No more!
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> I also will avoid deeply emotional posts because apparently some people
> were offended by that. Netscape can't cancel anything, so it's gonna be
> stuck there for awhile. I still do have the problem I mentioned, but I
> guess it doesn't matter here.
Screw 'em, 'Phid. If this is your outlet, _use_ it. If other
people have problems with what you post they can learn to ignore them.
Too many problems happen to us when we bottle things up and don't
let them out. I've learned to deal with my anger because the Most
Wonderful Person In My Life allows me to be angry. I don't have to
bottle things up and I can express myself. I'm a much happier, better
person because of her.
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=[MT]=- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Hidalgo Trading Company: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/index.html>
rgcud FAQ: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/faq/rgcudfaq.html>
Ophidian Dragon
>
> Screw 'em, 'Phid. If this is your outlet, _use_ it. If other
> people have problems with what you post they can learn to ignore them.
>
> Too many problems happen to us when we bottle things up and don't
> let them out. I've learned to deal with my anger because the Most
> Wonderful Person In My Life allows me to be angry. I don't have to
> bottle things up and I can express myself. I'm a much happier, better
> person because of her.
Well, I do have one good friend I've been with for about 7 or 8 years.
I think I can talk to him about all this. We talk mostly through e-mail
(because we're both phone-inept), but we get together when we can. He's
no social party animal, but at least I can talk to him about what I'm
feeling. Just telling someone helps immensely.
-Ophidian Dragon
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> I think I can talk to him about all this. We talk mostly through e-mail
> (because we're both phone-inept), but we get together when we can. He's
> no social party animal, but at least I can talk to him about what I'm
> feeling. Just telling someone helps immensely.
Yes, it does help. Keep talking to everyone you can, and try to
cultivate more people in real life to talk to.
You might even want to see if ChessGirl is willing to listen to
your woes.
Ophidian Dragon
> You might even want to see if ChessGirl is willing to listen to
> your woes.
>
That's an interesting point. To me, her attitude seems kinda odd, that
she'd utterly ignore me in one way but still seem perfectly friendly
when we're stuck together. That seems to imply that she on one hand,
likes me, but not enough to want to spend any time with me at all. And
that just doesn't compute :-)
At any rate, I'm probably going to write her in a few weeks, if I don't
talk to someone else about it at school, and if nothing else comes up.
I'm just going to say some stuff I could never say out loud. I'll say
that I felt really bad aftr she said she couldn't be my partner, not
because she isn't my partner (Technically I was engaged already too) but
because she seemed so eager to get off the phone. I'm going to tell her
that I think she must really either dislike me or just not care at all,
and ask that if I'm right. I'll ask that she, only if she WANTS to, got
in touch with me, through writing or whatever is easy. I just want to
know for sure. Now I know I could confront her in person, but I really
don't want to embarass myself or her.
The only problem is that I'm writing so much instead of talking. That's
why I'm waiting awhile :-) I intend to definitely talk about it to the
girl I'm marrying (we're surely gonna talk about our relationships, it's
a marriage project after all!), and probably with other chess team
members and maybe even other people. I'm hoping someone else will have
mentioned me to her for some reason or another. But IMO, in this
circumstance the important thing is that I find out how she feels. How
I get that information is utterly irrelevent, just as long as I ACT on
it once I have it.
-Ophidian Dragon
Destrius
the entity named Ophidian Dragon (zacw...@hotmail.com)
inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
-clip-
>Well, I do have one good friend I've been with for about 7 or 8 years.
>I think I can talk to him about all this. We talk mostly through e-mail
>(because we're both phone-inept), but we get together when we can. He's
>no social party animal, but at least I can talk to him about what I'm
>feeling. Just telling someone helps immensely.
-clip-
Then why the heck didn't you mention him in the first place? :)
Go look for him and have a talk. Not being a social party animal at least
makes you share a common trait with him, and thats good...
--
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Destrius Dragon | |
| Official Mad Mage | "Am I dreaming of the |
| -=*[~UDIC~]*=- -=*[UnSPLUT!]*=- | butterfly, or is the |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com/email.html | butterfly dreaming |
| Follow instructions to email me... | of me...?" |
| Website: | |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com | . o O (...) |
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
UDIC: d+++ e+ N++ T-- Om+ U1234567!8!AWS'! u++ uC++++ uF-
uG++++ uLB+ uA+++ nC+ nR nH+ nP++ nI++ nPT++++
nS++++ nT-- wM wC+ wS wI+ wN+ o- y a16
---| 庄心宇 |--Bait:--| ro...@127.0.0.1 |--| postm...@127.0.0.1 |--
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> WD, armchair psychologist extraordinaire
So, just what problems do armchairs have?
Does the couch get tired of always being on bottom?
:)
Well-Dressed
Fortran Dragon heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>From the Void comes Well-Dressed bearing this piece of Light...
>[Snip]
>> WD, armchair psychologist extraordinaire
>
> So, just what problems do armchairs have?
>
> Does the couch get tired of always being on bottom?
Er... heh. Okay, I'm confused (for a change). I mean, an armchair
'something' is someone who's acting like that certain 'something' but does
not have the training or education required to be called a 'something'. Or
something. Right?
This reminds me of the time I called someone 'obese', right in her face. Had
no idea what the word meant, but I thought it was a compliment. It
apparently wasn't...
Well, I have this really neat excuse of not being a native speaker :)
WD
Matthew Filla
<well_d...@leavethisout.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Er... heh. Okay, I'm confused (for a change). I mean, an armchair
>'something' is someone who's acting like that certain 'something' but does
>not have the training or education required to be called a 'something'. Or
>something. Right?
Yeah, basically. Fortran was just joking with you.
>This reminds me of the time I called someone 'obese', right in her face. Had
>no idea what the word meant, but I thought it was a compliment. It
>apparently wasn't...
Heh. Not even close.
Matt
--
Consulting Dragon -==(UDIC)==- |"Evangelists tend to think that
(aka Matthew Filla) | religion should be spread like
Middleton, WI | a virus. I believe it should be
matthe...@teldta.com | picked like a fruit." -Lost Dragon
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> 'something' is someone who's acting like that certain 'something' but does
> not have the training or education required to be called a 'something'. Or
> something. Right?
Yep, but I was taking your statement _literally_. That is, as if
you were a psychologist to armchairs, instead of people...
Well-Dressed
Fortran Dragon heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>[Snip]
>> Er... heh. Okay, I'm confused (for a change). I mean, an armchair
>> 'something' is someone who's acting like that certain 'something' but
does
>> not have the training or education required to be called a 'something'.
Or
>> something. Right?
>
> Yep, but I was taking your statement _literally_. That is, as if
>you were a psychologist to armchairs, instead of people...
<rolls eyes and then decides to laugh out loud>
I was merely wondering if I got the term right in the first place. I knew
you were taking my statement literally :)
WD
Well-Dressed
Matthew Filla heeft geschreven in bericht
<3650aae8...@news.teldta.com>...
>>This reminds me of the time I called someone 'obese', right in her face.
Had
>>no idea what the word meant, but I thought it was a compliment. It
>>apparently wasn't...
>
>Heh. Not even close.
I, erm, gathered :)
WD
Destrius
the entity named Well-Dressed (well_d...@leavethisout.hotmail.com)
-clip-
>Er... heh. Okay, I'm confused (for a change). I mean, an armchair
>'something' is someone who's acting like that certain 'something' but does
>not have the training or education required to be called a 'something'. Or
>something. Right?
-clip-
It's a pune. Play on words. :)
-clip-
>This reminds me of the time I called someone 'obese', right in her face. Had
>no idea what the word meant, but I thought it was a compliment. It
>apparently wasn't...
-clip-
Hee. :)
Anders Steenfeldt
> From the Void comes Ophidian Dragon bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
> > I also will avoid deeply emotional posts because apparently some people
> > were offended by that. Netscape can't cancel anything, so it's gonna be
> > stuck there for awhile. I still do have the problem I mentioned, but I
> > guess it doesn't matter here.
>
> Screw 'em, 'Phid. If this is your outlet, _use_ it. If other
> people have problems with what you post they can learn to ignore them.
