
physiological effects, then I disagree. For the latter it is quite
sufficient to observe what happens to other people who have eaten
honey.
In the same way, I have no opinion of the taste of marijuana nor have
I ever expressed one. I do, however, have very definite opinions on
what marijuana does to those who use it. Look at Amdo.
Dr John Watson
> In message <6mj4dsF...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And if you were really a doctor, you wouldn't believe nonsense just
>>> because some journalist writes it in an on-line newspaper.
>
>> As I don't believe Jesus existed, I can hardly believe he smoked it, could
>> I?
>
> Ah, so you're not really a doctor; you're just an ignorant and
> opiniated atheist. Historians and scholars are quite happy to accept
> the evidence that Jesus existed: they may doubt that Jesus was God,
> but they have no doubt that a Jew of that name existed and was put to
> death around 30 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis
>
>>> Gee! You'll be believing in aliens next.
>
>> I do, which is why I run SETI at home.
>
> Now, does that prove my point or not?
I haven't tracked them down yet.
Dr John Watson
> In the same way marijuana may have medicinal uses; you, however, want to
> use it for no other purpose than to reduce your brain power.
On the contrary, moderate cannabis use increases IQ:
Results: Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in
a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The
comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1
points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points
for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6).
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/166/7/887
Dr John Watson
> Definitely: but you, having addled your brain with recreational drugs,
> are in no position to lecture me on the subject.
This one always amuses me. "Drugs fuck your mind, so whatever you say I'll
ignore because you take drugs therefore what you say must be wrong".
Alpha
<nob...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
Snipped much ranting.....
>Reduce brain power? Another assumption right?
Certainly NOT an assumption. Your rantings and ramblings here
demonstrate most conclusively of the adverse effects of cannabis on your
cognitive processes.
But going back to my previous post, I'm very curious whether your
addiction to cannabis results from your parent's genetic influence, or
whether it is due to the way they raised you. Perhaps you can tell us
all which it is?
--
Zillion
Alpha
<drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> writes
the need to justify their self abuse.
If they were at peace with their habit, I would have thought that they
would just quietly get on with it.
Conversely, do they perhaps subliminally want to prompt sufficient
argument that will help then break their habit?
--
Zillion
grim...@yahoo.co.uk
> In message <179f8d00-5144-466c-8eaf-c8339988e...@k16g2000hsf.googlegro
> ups.com>
> grimus...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> > So you dismiss traditional Hindu religious use out of hand then Ken?
> > Religious use of cannabis is documented. Its a fact. Millions of
> > people worldwide for thousands of years. Its not a matter of being
> > 'off your head', in this context cannabis is a mechanism in
> > ritual...it makes the ritual more powerful. Real religion is ABOUT the
> > occult Ken (rather than some anti 13/goddess aspect masonicly built
> > paranoia trip), and as an occult/magic sacrament, cannabis is
> > excellent. All these words frighten you masonic paradigm 'christian'?
> > - well they shouldn't because thats what real religion is about -
> > magic, real time magic, that here in the west is dismissed and blocked
> > as the 'devil' or insanity or something.
>
> If, by "magic", you mean things contrary to nature - supernatural or
> miraculous - then I might agree with you that "real religion" is
> indeed about such things.
>
> Getting out of your head on cannabis or magic mushrooms or whatever is
> not magic. It is a simple chemical process, the result of which is
> that the subject of that process - the drug user, in other words -
> becomes unable to comprehend the world correctly.
>
> Your ravings are the finest example one could wish for of how drug use
> results in mental impairment.
>
> Ken Down
Have some respect for the Hindu culture and religion.
grim...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
Be aware that Ken is a very very strait mainstream 'christian'
individual. Thus I would say where he is coming from is the ritual
abuse derived masonic type imitative 'christian' thing. Thats why hes
so materialistic and anti the magic of the universe(s). It would be
laughable if it were for the fact that it takes ritual abuse anti
magic to make people like Ken. You're going to hell, Ken, as I said
before, if you continue to hold onto this reactionary mindset. Jesus
was a hippy anarchist - a very very way out channel to the people of
auspicious consciousness. Like a very powerful Indian Sadu. Yes you
don't neccessarily need cannabis or any other pyscotropic plant/drug
to increase the power of ones mind to be able to do this...to be able
to channel communal consciousness. Potentially many have this ability.
I'd done it myself at some rave parties, kinda picked up on the trip
in India, and from eco warrior trip also. Many can do it...and yes
the mainstream western order and masonic paradigm 'christians' like
Ken do channel the negative ritual abuse senario which can send people
skitazphrenic at its most extreme...thus the sad idiot pushing the
mental health thing. Scum as I said before, scum with scary ritual
abuse karma that is a inherent block to magic, i.e. natural forces ,
elemental forces, and fixes people in materialism and ego, rather than
positive aspect of the sacred Mother Earth in particular being
incorporated into their consciousness and reality by auspicious ritual
and natural magic. I would say that people should only trake cannabis
occassional for the real revelatory effect. It should be legal and
free (non commerical). Extasy should be legal and free, and people
should really take it not more than once a month. Likewise LSD.
Setting is important for these drugs, and that could be organised
easily in a legal setting. I think you'd need to 'legalise' free rave
parties also - pull back the whole demonisation and supression of
these happenings. Probably best to leave cocaine and speed alone. On
the other hand there are very good arguments to legalise (by my tribal
law decree!) all drugs in a free market senario, legal for driving
motor vehicle etc also, for reasons to do with freedom of
consciousness (not neccessarily freedom of action)...like you would
have in the old UK free Festivals, and it worked ok there because
people were generally connected and sound and not out of control,.
manic and dangerous. Of all these realities Ken has no idea what-so-
ever. Hes never lived!
Dr John Watson
> Be aware that Ken is a very very strait mainstream 'christian'
> individual.