Yip. People who feel threatened by your posts has the option to killfile
you, so keep on posting here if you feel like it.
The thread with sceptical about a year ago stands to me as the best
example of a discussion of personal matters on the usernet with a positive
result. Though many of the theads here are funny it must not be a
condition to post here. That would take the respect I hold for the NG out
of it.
X-ray Dragon
Samurai
[munch]
>As a rule, I don't touch people. Hell, the last person I touched in
>a real "friendly" way was my mother. And I don't even touch my
>parents anymore. I'ts literally been 6 or 7 years.
What about the Cousin in the Car incident? >:D
-- Samurai, merrily lowering the tone
--
___________________________________________________________
\^\^//
,^ ( ..) Samurai Dragon ~~ UDIC Code ~~
| \ \ -==(UDIC)==- d++e N T--Om+U146MA7'L8u-uC++
\ `^--^ Founder \/ of SAPS uF-uG++uLB+uA+nC++uR nH+nP+++
\ \ \ (Remove fish to reply) nI++nPT+nS+++nT--wM-wC y+ a22
ksj ^--^ ___________________________________________________________
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> Temperament: Artisan: SP
> Variant temperament: Promoter: ESTP
[Snip]
> Expressive/Extroverted: 8/10
> Tough-minded: 8/10
... Temperament is Artisan : SP
... variant temperament is Crafter : ISTP
Details of questionaire:
I+6 S+2 T+8 P+2
Attentive: 8/10
Observant: 5/10
Tough minded: 7/10
Probing: 5/10
MdmeDis
for...@earthlink.net says...
> From the Void comes Well-Dressed bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
Temperament Rational : NT (See, F-15)
Variant Inventor: ENTP
Details of questionaire:
E+6 N+4 T+0 P+9
>
Expressive 8
Introspective 6
Tender/Tough 5
Probing 8
--
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
D'ya ever have those days when you think
maybe its you, and not the rest of the world
that's fucked up?
Ophidian Dragon
>
> Quoth Ophidian Dragon <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m>:
> [munch]
>
> >As a rule, I don't touch people. Hell, the last person I touched in
> >a real "friendly" way was my mother. And I don't even touch my
> >parents anymore. I'ts literally been 6 or 7 years.
>
> What about the Cousin in the Car incident? >:D
>
You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car. I felt
up the girl in the car, but that was more sex motivated than anything
else. basically, one of my heads was doing the thinking, but it doesn't
have hair on top.
-Ophidian Dragon
Matthew Filla
<"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> wrote:
>You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car. I felt
>up the girl in the car, but that was more sex motivated than anything
>else. basically, one of my heads was doing the thinking, but it doesn't
>have hair on top.
In a couple more years that will apply to both my heads...
cr...@interlog.com
You know 'Phid, all I have to say is, "Go easy... step lightly... stay
free."
Annoying Dragon
Paul Ryan
> I'd love to see the results for fellow Dragons.
Temperament is Artisan : SP
Variant temperament is Crafter : ISTP
I+10 S+0 T+2 P+4
Reading the handy bar graphs:
Expressive/Attentive:10/0
Introspective/Observant:5/5
Tough/Tender Minded:5/4
Probing/Scheduled:6/4
--
Paulon Dragon d++ e- N T+ Om U1!23!4!5!6!7'!S'!8!K!A!L!W!M!
-==(UDIC)==- u++ uC+ uF uG uLB+ uA+ nC nH+ nI nPT nS+ nT+ y?
The Other Codex http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~paulryan/Ultima/Codex.htm
Settle for what you can get, but first ask for the World
Ka'a Orto'o, Gnomic Utterances, C IV
Negate the Spell to Wish Me Well
Sned The Bold
>
> On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:26:20 -0600, Ophidian Dragon
> <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> wrote:
>
> >You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car. I felt
> >up the girl in the car, but that was more sex motivated than anything
> >else. basically, one of my heads was doing the thinking, but it doesn't
> >have hair on top.
>
> In a couple more years that will apply to both my heads...
>
it's already started receding in my unfortunate case
MdmeDis
> Matthew Filla wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:26:20 -0600, Ophidian Dragon
> > <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> wrote:
> >
> > >You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car. I felt
> > >up the girl in the car, but that was more sex motivated than anything
> > >else. basically, one of my heads was doing the thinking, but it doesn't
> > >have hair on top.
> >
> > In a couple more years that will apply to both my heads...
> >
>
> it's already started receding in my unfortunate case
The head, or the hair? If the former, it's probably a result of your
dissolute lifestyle. I haven't started on you and Lowly yet - but its
bubbling. You guys worry me, big time.
MdmeDis
says...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:26:20 -0600, Ophidian Dragon
> <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> wrote:
>
>
> >You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car. I felt
> >up the girl in the car, but that was more sex motivated than anything
> >else. basically, one of my heads was doing the thinking, but it doesn't
> >have hair on top.
>
> In a couple more years that will apply to both my heads...
You hope. Imagine what it would be like if you started sprouting hair on
the one where you weren't expecting it. Shaving would be a perilous
option.
MdmeDis
mdm...@earthlink.net says...
> In article <36534be6...@news.teldta.com>, matthe...@teldta.com
> says...
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:26:20 -0600, Ophidian Dragon
> > <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car. I felt
> > >up the girl in the car, but that was more sex motivated than anything
> > >else. basically, one of my heads was doing the thinking, but it doesn't
> > >have hair on top.
> >
> > In a couple more years that will apply to both my heads...
>
> You hope. Imagine what it would be like if you started sprouting hair on
> the one where you weren't expecting it. Shaving would be a perilous
> option.
Thinking about it, an electric razor might be interesting - sort of the
male answer to the vibrator.
Matthew Filla
wrote:
>Thinking about it, an electric razor might be interesting - sort of the
>male answer to the vibrator.
Yeah, but electric razors give me serious razor burn <shudder>.
Matthew Filla
wrote:
>In article <36534be6...@news.teldta.com>, matthe...@teldta.com
>says...
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:26:20 -0600, Ophidian Dragon
>> <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car. I felt
>> >up the girl in the car, but that was more sex motivated than anything
>> >else. basically, one of my heads was doing the thinking, but it doesn't
>> >have hair on top.
>>
>> In a couple more years that will apply to both my heads...
>
>You hope. Imagine what it would be like if you started sprouting hair on
>the one where you weren't expecting it. Shaving would be a perilous
>option.
Heh. Shaving wouldn't even _be_ an option. I think the best I could do
would be to keep it neatly trimmed.
Ophidian Dragon
>
> The Earth Trembles, as the Words of Well-Dressed Arise from the Depths...
>
> > I'd love to see the results for fellow Dragons.
>
> Temperament is Artisan : SP
> Variant temperament is Crafter : ISTP
> I+10 S+0 T+2 P+4
Wow, we're perfectly compatible! If you were at my school and you were
female I'd be marrying you!
-ophidian Dragon
Destrius
the entity named MdmeDis (mdm...@earthlink.net)
-clip-
>The head, or the hair? If the former, it's probably a result of your
>dissolute lifestyle. I haven't started on you and Lowly yet - but its
>bubbling. You guys worry me, big time.
-clip-
*nod* I must admit I experienced a little culture shock going through
those.
Hmmm. Will this become something like the Contemptous Dragon thread?
Destrius
inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
-clip-
>Thinking about it, an electric razor might be interesting - sort of the
>male answer to the vibrator.
-clip-
Argh. That _hurt_! :)
Destrius
the entity named Ophidian Dragon (@hotmail.cm)
-clip-
>Wow, we're perfectly compatible! If you were at my school and you were
>female I'd be marrying you!
-clip-
*spills Coke*
Wow. Now we have a pair of would-be lovers if not because of unfortunate
circumstances in the DOL group!
-clip-
>-ophidian Dragon
-clip-
Seeing it twice makes me think you're doing it on purpose. What's up?
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> Sorry to butt in as a non-Dragon,
That's ok. The newsgroup is open to all.
By the way, would you like to become a Dragon? :)
MdmeDis
says...
> -clip-
> >The head, or the hair? If the former, it's probably a result of your
> >dissolute lifestyle. I haven't started on you and Lowly yet - but its
> >bubbling. You guys worry me, big time.