Ah - that explains it.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a769950921~db=all
(Costs £19).
Kendall K Down
ups.com>
grim...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Have some respect for the Hindu culture and religion.
Oh absolutely. A wonderful, admirable system that burns widows alive
and condemns half the population to untouchable status. Gee! I wonder
how Christianity ever made headway against such a splendid culture and
religion?
Or does one have to be out of one's head on bhang to truly appreciate
the finer qualities of the thing?
Kendall K Down
ups.com>
grim...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Thus I would say where he is coming from is the ritual
> abuse derived masonic type imitative 'christian' thing.
<much drivel snipped>
Oh boy! And this is supposed to show us the superiority of the
drug-dependent intellect?
Kendall K Down
Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps they're fed up with being persecuted for using a drug that's
> demonstrably safer than cigs and booze.
You mean, like arsenic is safer for eating than cyanide?
What I want to know is why you want to take drugs at all? They may be
*safer* than cigarettes and alcohol, but they are not *safe*. They
have measurable and deleterious effects on both mind and body, so why
take them?
Kendall K Down
Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Gee! You'll be believing in aliens next.
>>> I do, which is why I run SETI at home.
>> Now, does that prove my point or not?
> I haven't tracked them down yet.
Which leaves me even more uncertain about whether you believe in
aliens or not!
Kendall K Down
Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>> In the same way marijuana may have medicinal uses; you, however, want to
>> use it for no other purpose than to reduce your brain power.
> On the contrary, moderate cannabis use increases IQ:
> Results: Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in
> a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The
> comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1
> points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points
> for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6).
> http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/166/7/887
Why am I irrisitably reminded of "lies, damn lies and statistics"?
This is the bit you didn't quote:
==========
Interpretation: Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global
IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A
negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously
been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude
that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global
intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would
also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and
attention remains to be ascertained.
===========
If you ask anyone who knows a marijuana user, it is precisely in the
areas of memory and attention that the long-term effects of use are
shown.
Ken Down
P.S. If you want to see some truly awful HTML coding, just look at
that page!
Alpha
<drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> writes
>Noticed at Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:50:05 +0000: Alpha informed us:
>demonstrably safer than cigs and booze.
>
>
Do wake up....
If they were to quietly get on with it, they are far less likely to be
persecuted than they are through making a big issue of it.
--
Zillion
Alpha
<webm...@diggingsonline.com> writes
>In message <2ca24d3f-3bb0-4049...@d70g2000hsc.googlegro
>ups.com>
> grim...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Thus I would say where he is coming from is the ritual
>> abuse derived masonic type imitative 'christian' thing.
><much drivel snipped>
>
>Oh boy! And this is supposed to show us the superiority of the
>drug-dependent intellect?
>
respond to demonstrate just how extensive the damage cannabis has doing
to grumus' brain.
The irony is, the poor sod just cannot see it because of the influence
that cannabis has had on his cognitive abilities.
--
Zillion
Kendall K Down
Alpha <al...@fireflyuk.net> wrote:
> It's a Catch 22 situation, Ken. The rambling and rantings that you here
> respond to demonstrate just how extensive the damage cannabis has doing
> to grumus' brain. The irony is, the poor sod just cannot see it
> because of the influence that cannabis has had on his cognitive
> abilities.
Oh I know: you know it, I know it, Amdo will never know it, but by
emphasising it we may - with luck - make some lurker think twice
before he accepts that reefer.
Telling it how it is.
> In message <go6Nk.74100$N11....@newsfe13.ams2>
> "Telling it how it is." <nob...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But this is my point Ken, below you state, "I am proud to say that I
>> have not taken any drugs except for medical treatment" If this is true,
>> How would you know that it is not good for recreation? That's Logic
>> right ?
>
> No, that's stupidity.
>
> I don't need to crash my car at 80mph into a concrete block to know that
> doing so it a very Bad Idea. I just look at people who have done so and
> at medical and scientific studies of the results.
Yes you do. Because the only true way you would really "know" is in fact
by doing it. I agree that it would seem like a bad idea. But what iam
taking about is "knowing" thats its a bad idea.
> In the same way, I don't need to take drugs for recreation to know that
> they are not a good idea: I just look at King Amdo and, indeed, yourself
> - as well as the medical and scientific studies - and that is all I
> need. *That* is logic - though I don't expect your drug-addled brain to
> recognise it.
You cant use "in the same way here" because its not the same. You do not
"know" that drugs are a bad for you, what you have is an assumption based
on 2nd hand knowledge that they are. And the basis of your information
comes from the very control system that wants to keep prohibition.
Your example of Amdo and my self is only your stupid ego reacting to
having its ass whooped. Just like every other time you use personal
insults based on your inability to stop judging people from your moral
high ground.
What you fail to see in your personal insults and attacks on Amdo is the
reason why you do this. You do this because you dislike his points of
view. And thats because he has the ability to think freely and see the
bigger picture in a selfless way. Where on the other hand you dont.
Because your mind is full of conflicting shit your ego wont let you
dispose of and of course selfishness takes the lead.
>>> In the same way marijuana may have medicinal uses; you, however, want
>>> to use it for no other purpose than to reduce your brain power.
>
>> Reduce brain power? Another assumption right?
>
> No, another medical statistic.
See, you favour a medical statistic over "knowing" for sure.
"Know thy self" does not mean to get better acquainted with you ego.
It means to know the truth, 1st hand.
>> Because after all you said below. "I am proud to say that I have not
>> taken any drugs except for medical treatment" Logic? are you sure you
>> know the meaning of the word?
>
> Definitely: but you, having addled your brain with recreational drugs,
> are in no position to lecture me on the subject.
Where did you get that my brain is addled? Oh yeah, its another one of
them assumptions. And for your information unlike you iam not lecturing
you on drugs, iam lecturing you on your inability to "know your self" and
simply pointing out your selfish judgemental pomposity.