> -clip-
>
> *nod* I must admit I experienced a little culture shock going through
> those.
>
> Hmmm. Will this become something like the Contemptous Dragon thread?
Hope not - last thing I want to do is lecture. I firmly believe in
people doing what they want with their own bodies, providing they are
adult etc. It just that this shit messes with the brain. Gives massive
doses of overstimulation and creates pleasure that can't be replicated
otherwise. Some of it removes the brains natural ability to produce any
normal feeling of well being - leaves people permanently depressed or
having to rely on drugs. LSD can do some serious harm - the recovery
place I was in had "cottages" for various sets of problems. One housed
those left completely mindless by LSD. Gentle souls they were - they
wandered around, smiling vacantly and quivering.
Hell, looking at street winos didn't stop me drinking, though.
Speaking of Contemptuous - didn't he post yesterday about winning a
fiction contest?
Spock
> By the way, would you like to become a Dragon? :)
I don't know if I can spare the huge chunk of time every day that reading
this newsgroup requires ;)
kewh...@indiana.edu
Spock wrote:
You can, trust me. It's just that you'll have to find time to do anything
else; that's the problem. :)
Besides, you and Vulcan should get along fine. <EG>
-Lumina Dragon
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> this newsgroup requires ;)
You can dabble here if you like. Anyway, the Dragons are much
more than this newsgroup. We have a ring on the Web (plus many other
web sites), on several IRC networks and channels, any number of email
lists, and have at least one working MOO.
Being a Dragon means you love Ultima and have played, but not
necessarily completed an Ultima. The club is basically what you make
out of it.
Sned The Bold
>
> In article <36534be6...@news.teldta.com>, matthe...@teldta.com
> says...
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:26:20 -0600, Ophidian Dragon
> > <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car. I felt
> > >up the girl in the car, but that was more sex motivated than anything
> > >else. basically, one of my heads was doing the thinking, but it doesn't
> > >have hair on top.
> >
> > In a couple more years that will apply to both my heads...
>
> You hope. Imagine what it would be like if you started sprouting hair on
> the one where you weren't expecting it. Shaving would be a perilous
> option.
>
As long as the hair didn't stop the unit from performing within
acceptable parameters, a few sprouts here and there wouldn't be so bad.
Shaving would be a ludicrous option, to put it lightly (ouch)
Sned The Bold
>
> In article <36540AE4...@ucdavis.edu>, aeh...@ucdavis.edu says...
> > Matthew Filla wrote:
> > >
> > > <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> wrote:
> > >
> > > >You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car. I felt
> > > >up the girl in the car, but that was more sex motivated than anything
> > > >else. basically, one of my heads was doing the thinking, but it doesn't
> > > >have hair on top.
> > >
> > > In a couple more years that will apply to both my heads...
> > >
> >
>
> dissolute lifestyle. I haven't started on you and Lowly yet - but its
> bubbling. You guys worry me, big time.
wow, I'm touched. don't worry, we're just being obnoxious teenagers
while we still can. I'm sure I'll have settled down a little bit by
graduate school. I was referring to going bald, my mind still works
just fine, thank you very much. Try to remeber that philosophy majors
tend smoke pot. One day, when cannabis is legal, stoner philosophy will
be an actual course for real units. I'll teach it.
Sned The Bold
> > > <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car. I felt
> > > >up the girl in the car, but that was more sex motivated than anything
> > > >else. basically, one of my heads was doing the thinking, but it doesn't
> > > >have hair on top.
> > >
> > > In a couple more years that will apply to both my heads...
> >
> > the one where you weren't expecting it. Shaving would be a perilous
> > option.
>
> male answer to the vibrator.
>
It's all about electrolysis...
Paul Ryan
<"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> Arise from the Depths...
> Paul Ryan wrote:
> >
> > The Earth Trembles, as the Words of Well-Dressed Arise from the Depths...
> >
> > > I'd love to see the results for fellow Dragons.
> >
> > Temperament is Artisan : SP
> > Variant temperament is Crafter : ISTP
> > I+10 S+0 T+2 P+4
>
> Wow, we're perfectly compatible! If you were at my school and you were
> female I'd be marrying you!
If those other conditions were true, you probably wouldn't find me. I'd
be reading a book somewhere quiet.
I had noticed from your posts that we are a lot alike in many ways
though.
Paul Ryan
> ...and it was written on the heavens that on Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:58:32 -0600,
> the entity named Ophidian Dragon (@hotmail.cm)
> inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
>
> -clip-
> >female I'd be marrying you!
>
> *spills Coke*
>
> Wow. Now we have a pair of would-be lovers if not because of unfortunate
> circumstances in the DOL group!
Like Mellius and Gretelina, that pair on the Disc, born 200 years apart
and on different continents? I sure hope Phid and I don't get turned into
an ironing board or a bollard. ;-)
Destrius
the entity named kewh...@indiana.edu (kewh...@indiana.edu)
-clip-
>Besides, you and Vulcan should get along fine. <EG>
-clip-
*groan*
Anyway, you don't have to read the ng even if you're a Dragon. Lots of
Dragons don't. The ng is just one of the activities you can participate in
by being an Ultima Dragon.
Destrius
-clip-
>Hope not - last thing I want to do is lecture. I firmly believe in
>people doing what they want with their own bodies, providing they are
>adult etc. It just that this shit messes with the brain. Gives massive
>doses of overstimulation and creates pleasure that can't be replicated
>otherwise. Some of it removes the brains natural ability to produce any
>normal feeling of well being - leaves people permanently depressed or
>having to rely on drugs. LSD can do some serious harm - the recovery
>place I was in had "cottages" for various sets of problems. One housed
>those left completely mindless by LSD. Gentle souls they were - they
>wandered around, smiling vacantly and quivering.
-clip-
Why would need that unnatural pleasure anyway? Life is already too
exhilarating for some.
For me, a great feeling would be to be in total possession of your body,
mind and soul.
-clip-
>Speaking of Contemptuous - didn't he post yesterday about winning a
>fiction contest?
-clip-
That he did.
Mils
>I think I can talk to him about all this. We talk mostly through e-mail
>(because we're both phone-inept), but we get together when we can.
>He's
^^
Somehow, I was expecting a 'she'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
\||/ Moa Dragon =<UDIC>=
| @___oo Mils Michael
/\ /\ / (__,,,,| mi...@club-internet.fr ; ICQ: 11938373
) /^\) ^\/ _) http://perso.club-internet.fr/mils/main.html
"Vous allez finir par vous aimer les uns les autres, bordel de merde?"
(Jesus II : Le retour, bientot dans vos églises.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Destrius
the entity named Paul Ryan (paul...@InVasAnSpam.ihug.co.nz)
-clip-
>Like Mellius and Gretelina, that pair on the Disc, born 200 years apart
>and on different continents? I sure hope Phid and I don't get turned into
>an ironing board or a bollard. ;-)
-clip-
Erhm. I just noticed that it was Paulon and not WD that was perfectly
compatible with 'phid. Oops. :)
Well-Dressed
Time that I've heard you preach,
Why! I'd have wicked thoughts upon my brain.
>Erhm. I just noticed that it was Paulon and not WD that was perfectly
>compatible with 'phid. Oops. :)
Er. Okay.
I think I'll just sit in a corner and cry now.
Well-Dressed Dragon -==UDIC==-
* Holder of one (1) Money Dragon Flame Point *
-----------------------------------------------------
"I do not mind what I excrete,
cause I fear it would make a buck.
And those that cannot take the heat,
can take a flying forgive-me-if-I-hesitate"
- Primus, The Air Is Getting Slippery
Samurai
>Samurai wrote:
>> Quoth Ophidian Dragon <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m>:
>> >As a rule, I don't touch people. Hell, the last person I touched
>> >in a real "friendly" way was my mother. And I don't even touch my
>> >parents anymore. I'ts literally been 6 or 7 years.
>>
>> What about the Cousin in the Car incident? >:D
>
>You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car.
Ach, I lose track of all your romantic exploits, 'Phid, there are just
so many. >;D
>I felt up the girl in the car, but that was more sex motivated than
>anything else.
Are you saying that wasn't 'friendly', then?!