>> I demand no such thing, My imply is that if you have not had any such
>> personal experience then you have no authority to make such claims, you
>> are simply relaying 2nd hand information in a parrot fashion.
>
> Sure, just as, in parrot fashion, I taught my children that jumping off
> a cliff was very bad for them, that crossing the road without looking
> both ways was very bad for them, and so on. We parrots tend to live long
> and healthy lives.
Yeah i agree but for the time being its a burden society has to bare,
There should be some law that would allow society to lock up
selfrighteous pompous old gits that try to impose by force its will on
others in society.
>> What is obvious is that your frightened of your "self" and how "self"
>> might or might not have to change or reconsider its position should you
>> go check out the snow cat
>
> Seeing how King Amdo has changed, I have about as much desire to find
> out as I have a desire to discover what happens if I crash my car into a
> concrete block at 80mph. I've seen crash victims and that's enough for
> me.
Yep your a paid up member of the lemming club for sure.
>> No one can have a true opinion about honey, if not first having tasted
>> it. But by your logic you could ?
>
> It depends on what the opinion is supposed to be. If an opinion on the
> taste of honey, I agree. If an opinion on the medical and physiological
> effects, then I disagree. For the latter it is quite sufficient to
> observe what happens to other people who have eaten honey.
Thats right, but if you started telling people that honey tasted like
fish pie, when you had not tasted it your self. The the same rule
applies.
> In the same way, I have no opinion of the taste of marijuana nor have I
> ever expressed one. I do, however, have very definite opinions on what
> marijuana does to those who use it. Look at Amdo.
But I could use the same argument for you, look at how against you are to
finding out the real truth and know what that truth is. You prefer to
preach lies like a parrot, because you made your house of straw.
Telling it how it is.
> In message <go6Nk.74100$N11....@newsfe13.ams2>, Telling it how it is.
> <nob...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
> Snipped much ranting.....
>
>>Reduce brain power? Another assumption right?
>
> Certainly NOT an assumption. Your rantings and ramblings here
> demonstrate most conclusively of the adverse effects of cannabis on your
> cognitive processes.
I understand what I'm saying. However if you lack the ability to follow
what I'm saying, That would be your inability to comprehend. You cant
blame me for your stupidity and failure to understand. How stupid do i
have to show you to be?
> But going back to my previous post, I'm very curious whether your
> addiction to cannabis results from your parent's genetic influence, or
> whether it is due to the way they raised you. Perhaps you can tell us
> all which it is?
--
and thats the truth.
Telling it how it is.
> In message <6mlmj7F...@mid.individual.net>, Dr John Watson
> <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> writes
>>Noticed at Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:42:19 +0100: Kendall K Down informed us:
>>
>>> Definitely: but you, having addled your brain with recreational drugs,
>>> are in no position to lecture me on the subject.
>>
>>This one always amuses me. "Drugs fuck your mind, so whatever you say
>>I'll ignore because you take drugs therefore what you say must be
>>wrong".
>>
> Perhaps you can explain why druggies like grimus (and others here) feel
> the need to justify their self abuse.
Thats easy, its because of ignorant cunts like you try to impose
prohibition on others and with force if need be.
Thats a fascist ideal that trys to imposes its will on others because it
has a gun and because prohibition doesn't work. Personally I would fight
any such Nazi ideals to my dieing breath. So it looks like there's going
to be a war.
> If they were at peace with their habit, I would have thought that they
> would just quietly get on with it.
Oh you mean so its all out back and not to be seen or expressed or the
truth passed on. Yeah you would like that hu?
> Conversely, do they perhaps subliminally want to prompt sufficient
> argument that will help then break their habit?
Who would want to stop a good thing? See your ignorance is showing too.
The world doesn't spin around you sunshine.
Telling it how it is.
You know how it is, what goes around....
Ken cant see past that lump of moral high ground jammed in his ass. I bet
he dont even know what a Hindu is.
Looks like the war has started :(
Telling it how it is.
I know ken and his timid wife and children, and ken is the way he is from
years and years of sucking shit through a straw at committee meetings. If
you met him you would know straight away what I'm talking about. But yeah
you got him down to the T.
> You're going to hell, Ken, as I said before, if
> you continue to hold onto this reactionary mindset.
If he continues? No, No, No, No, No. Ive had a word with the source, Its
a done deal. >:)
> Jesus was a hippy
> anarchist - a very very way out channel to the people of auspicious
> consciousness. Like a very powerful Indian Sadu. Yes you don't
> neccessarily need cannabis or any other pyscotropic plant/drug to
> increase the power of ones mind to be able to do this...to be able to
> channel communal consciousness.
Isnt knowing great!
I dont know if i feel sorry for the twat or pity for him.
What he really needs is a little white speckled stone to chew on >:)
Great post!
Telling it how it is.
Nah that just means the subject is still stoned lol,
P.S. redirection noted. lol
Telling it how it is.
> In message <6mm292F...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps they're fed up with being persecuted for using a drug that's
>> demonstrably safer than cigs and booze.
>
> You mean, like arsenic is safer for eating than cyanide?
>
> What I want to know is why you want to take drugs at all? They may be
> *safer* than cigarettes and alcohol, but they are not *safe*. They have
> measurable and deleterious effects on both mind and body, so why take
> them?
>
> Ken Down
I take them simply because it is my choice to, I choose to having taken
all the risks into account, and continue to do so, because I see no
adverse effects after 30 years. I hold down a job, have children who aew
also free thinkers, unlike your spawn. I KNOW what the truth is, and your
still ignorant of that truth.
And that makes me all warm and fuzzy inside, knowing what a total twat
you are on your way to hell, and simply because i feel sorry for you I
will give you some advice.