>basically, one of my heads was doing the thinking, but it doesn't
>have hair on top.
The others have already made all the good jokes on this line.
Spoilsports. :)
--
___________________________________________________________
\^\^//
,^ ( ..) Samurai Dragon ~~ UDIC Code ~~
| \ \ -==(UDIC)==- d++e N T--Om+U146MA7'L8u-uC++
\ `^--^ Founder \/ of SAPS uF-uG++uLB+uA+nC++uR nH+nP+++
\ \ \ (Remove fish to reply) nI++nPT+nS+++nT--wM-wC y+ a22
ksj ^--^ ___________________________________________________________
Ophidian Dragon
>
> >You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car.
>
> Ach, I lose track of all your romantic exploits, 'Phid, there are just
> so many. >;D
No, they're just well documented. :-P
> Are you saying that wasn't 'friendly', then?!
I dunno if she appreciated it. She whacked my poor horny hand with an
asthma inhaler, if you recall.
-Ophidian Dragon
Destrius
-clip-
>No, they're just well documented. :-P
-clip-
*blink*
. o O ( Ophidian's Private Life for Dummies )
James Dowd
news reader's been lying to me again...
>Samurai wrote:
>>
>
>> >You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car.
>>
>> Ach, I lose track of all your romantic exploits, 'Phid, there are just
>> so many. >;D
>
>No, they're just well documented. :-P
For an unpopular nerd/geek in high school you seem to have a lot more
than usual. (i.e. me) That's why you're a bastard! :)
(not that I'm jealous)
--
James Dowd - Talraen Dragon of the -=(UDIC)=-
Founder of the UnSPLUTables
UDIC: d e+ N+ T++ Om- UK1+2+34+56AM7'+LS'8 u uC+ uF uG+++ uLB+ uA+
nC++ nR nH+ nP-- nI- nPT nS++ nT+ wM wC++ wS wI+ wN o- oA+ oE+ y a17
Sned The Bold
> ...and it was written on the heavens that on Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:03:53 -0500,
> the entity named MdmeDis (mdm...@earthlink.net)
>
> -clip-
> >people doing what they want with their own bodies, providing they are
> >adult etc. It just that this shit messes with the brain. Gives massive
> >doses of overstimulation and creates pleasure that can't be replicated
> >otherwise.
LSD has very little to do with feeling good. It is used for it's
ego-dissolution properties, altered perspectives, visions,
introspection, etc.
>Some of it removes the brains natural ability to produce any
> >normal feeling of well being - leaves people permanently depressed or
> >having to rely on drugs. LSD can do some serious harm - the recovery
> >place I was in had "cottages" for various sets of problems. One housed
> >those left completely mindless by LSD. Gentle souls they were - they
> >wandered around, smiling vacantly and quivering.
LSD can do some serious harm true, but if used it the correct set and
setting it can be perfectly safe. Don't forget that millions of people
have tried it and most are doing just fine.
Sned The Bold
>
> Either Ophidian Dragon <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> wrote this, or my
> news reader's been lying to me again...
>
> >Samurai wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> >You're confusing my sexy cousin with the sexy girl in the car.
> >>
> >> Ach, I lose track of all your romantic exploits, 'Phid, there are just
> >> so many. >;D
> >
> >No, they're just well documented. :-P
>
> For an unpopular nerd/geek in high school you seem to have a lot more
> than usual. (i.e. me) That's why you're a bastard! :)
>
Not all unpopular nerd/geeks aren't getting any in high school. As far
as I could tell when I was still a high schooler, getting laid wasn't
really all that hard. I considered myself a nerd mostly because I
didn't go fiddling around with the easy types. I found it muuch more
romantic to have my heart crushed by the few nerdy girls I decided to
pursue.
MdmeDis
> LSD has very little to do with feeling good. It is used for it's
> ego-dissolution properties, altered perspectives, visions,
> introspection, etc.
I know it doesn't produce pleasure in the way the opiates and
derivatives do, but you are not doing it because it is a ho-hum every
day occurrence. You are doing it because it makes your brain do
incredible things - thats is its pleasure and its danger.
>
> >Some of it removes the brains natural ability to produce any
> > >normal feeling of well being - leaves people permanently depressed or
> > >having to rely on drugs. LSD can do some serious harm - the recovery
> > >place I was in had "cottages" for various sets of problems. One housed
> > >those left completely mindless by LSD. Gentle souls they were - they
> > >wandered around, smiling vacantly and quivering.
>
> LSD can do some serious harm true, but if used it the correct set and
> setting it can be perfectly safe. Don't forget that millions of people
> have tried it and most are doing just fine.
Yes - and there are thousands who have and aren't. With an illegal drug,
how do you measure 'correct'? Setting really doesn't count when you are
talking permanent brain damage. And the other little snag is - the user
is a complete unknown quantity, and varies. Explain LSD to me, and what
process exactly it has on the brain....
I dunno. You are an adult, you have freedom of choice and I respect
that. I believe in limited legalisation of drugs, even. I also know that
once you have used them to any extent, normal is never really acceptable
again. I am concerned about you - I know that no dire warnings I can
give will change a thing. Another one of my mother's interesting little
predictions about me was that I would become an alcoholic, and I drank
accepting that to some extent. Did the same with smoking - knowing all
the physical damage it could do - but thats different. Its not mind
altering. Mind altering drugs (I include alcohol, although it isn't very
impressive in that line) addict you in a way that is slavery, mental
slavery. You are never free again to control your own mind - none of
what people usually associate with addiction - the lifestyle,
withdrawal, illness - is the bad part. It is being dependent on
something to have your brain function normally, or to stimulate it. Sort
of like a wheelchair for the mind.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> It can also protect the brain against damage from a stroke =]
Alcohol can also reduce the chance of heart disease. At the same
time it kills brain cells.
Many substances are a mixed blessing. Also, a number of people
that are claiming therapeutic values are people that are straining for
something to cure them or, at least, ease their suffering.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> well, if thats what she means, i havent done it since that one time, an dwill
> probably not do it again, its fun once, but i dont wanna become chewbacca...
> drinking, hmmm, id falll into that hereditary thing, but i havent gotten drunk
> in a good month or so myself, had plenty of beer, however
People that aren't obsessed about alcohol usually can't remember
the last time they had a drink or got drunk...
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> Can we expect to have news of Cyril Mac Donald ?
You're getting to be an oldtimer around here, Moa. :)
MdmeDis
for...@earthlink.net says...
> From the Void comes Mils bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
> > Can we expect to have news of Cyril Mac Donald ?
>
> You're getting to be an oldtimer around here, Moa. :)
Indeed. I'm wondering to what we owe this mid-week posting. Did he find
the place his parents hide his modem?
Samurai
[munch]
>besides, i would rather not pay some columbian druglord....
>thats wrong
Where does the stuff you use at the moment come from, then? :P
MdmeDis
Sam...@daisho.prestelcod.co.uk says...
> Quoth bil...@aol.comjimbean (Bildo72):
> [munch]
>
> >besides, i would rather not pay some columbian druglord....
> >thats wrong
>
> Where does the stuff you use at the moment come from, then? :P
I think he was saying that he won't have to pay the druglord if it were
legalised; a preferable situation to the current one, and an arguement
in favor of legalisation.
psz
Fortran Dragon <for...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<MPG.10c4c6ca8...@news.alt.net>...
> From the Void comes Bildo72 bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
> > well, if thats what she means, i havent done it since that one time, an
dwill
> > probably not do it again, its fun once, but i dont wanna become
chewbacca...
> > drinking, hmmm, id falll into that hereditary thing, but i havent
gotten drunk
> > in a good month or so myself, had plenty of beer, however
>
> People that aren't obsessed about alcohol usually can't remember
> the last time they had a drink or got drunk...
>
> --
>
> Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
> -=[MT]=- | to quench the light of one small candle."
> Hidalgo Trading Company: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/index.html>
> rgcud FAQ: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/faq/rgcudfaq.html>
>
People who ARE obsessed with alcohol usually can't remember... They're too
drunk :-/
--
--------------------------------------
Darkling Dragon --==(UDIC)==-- --==(unSPLUT)==--
Phillip Zibilich \/
ps...@gnofn.org ps...@bellsouth.net
Plingiest Dragon and 6-2 on Othello on Weyrmount 2
* Holder of one (1) Money Dragon Flame Point *
"Time is a play thing. But when
it breaks, you're fucked." -- psz
--------------------------------------
Singing Dragon
(Fortran Dragon) wrote:
>
> People that aren't obsessed about alcohol usually can't remember
>the last time they had a drink or got drunk...
I think that's a somewhat sily statement... I mean, I usually can
remember, though it's very often not more than once a month. I
remember because it's usually at good parties, or some other
significant event... Why wouldn't you remember? I mean, I remember a
lot that I did over the past year, drinking included. Does it mean
anything?
-Singing Dragon Jon-o Addleman
-=|UDIC|=-
"Youth is wasted on the young, stereos are wasted on old people."
Mils
>the place his parents hide his modem?
No, I have to work and do some search for school, that's all :-)
Mils
>> Can we expect to have news of Cyril Mac Donald ?
>
> You're getting to be an oldtimer around here, Moa. :)
Been in UDIC for 3 years, I'm in the newsgroup for 2 years. (Although,
the first year I was a lurker, posting something like 15 posts in the
whole year, but reading though).
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> I think that's a somewhat sily statement... I mean, I usually can
> remember, though it's very often not more than once a month. I
> remember because it's usually at good parties, or some other
> significant event... Why wouldn't you remember? I mean, I remember a
> lot that I did over the past year, drinking included. Does it mean
> anything?
Considering that my statement originated with a number of
recovering alcoholics...
Sned The Bold
>
> In article <365A85FA...@ucdavis.edu>, aeh...@ucdavis.edu says...
>
> > LSD has very little to do with feeling good. It is used for it's
> > ego-dissolution properties, altered perspectives, visions,
> > introspection, etc.
>
> I know it doesn't produce pleasure in the way the opiates and
> derivatives do, but you are not doing it because it is a ho-hum every
> day occurrence. You are doing it because it makes your brain do
> incredible things - thats is its pleasure and its danger.
>
> >
> > >Some of it removes the brains natural ability to produce any
> > > >normal feeling of well being - leaves people permanently depressed or
> > > >having to rely on drugs. LSD can do some serious harm - the recovery
> > > >place I was in had "cottages" for various sets of problems. One housed
> > > >those left completely mindless by LSD. Gentle souls they were - they
> > > >wandered around, smiling vacantly and quivering.
> >
> > LSD can do some serious harm true, but if used it the correct set and
> > setting it can be perfectly safe. Don't forget that millions of people
> > have tried it and most are doing just fine.
>
> Yes - and there are thousands who have and aren't. With an illegal drug,
> how do you measure 'correct'? Setting really doesn't count when you are
> talking permanent brain damage.
Permanent brain damage does not occur with LSD.
>And the other little snag is - the user
> is a complete unknown quantity, and varies. Explain LSD to me, and what
> process exactly it has on the brain....
Difficult to explain, since nobody really understands it completely.
LSD acts either as an antagonist or partial agonist at serotonin
receptor sites, basically fooling the brain into thinking that the LSD
is serotonin. It doesn't kill brain cells or anything like that.
>
> I dunno. You are an adult, you have freedom of choice and I respect
> that. I believe in limited legalisation of drugs, even. I also know that
> once you have used them to any extent, normal is never really acceptable
> again. I am concerned about you - I know that no dire warnings I can
> give will change a thing. Another one of my mother's interesting little
> predictions about me was that I would become an alcoholic, and I drank
> accepting that to some extent. Did the same with smoking - knowing all
> the physical damage it could do - but thats different. Its not mind
> altering. Mind altering drugs (I include alcohol, although it isn't very
> impressive in that line) addict you in a way that is slavery, mental
> slavery. You are never free again to control your own mind - none of
> what people usually associate with addiction
I am in complete control of my mind. I use psychedelics and other drugs
for recreational, educational, and spiritual purposes. I don't abuse
drugs, I treat them with the necessary caution and respect. It isn't
smart to try climbing up a cliff with no equipment or experience with
climbing, neither should you fuck around with any drug without first
doing plenty of research.
>- the lifestyle,
> withdrawal, illness - is the bad part.
I've never been addicted to any drug besides caffeine, and don't plan on
being addicted anytime soon. The only addictive drug I use is alcohol,
and I haven't even taken a drink in a month.
>It is being dependent on
> something to have your brain function normally, or to stimulate it. Sort
> of like a wheelchair for the mind.
Drugs aren't something I need to have. Neither is sex, or video games,
or going to the movies. I just happen to like doing all those things.
Sned The Bold
>
> From the Void comes Mils bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
> > Can we expect to have news of Cyril Mac Donald ?
>
> You're getting to be an oldtimer around here, Moa. :)
>
It's a sick, sad world we're living in. And we all keep getting
older...
Sned The Bold
>
> Quoth bil...@aol.comjimbean (Bildo72):
> [munch]
>
> >besides, i would rather not pay some columbian druglord....
> >thats wrong
>
> Where does the stuff you use at the moment come from, then? :P
depends what you mean by stuff. I get wine made from grapes grown in
the valley I grew up in and marijuana grown in the same valley, or up
north in humboldt. The only drug I get via columbia is coffee.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> Well, actually I am a hereditary alcoholic. My dad is one, and I have
> learned how not to abuse alcohol from his example.
If you are a hereditary alcoholic you can't handle alcohol *at
all*, let alone at non-abusive levels. A hereditary alcoholic goes over
the edge from the very first drink.
--
MdmeDis
> MdmeDis wrote:
>
> Permanent brain damage does not occur with LSD.
That simply is untrue - it can do serious things either to serotonin
levels or the receptors.
>
> >And the other little snag is - the user
> > is a complete unknown quantity, and varies. Explain LSD to me, and what
> > process exactly it has on the brain....
>
> Difficult to explain, since nobody really understands it completely.
Right. Understanding it, in conjunction with understanding the users
brain chemistry and his tolerance etc is the only way its safety can be
judged.
> LSD acts either as an antagonist or partial agonist at serotonin
> receptor sites, basically fooling the brain into thinking that the LSD
> is serotonin. It doesn't kill brain cells or anything like that.
Just the brains entire message and emotional control system. Serotonin
is a pretty major factor in the neurotransmitter field. Trust me - brain
cells with no place to go are pretty useless. Screwed up serotonin
levels are, amoungst other things, the cause of severe depression and
panic disorders both of which can render people non-functional.
> > I dunno. You are an adult, you have freedom of choice and I respect
> > that. I believe in limited legalisation of drugs, even. I also know that
> > once you have used them to any extent, normal is never really acceptable
> > again. I am concerned about you - I know that no dire warnings I can
> > give will change a thing. Another one of my mother's interesting little
> > predictions about me was that I would become an alcoholic, and I drank
> > accepting that to some extent. Did the same with smoking - knowing all
> > the physical damage it could do - but thats different. Its not mind
> > altering. Mind altering drugs (I include alcohol, although it isn't very
> > impressive in that line) addict you in a way that is slavery, mental
> > slavery. You are never free again to control your own mind - none of
> > what people usually associate with addiction
>
> I am in complete control of my mind. I use psychedelics and other drugs
> for recreational, educational, and spiritual purposes.
You use them because they give you pleasure - anything else is pure
rationalisation, and once there is a need to rationalize, there IS a
problem.
> I don't abuse
> drugs, I treat them with the necessary caution and respect. It isn't
> smart to try climbing up a cliff with no equipment or experience with
> climbing, neither should you fuck around with any drug without first
> doing plenty of research.
Except that with LSD the cliff is unknown and you are blindfold. Your
safety equipment is useless.
>
> >- the lifestyle,
> > withdrawal, illness - is the bad part.
>
> I've never been addicted to any drug besides caffeine, and don't plan on
> being addicted anytime soon.
I've yet to meet an addict that did.
> The only addictive drug I use is alcohol,
> and I haven't even taken a drink in a month.
>
> >It is being dependent on
> > something to have your brain function normally, or to stimulate it. Sort
> > of like a wheelchair for the mind.
>
> Drugs aren't something I need to have.