When you finally get to your last breath, remember these words.
"His will, not yours." it may save your soul, but right now, i very much
doubt it.
Telling it how it is.
> In message <6mm292F...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps they're fed up with being persecuted for using a drug that's
>> demonstrably safer than cigs and booze.
>
> You mean, like arsenic is safer for eating than cyanide?
>
> What I want to know is why you want to take drugs at all? They may be
> *safer* than cigarettes and alcohol, but they are not *safe*. They have
> measurable and deleterious effects on both mind and body, so why take
> them?
>
> Ken Down
I take them simply because it is my choice to, I choose to having taken
Telling it how it is.
> In message <0EtDHMB7...@zillion.com>
> Alpha <al...@fireflyuk.net> wrote:
>
>> It's a Catch 22 situation, Ken. The rambling and rantings that you here
>> respond to demonstrate just how extensive the damage cannabis has doing
>> to grumus' brain. The irony is, the poor sod just cannot see it because
>> of the influence that cannabis has had on his cognitive abilities.
>
> Oh I know: you know it, I know it, Amdo will never know it, but by
> emphasising it we may - with luck - make some lurker think twice before
> he accepts that reefer.
>
> Ken Down
Ohoooo the demon reefer lol, your such a tool!
Learning To Fly
> In message <6mm292F...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps they're fed up with being persecuted for using a drug that's
>> demonstrably safer than cigs and booze.
>
> You mean, like arsenic is safer for eating than cyanide?
>
> What I want to know is why you want to take drugs at all? They may be
> *safer* than cigarettes and alcohol, but they are not *safe*. They
> have measurable and deleterious effects on both mind and body, so why
> take them?
>
> Ken Down
>
Pleasure dear boy. Pure pleasure....
Dr John Watson
> In message <6mllseF...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Gee! You'll be believing in aliens next.
>
>>>> I do, which is why I run SETI at home.
>
>>> Now, does that prove my point or not?
>
>> I haven't tracked them down yet.
>
> Which leaves me even more uncertain about whether you believe in aliens
> or not!
I don't see why life on earth should be special or unique. I have no doubt
other planets have life forms. But the chance of a nearby habitable planet
having intelligent life at the same time as us is minimal. Having
technology at, or past, our level is even more unlikely. There's
100,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy. If 1% have habitable planets and
0.1% of those have intelligent life, that means there are 1,000,000
planets with intelligent life in our galaxy alone. Then there are another
100,000,000,000 galaxies ....
Intergalactic Quidditch anyone?
> Ken Down
Dr John Watson
> In message <6mm292F...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps they're fed up with being persecuted for using a drug that's
>> demonstrably safer than cigs and booze.
>
> You mean, like arsenic is safer for eating than cyanide?
>
> What I want to know is why you want to take drugs at all? They may be
> *safer* than cigarettes and alcohol, but they are not *safe*. They have
> measurable and deleterious effects on both mind and body, so why take
> them?
The same reason people climb mountains or run marathons. It's fun.
Don't forget that the moderate use of some drugs can improve health -
aspirin helps prevent heart attacks and strokes, booze is said to improve
your heart (although I don't believe that one). Moderate cannabis use
increases IQ and protects against Alzheimer's and cancer and alleviates
the symptoms of psychosis. Of course, immoderate use of them can be bad
for you.
> Ken Down
Dr John Watson
This is true. I've never been busted in 40 years of toking.
Dr John Watson
> How about other dimensions?
I'll wait until the LHC is mended before answering that!
Kendall K Down
Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>> What I want to know is why you want to take drugs at all? They may be
>> *safer* than cigarettes and alcohol, but they are not *safe*. They have
>> measurable and deleterious effects on both mind and body, so why take
>> them?
> The same reason people climb mountains or run marathons. It's fun.
Not particularly happy comparisons, given that the first is a
dangerous sport with a regular toll of casualties and the second is,
in my opinion, the reserve of the mentally ill. (And I say that having
a daughter-in-law who runs marathons. Definitely loopy.)
> Don't forget that the moderate use of some drugs can improve health -
> aspirin helps prevent heart attacks and strokes, booze is said to improve
> your heart (although I don't believe that one). Moderate cannabis use
> increases IQ and protects against Alzheimer's and cancer and alleviates
> the symptoms of psychosis. Of course, immoderate use of them can be bad
> for you.
The latest word is that the bad effects of aspirin may outweigh the
good effects. The jury is still out.
Kendall K Down
"Telling it how it is." <daveyc...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>> Certainly NOT an assumption. Your rantings and ramblings here
>> demonstrate most conclusively of the adverse effects of cannabis on your
>> cognitive processes.
> I understand what I'm saying.
Even that assertion is highly dubious.
> However if you lack the ability to follow
> what I'm saying, That would be your inability to comprehend. You cant
> blame me for your stupidity and failure to understand. How stupid do i
> have to show you to be?
Er - you may know what you mean, but when you write "bare" instead of
"bear" - "strip naked" instead of "carry" - whose fault is it if
people do not understand you?
The stupidity, I fear, lies with you.
Kendall K Down
Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see why life on earth should be special or unique. I have no doubt
> other planets have life forms. But the chance of a nearby habitable planet
> having intelligent life at the same time as us is minimal. Having
> technology at, or past, our level is even more unlikely. There's
> 100,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy. If 1% have habitable planets and
> 0.1% of those have intelligent life, that means there are 1,000,000
> planets with intelligent life in our galaxy alone. Then there are another
> 100,000,000,000 galaxies ....
Yes, I know the statistics. It would not surprise me if there was
intelligent life elsewhere, if not in our galaxy then in some other
galaxy.
However if there is intelligent life, I think it probably has better
things to do with its time than make crop circles and abduct
Americans.
Unless, of course, there is such a thing as marijuana up there ...