Yet. Hopefully. And with stuff like LSD, addiction is not one of the
major worries.
> Neither is sex, or video games,
> or going to the movies.
They don't have serious side effects. As I said, it is your choice, but
if you post here about how great they are, expect me to treat your
comments much as I would someone who posts about the joys of beating
himself in the head with a hammer.
> I just happen to like doing all those things.
Now that, to me, is the first really valid comment you've made. That I
have to live with - do me one favour. Do it with your eyes wide open,
with full knowledge of all the dangers involved. No more denial and
rationalisation.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
Then why do people have LSD flashbacks, months or years later
after having stopped using it?
Sned The Bold
>
> From the Void comes Sned The Bold bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
> > learned how not to abuse alcohol from his example.
>
> If you are a hereditary alcoholic you can't handle alcohol *at
> all*, let alone at non-abusive levels. A hereditary alcoholic goes over
> the edge from the very first drink.
>
Willpower and simple common sense help.
Sned The Bold
>
> In article <36613934...@ucdavis.edu>, aeh...@ucdavis.edu says...
> > MdmeDis wrote:
>
> >
>
> levels or the receptors.
If you could cite a ref. regarding brain damage and LSD, it would help.
I guess perhaps your definition of brain damage differs from mine. LSD
does not permanently change serotonin levels, the effects are gone after
a few hours.
> >
> > >And the other little snag is - the user
> > > is a complete unknown quantity, and varies. Explain LSD to me, and what
> > > process exactly it has on the brain....
> >
> > Difficult to explain, since nobody really understands it completely.
>
> Right. Understanding it, in conjunction with understanding the users
> brain chemistry and his tolerance etc is the only way its safety can be
> judged.
>
> > LSD acts either as an antagonist or partial agonist at serotonin
> > receptor sites, basically fooling the brain into thinking that the LSD
> > is serotonin. It doesn't kill brain cells or anything like that.
>
> Just the brains entire message and emotional control system. Serotonin
> is a pretty major factor in the neurotransmitter field. Trust me - brain
> cells with no place to go are pretty useless. Screwed up serotonin
> levels are, amoungst other things, the cause of severe depression and
> panic disorders both of which can render people non-functional.
People with previously existing-or latent-mental conditions have
problems with LSD, but it does not drive sane people crazy. When set
and setting are are benign, as I've metnioned before, there will be no
problems. Pre-existing mental conditions are part of a bad set.
>
> > > I dunno. You are an adult, you have freedom of choice and I respect
> > > that. I believe in limited legalisation of drugs, even. I also know that
> > > once you have used them to any extent, normal is never really acceptable
> > > again. I am concerned about you - I know that no dire warnings I can
> > > give will change a thing. Another one of my mother's interesting little
> > > predictions about me was that I would become an alcoholic, and I drank
> > > accepting that to some extent. Did the same with smoking - knowing all
> > > the physical damage it could do - but thats different. Its not mind
> > > altering. Mind altering drugs (I include alcohol, although it isn't very
> > > impressive in that line) addict you in a way that is slavery, mental
> > > slavery. You are never free again to control your own mind - none of
> > > what people usually associate with addiction
> >
> > I am in complete control of my mind. I use psychedelics and other drugs
> > for recreational, educational, and spiritual purposes.
>
> You use them because they give you pleasure - anything else is pure
> rationalisation, and once there is a need to rationalize, there IS a
> problem.
>
> > I don't abuse
> > drugs, I treat them with the necessary caution and respect. It isn't
> > smart to try climbing up a cliff with no equipment or experience with
> > climbing, neither should you fuck around with any drug without first
> > doing plenty of research.
>
> Except that with LSD the cliff is unknown and you are blindfold. Your
> safety equipment is useless.
Not useless. The set and setting rules are very important. If observed
correctly, the psychedelic experience isn't anything like that. Timothy
Leary tripped with hundreds of people and he did it right, not one
person had a psychotic break.
> >
> > >- the lifestyle,
> > > withdrawal, illness - is the bad part.
> >
> > I've never been addicted to any drug besides caffeine, and don't plan on
> > being addicted anytime soon.
>
> I've yet to meet an addict that did.
>
> > The only addictive drug I use is alcohol,
> > and I haven't even taken a drink in a month.
> >
> > >It is being dependent on
> > > something to have your brain function normally, or to stimulate it. Sort
> > > of like a wheelchair for the mind.
> >
> > Drugs aren't something I need to have.
>
> Yet. Hopefully. And with stuff like LSD, addiction is not one of the
> major worries.
With LSD addiction is actually impossible due to the way the brain
develops tolerance.
>
> > Neither is sex, or video games,
> > or going to the movies.
>
> They don't have serious side effects. As I said, it is your choice, but
> if you post here about how great they are, expect me to treat your
> comments much as I would someone who posts about the joys of beating
> himself in the head with a hammer.
>
> > I just happen to like doing all those things.
>
> Now that, to me, is the first really valid comment you've made. That I
> have to live with - do me one favour. Do it with your eyes wide open,
> with full knowledge of all the dangers involved. No more denial and
> rationalisation.
I don't deny or rationalize anythin. I am well aware that if drugs are
abused they can have negative side effects. I don't happen to agree
with your idea of using drugs for pleasure. That's not the only
reason. I read books for pleasure, but also because I gain knowledge.
Same thing with psychedelics.
Sned The Bold
>
> From the Void comes Sned The Bold bearing this piece of Light...
> [Snip]
>
> after having stopped using it?
>
People have flashbacks about events that have particularly profound
effects on the brain. LSD flashbacks happen for the same reason PTSD
flashbacks happen to war veterans. It's a psychological thing, not a
neurochemical thing.
Samurai
>Samurai wrote:
>> Quoth bil...@aol.comjimbean (Bildo72):
>> >besides, i would rather not pay some columbian druglord....
>> >thats wrong
>>
>> Where does the stuff you use at the moment come from, then? :P
>
>depends what you mean by stuff. I get wine made from grapes grown in
>the valley I grew up in
As far as I'm aware, gangsters don't get as much money from alcohol
sales as they used to. Unless you count the government. ;)
>and marijuana grown in the same valley, or up north in humboldt.
>The only drug I get via columbia is coffee.
Home grown, fair enough -- I'm not going to stretch the point and ask
about the seeds. <:)
However, if it comes to you through any sort of middle-man, you can
bet there's organised crime involved. It's just too dangerous to be
an independent drug-seller to make it viable in most places, I
believe.
And as far as that goes, there's really no difference between paying
Colombian dug barons or more local ones. One is just as bad as the
other, AFAIAC.
Sned The Bold
>
> Quoth Sned The Bold <aeh...@ucdavis.edu>:
> >Samurai wrote:
> >> Quoth bil...@aol.comjimbean (Bildo72):
>
> >> >besides, i would rather not pay some columbian druglord....
> >> >thats wrong
> >>
> >> Where does the stuff you use at the moment come from, then? :P
> >
> >depends what you mean by stuff. I get wine made from grapes grown in
> >the valley I grew up in
>
> As far as I'm aware, gangsters don't get as much money from alcohol
> sales as they used to. Unless you count the government. ;)
>
> >and marijuana grown in the same valley, or up north in humboldt.
> >The only drug I get via columbia is coffee.
>
> Home grown, fair enough -- I'm not going to stretch the point and ask
> about the seeds. <:)
>
> However, if it comes to you through any sort of middle-man, you can
> bet there's organised crime involved. It's just too dangerous to be
> an independent drug-seller to make it viable in most places, I
> believe.
Not really, at least where I live. In small towns there is little
organized crime. Most of the people who sell marijuana are teenagers or
early twenty-somethings. Whenever I buy weed I try to go through
someone I know who grows it, that way I don't have to worry about having
to deal with criminals.
psz
Sned The Bold <aeh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
<3665D04A...@ucdavis.edu>...
> early twenty-somethings. Whenever I buy weed I try to go through
> someone I know who grows it, that way I don't have to worry about having
> to deal with criminals.
Umm... seeing as Pot's still ilegal(in most places in the U.S.)....
Wouldn't that mean you are STILL dealing with a criminal?