Intergalactic Amdo, anyone?
Kendall K Down
>> Perhaps you can explain why druggies like grimus (and others here) feel
>> the need to justify their self abuse.
> Thats easy, its because of ignorant cunts like you try to impose
> prohibition on others and with force if need be.
You'll notice that when a druggie is being obliged to face the truth,
his only response is offensive (and sexist) language. He doesn't have
the vocabulary to carry on a rational argument.
> Thats a fascist ideal that trys to imposes its will on others because it
> has a gun and because prohibition doesn't work. Personally I would fight
> any such Nazi ideals to my dieing breath. So it looks like there's going
> to be a war.
Well, your "dieing" breath will not be far off if you pursue your
quest for knowledge in the only way you know. Please let us all know
when you are going to crash your car into a concrete block at 80 mph.
We would all love to come and watch. And laugh.
Kendall K Down
"Telling it how it is." <daveyc...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>>> But this is my point Ken, below you state, "I am proud to say that I
>>> have not taken any drugs except for medical treatment" If this is true,
>>> How would you know that it is not good for recreation? That's Logic
>>> right ?
>> No, that's stupidity.
>> I don't need to crash my car at 80mph into a concrete block to know that
>> doing so it a very Bad Idea. I just look at people who have done so and
>> at medical and scientific studies of the results.
> Yes you do. Because the only true way you would really "know" is in fact
> by doing it. I agree that it would seem like a bad idea. But what iam
> taking about is "knowing" thats its a bad idea.
Fine. I'll feel a desire to "know" - in the sense you are using the
word - the effects of drugs five minutes after you have, in my
presence, acquired the knowledge of what happens when you drive your
car at 80 mph into a concrete block. Mind you, to ensure that you get
the most out of your experience, I shall insist that you refrain from
that namby-pamby business of seat belts, otherwise I shall "smoke"
marijuana by not inhaling.
>> In the same way, I don't need to take drugs for recreation to know that
>> they are not a good idea: I just look at King Amdo and, indeed, yourself
>> - as well as the medical and scientific studies - and that is all I
>> need. *That* is logic - though I don't expect your drug-addled brain to
>> recognise it.
> You cant use "in the same way here" because its not the same. You do not
> "know" that drugs are a bad for you, what you have is an assumption based
> on 2nd hand knowledge that they are. And the basis of your information
> comes from the very control system that wants to keep prohibition.
> Your example of Amdo and my self is only your stupid ego reacting to
> having its ass whooped. Just like every other time you use personal
> insults based on your inability to stop judging people from your moral
> high ground.
Oh, I can see that Amdo and you have messed up your brains, others can
see it too, it's only druggies like yourself who fail to perceive the
truth of the situation.
> What you fail to see in your personal insults and attacks on Amdo is the
> reason why you do this. You do this because you dislike his points of
> view. And thats because he has the ability to think freely and see the
> bigger picture in a selfless way. Where on the other hand you dont.
> Because your mind is full of conflicting shit your ego wont let you
> dispose of and of course selfishness takes the lead.
You mean, because Amdo sees a mason under every bed, that makes him a
free thinker and anyone who doesn't join him in his pathetic
conspiracy theories is selfish? How odd.
> See, you favour a medical statistic over "knowing" for sure.
> "Know thy self" does not mean to get better acquainted with you ego.
> It means to know the truth, 1st hand.
Well, it certainly seems that both you and Amdo lack any true
self-knowledge. If you had it, you would be able to see how drugs have
addled your brains.
> Where did you get that my brain is addled?
From your postings.
>> Sure, just as, in parrot fashion, I taught my children that jumping off
>> a cliff was very bad for them, that crossing the road without looking
>> both ways was very bad for them, and so on. We parrots tend to live long
>> and healthy lives.
> Yeah i agree but for the time being its a burden society has to bare,
See what I mean? Anyone with half a brain cell would realise that the
correct word there is "bear". You *bear* (ie. carry) burdens, not
"bare" them.
> But I could use the same argument for you, look at how against you are to
> finding out the real truth and know what that truth is. You prefer to
> preach lies like a parrot, because you made your house of straw.
I'm all for finding out the real truth - and if I can use someone
else's misfortune to help me avoid making the same mistake, I do so.
That is why I don't take drugs: I don't want to end up like Amdo and
you.
Bare. Huh.
Kendall K Down
> I take them simply because it is my choice to, I choose to having taken
> all the risks into account, and continue to do so, because I see no
> adverse effects after 30 years.
Yes, *you* see no adverse effects. Those around you (apart from your
druggie friends) have a different opinion.
Telling it how it is.
Here you go again with your assumptions?
>> What you fail to see in your personal insults and attacks on Amdo is
>> the reason why you do this. You do this because you dislike his points
>> of view. And thats because he has the ability to think freely and see
>> the bigger picture in a selfless way. Where on the other hand you dont.
>> Because your mind is full of conflicting shit your ego wont let you
>> dispose of and of course selfishness takes the lead.
>
> You mean, because Amdo sees a mason under every bed, that makes him a
> free thinker and anyone who doesn't join him in his pathetic conspiracy
> theories is selfish? How odd.
Redirection noted.
>> See, you favour a medical statistic over "knowing" for sure. "Know thy
>> self" does not mean to get better acquainted with you ego. It means to
>> know the truth, 1st hand.
>
> Well, it certainly seems that both you and Amdo lack any true
> self-knowledge. If you had it, you would be able to see how drugs have
> addled your brains.
That's right, not interested in self. Selfless.
>> Where did you get that my brain is addled?
>
> From your postings.
Yet another assumption.
>>> Sure, just as, in parrot fashion, I taught my children that jumping
>>> off a cliff was very bad for them, that crossing the road without
>>> looking both ways was very bad for them, and so on. We parrots tend to
>>> live long and healthy lives.