--
--------------------------------------
Darkling Dragon --==(UDIC)==-- --==(unSPLUT)==--
Phillip Zibilich \/
ps...@gnofn.org ps...@bellsouth.net
Plingiest Dragon and 7-2 on Othello on Weyrmount 2
Sned The Bold
>
> Sned The Bold <aeh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
> <3665D04A...@ucdavis.edu>...
> > early twenty-somethings. Whenever I buy weed I try to go through
> > someone I know who grows it, that way I don't have to worry about having
> > to deal with criminals.
>
> Umm... seeing as Pot's still ilegal(in most places in the U.S.)....
> Wouldn't that mean you are STILL dealing with a criminal?
Since the pot laws are unconstitutional, not to mention completely
insane, no, I'm not still dealing with a criminal.
Matthew Filla
wrote:
>psz wrote:
>>
>> Sned The Bold <aeh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
>> <3665D04A...@ucdavis.edu>...
>> > early twenty-somethings. Whenever I buy weed I try to go through
>> > someone I know who grows it, that way I don't have to worry about having
>> > to deal with criminals.
>>
>> Umm... seeing as Pot's still ilegal(in most places in the U.S.)....
>> Wouldn't that mean you are STILL dealing with a criminal?
>
>Since the pot laws are unconstitutional,
Debatable.
> not to mention completely insane,
Subjective.
>no, I'm not still dealing with a criminal.
Ummm. It's still the law of the land, so yes you are. Mere
disagreement with a law does not render the law invalid. You can
debate the severity of the crime, or whether it should even be a
crime, but as of now it's still a crime, and your supplier is breaking
the law.
Matt
--
Consulting Dragon -==(UDIC)==-|"Who let the Feds in our bedroom?
(aka Matthew Filla) | Who set these maniacs loose?
Middleton, WI | Who said the government could give
matthe...@teldta.com | opinions on how and when we reproduce?"
-Something Fierce, "Feel Like Professor"
psz
Sned The Bold <aeh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
> psz wrote:
> >
> > Sned The Bold <aeh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
> > <3665D04A...@ucdavis.edu>...
> > > early twenty-somethings. Whenever I buy weed I try to go through
> > > someone I know who grows it, that way I don't have to worry about
having
> > > to deal with criminals.
> >
> > Umm... seeing as Pot's still ilegal(in most places in the U.S.)....
> > Wouldn't that mean you are STILL dealing with a criminal?
>
> Since the pot laws are unconstitutional, not to mention completely
> insane, no, I'm not still dealing with a criminal.
Whether it's constitutional, insane, or absolutley right doesn't matter.
If it's against the law it's illeagal. If it's ilegal, then anyone who does
it is a criminal.
Victor Danilchenko
>
> > Since the pot laws are unconstitutional, not to mention completely
> > insane, no, I'm not still dealing with a criminal.
>
> Whether it's constitutional, insane, or absolutley right doesn't matter.
>
> If it's against the law it's illeagal. If it's ilegal, then anyone who does
> it is a criminal.
Does this have to be reiterated?..
"Illegal" does not mean "immoral" or "unjust". At one point, freeing
slaves was illegal, and abolitionists were criminals; same for
homosexuality and a host of other "crimes". I for one do not consider
the label "criminal" to be negative until I know WHICH law has been
broken. Some laws are just, some are not -- and some SHOULD be broken by
anyone with their "social consciousness" organ still functioning
properly.
So, when you say "anyone who does it is a criminal", you should be
aware of the fact that there are crimes, and then there are "crimes"...
--
Daermonestroer Dragon
psz
Victor Danilchenko <dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in article
<3667F1C1...@cs.umass.edu>...
>
> Does this have to be reiterated?..
> "Illegal" does not mean "immoral" or "unjust". At one point, freeing
> slaves was illegal, and abolitionists were criminals; same for
> homosexuality and a host of other "crimes". I for one do not consider
> the label "criminal" to be negative until I know WHICH law has been
> broken. Some laws are just, some are not -- and some SHOULD be broken by
> anyone with their "social consciousness" organ still functioning
> properly.
> So, when you say "anyone who does it is a criminal", you should be
> aware of the fact that there are crimes, and then there are "crimes"...
>
> --
> Daermonestroer Dragon
>
Welcome back! :->
Yes, there are crimes(pot being illegal, but smoking it), and there are
"Crimes"(murder). The point is, that both are illegal. Until pot smoking
becomes legal, those who buy/sell/smoke it are commiting a crime, hence
they are TECHNICALLY criminals. It may not be a fair law. It may not be an
intelligent law. It's still the law(for now).
Victor Danilchenko
>
> Victor Danilchenko <dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in article
> <3667F1C1...@cs.umass.edu>...
>
> >
> > Does this have to be reiterated?..
> > "Illegal" does not mean "immoral" or "unjust". At one point, freeing
> > slaves was illegal, and abolitionists were criminals; same for
> > homosexuality and a host of other "crimes". I for one do not consider
> > the label "criminal" to be negative until I know WHICH law has been
> > broken. Some laws are just, some are not -- and some SHOULD be broken by
> > anyone with their "social consciousness" organ still functioning
> > properly.
> > So, when you say "anyone who does it is a criminal", you should be
> > aware of the fact that there are crimes, and then there are "crimes"...
>
Thank you.
> Yes, there are crimes(pot being illegal, but smoking it), and there are
> "Crimes"(murder). The point is, that both are illegal. Until pot smoking
> becomes legal, those who buy/sell/smoke it are commiting a crime, hence
> they are TECHNICALLY criminals. It may not be a fair law. It may not be an
> intelligent law. It's still the law(for now).
My post was in response to your assertion that it does not matter if
the law is constitutional or sane on right or just -- it is still
illegal. Yes, it IS still illegal, but as I think I have demonstrated,
it very much DOES matter if the law is costitutional or not, just or
not, sane or not. You used the label "criminal" in an unfavorable way --
which in this case I think is incorrect at worst, and bad argument style
at best.
The word "criminal" carries a heavy negative connotation in English,
and when you use it in context like this, you are basically engaging in
obfuscation of the topic by use of emotional overtones (this is similar
to, say, using either "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" in order to
support your side -- not by use of rational argument but by use of
emotional baggage; "they" are terrorists, and "we" are freedom
fighters).
Think of another parallel: someone lies to an ax murderer about the
location of his (ax murderer's) intended victim. Such an act is clearly
a lie; however, it is just as clearly a good, even virtuous, lie -- not
just a "white lie" but a "blindingly bright lie", if I may coin a
phrase. Calling such a person a "liar" in an argument in an attempt to
discredit them may be technically correct, but it certainly displays
dirty debating tactics.
Remember that language conveys both data and emotions, and the latter
should be used very sparingly in a rational debate.
--
Daermonestroer Dragon
psz
Victor Danilchenko <dani...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in article
More likely the latter... I've never BEEN a great arguer :->
As for my assertion, I was joint pointing out a deffinition.
> The word "criminal" carries a heavy negative connotation in English,
> and when you use it in context like this, you are basically engaging in
> obfuscation of the topic by use of emotional overtones (this is similar
As I said, I was merely pointing out the def...
BTW, out of curiosity, considering the situation leading up to my post,
what was YOUR stand point?
> to, say, using either "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" in order to
> support your side -- not by use of rational argument but by use of
> emotional baggage; "they" are terrorists, and "we" are freedom
> fighters).
I understand, and I agree.
>
> Think of another parallel: someone lies to an ax murderer about the
> location of his (ax murderer's) intended victim. Such an act is clearly
> a lie; however, it is just as clearly a good, even virtuous, lie -- not
> just a "white lie" but a "blindingly bright lie", if I may coin a
> phrase. Calling such a person a "liar" in an argument in an attempt to
> discredit them may be technically correct, but it certainly displays
> dirty debating tactics.
>
> Remember that language conveys both data and emotions, and the latter
> should be used very sparingly in a rational debate.
>
> --
> Daermonestroer Dragon
>
Language is a difficult weapon to weild at best... English doesn't always
help :->
Victor Danilchenko
> > My post was in response to your assertion that it does not matter if
> > the law is constitutional or sane on right or just -- it is still
> > illegal. Yes, it IS still illegal, but as I think I have demonstrated,
> > it very much DOES matter if the law is costitutional or not, just or
> > not, sane or not. You used the label "criminal" in an unfavorable way --
> > which in this case I think is incorrect at worst, and bad argument style
> > at best.
>
> More likely the latter... I've never BEEN a great arguer :->
>
> As for my assertion, I was joint pointing out a deffinition.
And this is exactly the problem. People already have a notion of
"criminal", and it does NOT accord with the definition you pointed out
(simply because it involves emotional qualifiers). When you "just point
out a definition", all you do is "prove" to people that XYZ is a
criminal/liar/fag, at which point many people immediately forget about
the definition you used, but they DO remember that that person was
"proven" to be a criminal/liar/fag -- and they use their
emotionally-ladden definition when remembering that.
In essence, what you did is a subtle form of "strawman argument" (see
more details on that at
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman ) -- subtle
because you leave the switching of one meaning for another to the
readers, rather than doing it yourself.
> > The word "criminal" carries a heavy negative connotation in English,
> > and when you use it in context like this, you are basically engaging in
> > obfuscation of the topic by use of emotional overtones (this is similar
>
> As I said, I was merely pointing out the def...
>
> BTW, out of curiosity, considering the situation leading up to my post,
> what was YOUR stand point?
I personally think that anti-drug laws are a perfect example of the
utter lunacy that our (USA) self-motivating political system can
accomplish. These laws exist because they allow the poseurs on the
various levels of government to proclaim how they are fighting for
"free, healthy America", thus gaining political capital and votes. This
is why those assholes spend so much money on waging a war on drugs that
does not need to be waged, and not enough money on long-term
improvements of educational system (because the said improvements will
not bear fruit by the next election).
> > Think of another parallel: someone lies to an ax murderer about the
> > location of his (ax murderer's) intended victim. Such an act is clearly
> > a lie; however, it is just as clearly a good, even virtuous, lie -- not
> > just a "white lie" but a "blindingly bright lie", if I may coin a
> > phrase. Calling such a person a "liar" in an argument in an attempt to
> > discredit them may be technically correct, but it certainly displays
> > dirty debating tactics.
> >
> > Remember that language conveys both data and emotions, and the latter
> > should be used very sparingly in a rational debate.
>
> Language is a difficult weapon to weild at best... English doesn't always
> help :->
Yeah, I have had a beef with natural languages for a long time -- they
are too much of a weapon and not enough of a tool.
--
Daermonestroer Dragon
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> Willpower and simple common sense help.
If you are a alcoholic the only thing willpower is going to do for
you is help you stop. Granted that is a significant thing, but willpower
won't allow you to drink just a little. With an alcoholic it is all or
nothing.
Sned The Bold
>
> psz wrote:
> >
> > Sned The Bold <aeh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
> > <36671B81...@ucdavis.edu>...
> >
> > > Since the pot laws are unconstitutional, not to mention completely
> > > insane, no, I'm not still dealing with a criminal.
> >
> > Whether it's constitutional, insane, or absolutley right doesn't matter.
> >
> > it is a criminal.
>
> Does this have to be reiterated?..
> "Illegal" does not mean "immoral" or "unjust". At one point, freeing
> slaves was illegal, and abolitionists were criminals; same for
> homosexuality and a host of other "crimes". I for one do not consider
> the label "criminal" to be negative until I know WHICH law has been
> broken. Some laws are just, some are not -- and some SHOULD be broken by
> anyone with their "social consciousness" organ still functioning
> properly.
> So, when you say "anyone who does it is a criminal", you should be
> aware of the fact that there are crimes, and then there are "crimes"...
>
For that matter, the current pot laws are completely ridiculous.
Marijuana is currently on the DEA's schedule I, which is supposedly
reserbved for drugs that are addictive and have a "high potential for
abuse". The medical community keeps producing studies confirming that
neither of these are true, but the plant remains on schedule I.
> --
> Daermonestroer Dragon
Sned The Bold
>
> Sned The Bold <aeh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
> <36671B81...@ucdavis.edu>...
> > psz wrote:
> > >
> > > Sned The Bold <aeh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
> > > > early twenty-somethings. Whenever I buy weed I try to go through
> > > > someone I know who grows it, that way I don't have to worry about
> having
> > > > to deal with criminals.
> > >
> > > Umm... seeing as Pot's still ilegal(in most places in the U.S.)....
> > > Wouldn't that mean you are STILL dealing with a criminal?
> >
> > insane, no, I'm not still dealing with a criminal.
>
> Whether it's constitutional, insane, or absolutley right doesn't matter.
>
> If it's against the law it's illeagal. If it's ilegal, then anyone who does
> it is a criminal.
>
Taken from the NORML site:
(http://www.norml.org/facts/index.shtml)
"Marijuana remains the third most popular
recreational drug of choice in the United States
despite 60 years of criminal prohibition. According
to government figures, nearly 70 million Americans
have smoked marijuana at some time in their lives.
Of these, 18 million have smoked marijuana within
the last year, and ten million are regular
marijuana smokers.
The vast majority of these individuals are otherwise
law-abiding citizens who work hard, raise families,
and contribute to their communities. They are not
part of the crime problem and should not be treated
as criminals."
That would make just under one third of the population of the United
States a criminal. Think about it, walking down the street, every third
person you meet is a criminal. Gotta love those laws.
psz
Sned The Bold <aeh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
>
> Taken from the NORML site:
> (http://www.norml.org/facts/index.shtml)
>
> "Marijuana remains the third most popular
> recreational drug of choice in the United States
> despite 60 years of criminal prohibition. According
> to government figures, nearly 70 million Americans
> have smoked marijuana at some time in their lives.
> Of these, 18 million have smoked marijuana within
> the last year, and ten million are regular
> marijuana smokers.
>
> The vast majority of these individuals are otherwise
> law-abiding citizens who work hard, raise families,
> and contribute to their communities. They are not
> part of the crime problem and should not be treated
> as criminals."
>
> That would make just under one third of the population of the United
> States a criminal. Think about it, walking down the street, every third
> person you meet is a criminal. Gotta love those laws.
>
I never said I AGREED with the law. I personnaly think that if tobacco and
alchohol are "safe" enough to be legal, then pot should have been a LONG
time ago.
Christopher A Tew
yeah...now who came here to see me?
>I never said I AGREED with the law. I personnaly think that if tobacco and
>alchohol are "safe" enough to be legal, then pot should have been a LONG
>time ago.
<sigh> As has been pointed out, cannibis is a mind-affecting drug.
Unlike alcohol, and to a far greater extent than tobacco, secondary
smoke from cannibis can affect people other than the smoker. Its why
I can't go to most concerts by the bands that I like, as they tend to
attract potheads as well as near-straight-edgers such as myself.
And then there's the spectre of having even more stoned people
operating heavy machinery, driving around, etc.
I think that a law making cannibis smoking legal across the board
would be wrong (and, for the record, I'm not enthralled with the ease
of availablity of alcohol, either). Were it made legal to smoke
inside ones home but illegal to smoke or be under the influence of
outside of ones home, I wouldn't mind as much as if the law gave it
blanket legality. Unfortuantely, people live very close together
these days, and secondary smoke from one apartment could carry over
into another.
Oh, and Sned, I doubt that the statistics from NORML will sway anybody
on this issue. NORML is rather biased, so it's likely that they'll
only present "facts" that help their cause. Heh. One thing that
doesn't help NORML much is that they're composed of stoned bastards
themselves. When I'm asked by some pot-damaged kid whether I "want to
sign, like, a petition for a referendum on cannibis laws, dude", I
usually think, "Hmm, do I want more people like this moron wandering
around?" Guess what the answer is.
-Cat
--
"I'm a wanderer. I'm a rebel. I'm ballz out, dudes. Heh heh."
-Chester, from The Sifl and Olly Show
_____________________________________________________________
Samurai
>There is the difference between known chemical reactions of caffine,
>sugar and carbonated water - I'm not going to suffer any long term
>affects from Coca-Cola (tm) aside from incidental weight gain.
Have you seen the results of the experiment involving spiders and
different chemicals? The spider dosed with caffeine produced a more
far more messed-up web than the one on LSD did.
Just an observation. :)