>
>> Yeah i agree but for the time being its a burden society has to bare,
>
> See what I mean? Anyone with half a brain cell would realise that the
> correct word there is "bear". You *bear* (ie. carry) burdens, not "bare"
> them.
I'm not as anal as you are ken. I haven't got the time you seem to have
checking and double checking grammar and spelling. I leave that to the
spell checker, which it seems doesn't quite do the job. I suggest you
take it up with Microsoft.
Such comments only reinforce my point about you being a total tosser.
>> But I could use the same argument for you, look at how against you are
>> to finding out the real truth and know what that truth is. You prefer
>> to preach lies like a parrot, because you made your house of straw.
>
> I'm all for finding out the real truth - and if I can use someone else's
> misfortune to help me avoid making the same mistake, I do so. That is
> why I don't take drugs: I don't want to end up like Amdo and you.
I'm not asking you to take drugs. I'm saying your assumption and 2nd hand
information are not valid enough grounds to insult people with. You do
not know for sure. An honest man would say I don't know.
> Bare. Huh.
Anal, huh?
> Ken Down
Telling it how it is.
> In message <nK0Pk.208520$dG5.1...@newsfe14.ams2>
> "Telling it how it is." <daveyc...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>> Certainly NOT an assumption. Your rantings and ramblings here
>>> demonstrate most conclusively of the adverse effects of cannabis on
>>> your cognitive processes.
>
>> I understand what I'm saying.
>
> Even that assertion is highly dubious.
>
>> However if you lack the ability to follow what I'm saying, That would
>> be your inability to comprehend. You cant blame me for your stupidity
>> and failure to understand. How stupid do i have to show you to be?
>
> Er - you may know what you mean, but when you write "bare" instead of
> "bear" - "strip naked" instead of "carry" - whose fault is it if people
> do not understand you?
>
> The stupidity, I fear, lies with you.
>
> Ken Down
So that's it is it? The best you can offer up? Petty insults based on
spelling and grammar? Just about sums you up huh?
Telling it how it is.
> In message <jU0Pk.208603$dG5.1...@newsfe14.ams2>
> "Telling it how it is." <daveyc...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Perhaps you can explain why druggies like grimus (and others here)
>>> feel the need to justify their self abuse.
>
>> Thats easy, its because of ignorant cunts like you try to impose
>> prohibition on others and with force if need be.
>
> You'll notice that when a druggie is being obliged to face the truth,
> his only response is offensive (and sexist) language. He doesn't have
> the vocabulary to carry on a rational argument.
Ha ha ha, weak. You can do better than that.
>> Thats a fascist ideal that trys to imposes its will on others because
>> it has a gun and because prohibition doesn't work. Personally I would
>> fight any such Nazi ideals to my dieing breath. So it looks like
>> there's going to be a war.
>
> Well, your "dieing" breath will not be far off if you pursue your quest
> for knowledge in the only way you know. Please let us all know when you
> are going to crash your car into a concrete block at 80 mph. We would
> all love to come and watch. And laugh.
>
> Ken Down
Now there's a great Christian for you folks, and a pastor to boot.
Telling it how it is.
> In message <QA1Pk.6190$D04...@newsfe25.ams2>
> "Telling it how it is." <daveyc...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> I take them simply because it is my choice to, I choose to having taken
>> all the risks into account, and continue to do so, because I see no
>> adverse effects after 30 years.
>
> Yes, *you* see no adverse effects. Those around you (apart from your
> druggie friends) have a different opinion.
>
> Ken Down
Yet another assumption. Your whole life must be a lie. Seeing as most of
it is based in them.
Kendall K Down
zentara <zen...@highstream.net> wrote:
> How about other dimensions?
> I would just like to point out we tend to anthropomorphize the meaning
> of life, and see it as material forms composed of atoms and molecules.
I'm with you so far.
> Life exists all around us in non-material (spiritual or pure enery)
> form, and the essence of our being is spiritual.
Ah. Feel free to demonstrate that. A scientific experiment is usually
considered sufficient.
> Using cannabis helps us realize this, and is why its such a powerful
> sacrament. It's no wonder that the lords of the material world try to
> stomp it out...... they want us to worship materialism and their Golden
> Rule..... "those that have the gold make the rules".
So this non-material energy can only be detected if you have first
used a chemical to muck up your brain. Riiiiight! Really intelligent
procedure.
Kendall K Down
> I'm not as anal as you are ken. I haven't got the time you seem to have
> checking and double checking grammar and spelling. I leave that to the
> spell checker, which it seems doesn't quite do the job. I suggest you
> take it up with Microsoft.
Knowing the difference between "bare" and "bear" doesn't need a lot of
checking and double-checking. It just needs intelligence - that is to
say, a brain that hasn't been mucked up by drugs.
>> I'm all for finding out the real truth - and if I can use someone else's
>> misfortune to help me avoid making the same mistake, I do so. That is
>> why I don't take drugs: I don't want to end up like Amdo and you.
> I'm not asking you to take drugs. I'm saying your assumption and 2nd hand
> information are not valid enough grounds to insult people with. You do
> not know for sure. An honest man would say I don't know.
But I *do* know - and so does everyone else who reads Amdo's ravings.
Add them to the scientific literature on the effects of drug use and
the case is proven.
Kendall K Down
>>> I understand what I'm saying.
>> Even that assertion is highly dubious.
>>> However if you lack the ability to follow what I'm saying, That would
>>> be your inability to comprehend. You cant blame me for your stupidity
>>> and failure to understand. How stupid do i have to show you to be?
>> Er - you may know what you mean, but when you write "bare" instead of
>> "bear" - "strip naked" instead of "carry" - whose fault is it if people
>> do not understand you?
>> The stupidity, I fear, lies with you.
> So that's it is it? The best you can offer up? Petty insults based on
> spelling and grammar? Just about sums you up huh?
You mean that pointing out that you do not say what you (claim to)
mean is a "petty insult"?
In which case we'll all join in insulting Palin. And George Bush.
Telling it how it is.
> In message <a8NPk.142104$xU3.1...@newsfe19.ams2>
> "Telling it how it is." <daveyc...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not as anal as you are ken. I haven't got the time you seem to have
>> checking and double checking grammar and spelling. I leave that to the
>> spell checker, which it seems doesn't quite do the job. I suggest you
>> take it up with Microsoft.
>
> Knowing the difference between "bare" and "bear" doesn't need a lot of
> checking and double-checking. It just needs intelligence - that is to
> say, a brain that hasn't been mucked up by drugs.
>
>>> I'm all for finding out the real truth - and if I can use someone
>>> else's misfortune to help me avoid making the same mistake, I do so.
>>> That is why I don't take drugs: I don't want to end up like Amdo and
>>> you.
>
>> I'm not asking you to take drugs. I'm saying your assumption and 2nd
>> hand information are not valid enough grounds to insult people with.
>> You do not know for sure. An honest man would say I don't know.
>
> But I *do* know - and so does everyone else who reads Amdo's ravings.
> Add them to the scientific literature on the effects of drug use and the
> case is proven.
To you Amdo's expressions are ravings. To me he is expressing his
opinions and concerns as best as he can. What you do is react the only
way you know how. By insulting him on a personal level you move the focus
of his post to how you can come out on top and look intellectually
superior. Which you do to you sycophant invisible friends your playing to.
It don't wash with me sunshine. Your control system doesn't work here.
Dr John Watson
> Yes, I know the statistics. It would not surprise me if there was
> intelligent life elsewhere, if not in our galaxy then in some other
> galaxy.
>
> However if there is intelligent life, I think it probably has better
> things to do with its time than make crop circles and abduct
> Americans.
Have you noticed how crop circles are always crossed by tractor tracks?
That's obviously to disguise the prankster's footprints.
If only they'd abduct all Americans...
> Unless, of course, there is such a thing as marijuana up there ...
> Intergalactic Amdo, anyone?
Friends with Major Tom, I expect.
Dr John Watson
> In message <QA1Pk.6190$D04...@newsfe25.ams2>
> "Telling it how it is." <daveyc...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> I take them simply because it is my choice to, I choose to having taken
>> all the risks into account, and continue to do so, because I see no
>> adverse effects after 30 years.
>
> Yes, *you* see no adverse effects. Those around you (apart from your
> druggie friends) have a different opinion.
>
> Ken Down
Nobody new about Carl Sagan's weed usage until after he died. Weed smokers
aren't anything like Cheech and Chong in reality, you can't tell them
apart from non-users.
Dr John Watson
> In message <6n5r6kF...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> What I want to know is why you want to take drugs at all? They may be
>>> *safer* than cigarettes and alcohol, but they are not *safe*. They have
>>> measurable and deleterious effects on both mind and body, so why take
>>> them?
>
>> The same reason people climb mountains or run marathons. It's fun.
>
> Not particularly happy comparisons, given that the first is a
> dangerous sport with a regular toll of casualties and the second is,
> in my opinion, the reserve of the mentally ill. (And I say that having
> a daughter-in-law who runs marathons. Definitely loopy.)
The "climb mountains" comparison is always used because it *is* very
dangerous, and yet legal. Some years ago 5 people died during the
Great North Run (heart attacks, should have taken aspirin). The Daily Mail
doesn't get all "think of the children" about these "killer sports ruining
lives" does it? Both marathon running and mountaineering are far more
dangerous than most drugs (including alcohol and tobacco).
>> Don't forget that the moderate use of some drugs can improve health -
>> aspirin helps prevent heart attacks and strokes, booze is said to improve
>> your heart (although I don't believe that one). Moderate cannabis use
>> increases IQ and protects against Alzheimer's and cancer and alleviates
>> the symptoms of psychosis. Of course, immoderate use of them can be bad
>> for you.
>
> The latest word is that the bad effects of aspirin may outweigh the
> good effects. The jury is still out.
If you have high blood pressure or cholesterol, it is definitely of
benefit. Otherwise, I believe you are right.
Kendall K Down
Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
> Nobody new about Carl Sagan's weed usage until after he died. Weed smokers
> aren't anything like Cheech and Chong in reality, you can't tell them
> apart from non-users.
Oh yes you can! (Assuming they have been regular users; there's a
characteristic slowness and apathy about them, together with memory
loss and inability to speak - or write - coherently.)
Kendall K Down
> To you Amdo's expressions are ravings. To me he is expressing his
> opinions and concerns as best as he can.
I agree. The sad thing is that once upon a time he had a fairly decent
brain, as such things go. Comes from a good family, had a good
education, and all.
Now look at him - and see what drugs do to you.
Kendall K Down
zentara <zen...@highstream.net> wrote:
> It can't be directly demonstrated scientifically, since pure energy
> cannot be detected by material based instrumentation.
Ah, so do tell me how you know that this undetectable energy exists -
other than by getting out of your head on drugs.
> Not neccessarily, and you bring up the reason why cannabis has curative
> properties. It is the psychosomatic link.
Er - I think you are using big words whose meaning you do not know.
"Psychosomatic" refers to the effect of being given a placebo, told
that it is a powerful drug, and promptly getting better. (It can work
the other way round, of course, and make you worse.)
If you are claiming that the marijuana you smoke is a placebo I'd have
a serious word with your dealer, if I were you. He's taking you for a
ride.
> It is a medecine given to us by God. It is NOT mucking up your mind,
> it is allowing you to see more clearly.
You mean, like Amdo?
> Since you are on a campaign to avoid chemicals that "muck up your mind",
> what is your position on anti-depressants, tranquilizers, alcohol,
> sugar, insulin, blood pressure pills, sleeping pills, and all the other
> un-natural pharmaceuticals that society is becoming hooked on?
You forgot tobacco and caffeine. I don't use any of the above apart
from sugar, and that only in the smallest quantities possible - ie.
your breadmaker won't produce bread unless you add suger.
> At least cannabis grows on plant, and can be free to all, as God
> envisioned. The DEA is the arm of the devil, and wants us all hooked
> on chemicals his corporations make.
Ah, so your drug taking has given you a cosmic conspiracy theory?
Kendall K Down
Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
> The "climb mountains" comparison is always used because it *is* very
> dangerous, and yet legal. Some years ago 5 people died during the
> Great North Run (heart attacks, should have taken aspirin). The Daily Mail
> doesn't get all "think of the children" about these "killer sports ruining
> lives" does it? Both marathon running and mountaineering are far more
> dangerous than most drugs (including alcohol and tobacco).
Ah, now you're being silly. Marathon running and mountaineering are
definitely not as harmful or dangerous as alcohol and tobacco.
> If you have high blood pressure or cholesterol, it is definitely of
> benefit. Otherwise, I believe you are right.
If you have high blood pressure or cholesterol you may need to take
all sorts of drugs that are otherwise not a good idea.
Dr John Watson
> In message <6nb2e3F...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nobody new about Carl Sagan's weed usage until after he died. Weed smokers
>> aren't anything like Cheech and Chong in reality, you can't tell them
>> apart from non-users.
>
> Oh yes you can! (Assuming they have been regular users; there's a
> characteristic slowness and apathy about them, together with memory
> loss and inability to speak - or write - coherently.)
Rubbish.
Do I write coherently?
>
> Ken Down
Telling it how it is.
> In message <MRXPk.14195$eT6....@newsfe28.ams2>
> "Telling it how it is." <daveyc...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> To you Amdo's expressions are ravings. To me he is expressing his
>> opinions and concerns as best as he can.
>
> I agree. The sad thing is that once upon a time he had a fairly decent
> brain, as such things go. Comes from a good family, had a good
> education, and all.
>
> Now look at him - and see what drugs do to you.
I fail to see what you see. How does looking at someone else defines what
drugs do to me?
Oh hang on, there's something not quite right about the grammar in that
sentence.
Try again !
Kendall K Down
Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
> Do I write coherently?
You have your moments.
Kendall K Down
zentara <zen...@highstream.net> wrote:
>>> It can't be directly demonstrated scientifically, since pure energy
>>> cannot be detected by material based instrumentation.
>>Ah, so do tell me how you know that this undetectable energy exists -
>>other than by getting out of your head on drugs.
> No, I said it helps. It puts you in touch with your soul and God.
No, marijuana simply distorts your perceptions.
> Caffeine was originally banned by the church as the devil's drink.
> How would you like it if that tyranny persisted? No coffee mucking
> up your mind. Why should we allow you to get physical energy out of
> your body, by some drug like caffeine? You get all crazy on caffeine.
> You should be able to get energy without caffeine. But I know that
> caffeine makes life easier, and is a pleasure of this world if not used
> to excess. So I say use it if you can handle it. Its up to YOU.
As I don't drink coffee - or tea, or Coke - your paragraph is very
wide of the mark.
> Why can't you let others make their own descisions? How would you like
> it if we said, coffee and sugar and detrimental to society and everyone
> should take Soma pills instead?
I'm against *anything* that is harmful to either mind or body. Mind
you, your diatribe against sugar is as foolish as the rest of your
arguments. Sugar is found in virtually every food and is an essential
source of energy - real energy, not the non-existent "spiritual"
energy you blather about. The harm in sugar comes from its overuse.
> Which would you trust more.... a God-given herb or a man-made chemical
> from a pharmaceutical company?
Why, I wonder, is marijuana a "God-given herb" which everyone should
rush out and swallow but digitalis isn't? How about poisonous
mushrooms? Are they "God-given herbs"? (Don't tell me: you groove on
magic mushrooms as well, right?)
> What's your game? Why do you deny others their freedom to choose
Because some people haven't grown up sufficiently to know when
something is bad for them. I'm all for denying people the choice to
ride their bikes on motorways, work with asbestos without breathing
gear, climb buildings without safety ropes and all sorts of other
things.
> I make bread without sugar, why can't you? It sure helps to have sugar
> in there, but it isn't necessary. Your bread-making skills seem to be
> as good as your understanding of cannabis.
I'll bet your bread is as flat as your arguments.
> The difference between us, is that you are advocating prohibiting
> the substance that we desire, while we don't prohibit you....and give
> you the freedom to indulge in your substances.
That's because you desire something which is harmful. I don't.
> When you deny someone their freedom to choose, you incur karma onto
> yourself. You are taking it upon yourself to deny others, based on your
> limited experiences. So when people stand before God in judgement, and
> God says to them "Why didn't you use cannabis as was given to mankind?",
> we all point our fingers at guys like you, Ken Down. I hope
> you can handle the pressure, because it will surely land on your
> shoulders, because you took it upon yourself to decide for others.
> I'm sure that made you laugh, but just wait until the karma
> catches up with you. If you don't like it, don't decide for others.
You are right; I laughed out loud. I rather suspect the bad karma -
whatever that is - is heading your way for having destroyed your brain
and for encouraging others to self-harm with drugs.
> It sure has, why else would something God-given and natural, be made
> illegal, and users hunted down and persecuted like the early Christians?
Oh dear oh dear. Persecuted? You poor thing.
Dr John Watson
> In message <6ng1jjF...@mid.individual.net>
> Dr John Watson <drj...@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do I write coherently?
>
> You have your moments.
>
> Ken Down
At least I have moments after toking since 1968.