IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Ecstasy, An Inconvenient Truth
psychÝ
post Apr 26 2008, 03:56 PM
Post #41


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE
Just because they are doing it for a reason does not mean it still is not a theory
When did I say it wasn't I was saying that I don't want a journalists view on a theory they don't understand the concepts behind
QUOTE
or they are right for that matter.
Generally they are or are right as possible with the current information and techniques avaliable as they go through a peer review process.
QUOTE
If logic is the mentality you are using for this discussion, than it would make more sense to question what your own logic is instead of fighting Ginger once his proposition is presented to you.
Why are you even talking about logic, it has nothing to do with it, let me sum it up in simple terms for you, I don't want to hear a journalist who doesn't know wtf he is talking about and is just reading someone else's work, especially when I can just read what the person who has done the work and actually knows what the fuck they are on about has to say.

QUOTE
As for someone not knowing what the fuck they are talking about I think it safe to say that no one honestly knows what they are really talking about.
Eh.........maybe you should generalise everyone into your category.
QUOTE
Actions are obviously viewed higher in the world than speaking about them.
See you obviously don't know what you are talking about as this is completely irrelivent, that is despite the fact that to have a scientific study which is what we are talking about, to be able to talk about it you have to have done the actions to get the results.
QUOTE
Try the drug if you have not already and come back once you are down to finalize your thought.

Once again how is that even relevant me trying the drug is not going to tell me if it has long term effects.

QUOTE
I think ecstasy was about in 17th place, with nicotine 9th and alcohol 7th most dangerous drug in Britain.
Where as I agree that ecstasy isn't as harmful as other class A drugs it isn't hard to hid other compounds with in a tablet.

The problems with rating like that is there is a load of information on nicotime and alcohol and little on ecstasy so the rating isn't really valid in anyway, for example they know how much alcohol is sold and fine gentlemans, but they don't have reliable figures on ecstasy, then of course if you went to hospital after taking ecstasy you would get admitted with dehydration, go wasted you will get admitted with alcohol poisoning, or something similar.

QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.

QUOTE
What would the point or motive be if tomorrow things like pot and ecstasy were legalized? A bunch of even more kids start smoking even more weed... how is that beneficial to society?
Tax revenue, better knowledge of usage, better awareness of groups using it, better targeting to stop people using it, reduction of crime due to increased availability, greater safety for users, greater awareness of clinics so they can quit.

QUOTE
Sure.. smoke, that's fine;
No it isn't it is far worse than many illegal drugs.

QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.

This post has been edited by psychÝ: Apr 26 2008, 03:57 PM


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gingergenius
post Apr 26 2008, 04:20 PM
Post #42


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 21-January 06
From: London, UK
Member No.: 27,536



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 26 2008, 04:56 PM) [snapback]1422530[/snapback]
QUOTE
Just because they are doing it for a reason does not mean it still is not a theory
When did I say it wasn't I was saying that I don't want a journalists view on a theory they don't understand the concepts behind
QUOTE
or they are right for that matter.
Generally they are or are right as possible with the current information and techniques avaliable as they go through a peer review process.
QUOTE
If logic is the mentality you are using for this discussion, than it would make more sense to question what your own logic is instead of fighting Ginger once his proposition is presented to you.
Why are you even talking about logic, it has nothing to do with it, let me sum it up in simple terms for you, I don't want to hear a journalist who doesn't know wtf he is talking about and is just reading someone else's work, especially when I can just read what the person who has done the work and actually knows what the fuck they are on about has to say.

QUOTE
As for someone not knowing what the fuck they are talking about I think it safe to say that no one honestly knows what they are really talking about.
Eh.........maybe you should generalise everyone into your category.
QUOTE
Actions are obviously viewed higher in the world than speaking about them.
See you obviously don't know what you are talking about as this is completely irrelivent, that is despite the fact that to have a scientific study which is what we are talking about, to be able to talk about it you have to have done the actions to get the results.
QUOTE
Try the drug if you have not already and come back once you are down to finalize your thought.
Once again how is that even relevant me trying the drug is not going to tell me if it has long term effects.

QUOTE
I think ecstasy was about in 17th place, with nicotine 9th and alcohol 7th most dangerous drug in Britain.
Where as I agree that ecstasy isn't as harmful as other class A drugs it isn't hard to hid other compounds with in a tablet.

The problems with rating like that is there is a load of information on nicotime and alcohol and little on ecstasy so the rating isn't really valid in anyway, for example they know how much alcohol is sold and fine gentlemans, but they don't have reliable figures on ecstasy, then of course if you went to hospital after taking ecstasy you would get admitted with dehydration, go wasted you will get admitted with alcohol poisoning, or something similar.

QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.

QUOTE
What would the point or motive be if tomorrow things like pot and ecstasy were legalized? A bunch of even more kids start smoking even more weed... how is that beneficial to society?
Tax revenue, better knowledge of usage, better awareness of groups using it, better targeting to stop people using it, reduction of crime due to increased availability, greater safety for users, greater awareness of clinics so they can quit.

QUOTE
Sure.. smoke, that's fine;
No it isn't it is far worse than many illegal drugs.

QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.


1) You won't trust a well respected journalist (look up Peter Jennings, his reputation is by no means controversial), while you would trust a scientist who produced a paper and then realised he'd based the results on the wrong drug. Fine.

2) Pills only contain other sorts of shit because they are illegal and profit is a paramount for criminals who don't have to comply with anything like health and safety. A criminal making ecstasy pills which aren't 100% MDMA is like an industrialist refusing to buy his workers safety equipment. It cuts costs. Now, industrialists have to, by law, make sure their employees are sufficiently protected. If Ecstasy were legal and went back to its former status then the pills would be scrutinised by all sorts of medical authorities to make sure they were fit for medical use.

You seem to have lost this argument, and are now nitpicking what everyone else says and disagreeing with it for the sake of saving face.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Apr 26 2008, 04:27 PM
Post #43


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279





QUOTE
1) You won't trust a well respected journalist (look up Peter Jennings, his reputation is by no means controversial), while you would trust a scientist who produced a paper and then realised he'd based the results on the wrong drug. Fine.
The results were wrong and the paper was with drawn, when did I say I trusted it, I have yet to see see papers showing the godly powers of E.

QUOTE

2) Pills only contain other sorts of shit because they are illegal and profit is a paramount for criminals who don't have to comply with anything like health and safety.
Enjoy copying me do you maybe you should read a post before quoting it.

QUOTE
You seem to have lost this argument, and are now nitpicking what everyone else says and disagreeing with it for the sake of saving face.

You seem to have just changed the words of my response and then claimed you thought of it, really doesn't work if the post is right above yours, maybe E doesn't do you so much good after all. rolleyes.gif

I fail to see how I am losing this argument you have failed to produce one valid scientific paper in favour or against ecstasy.


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post Apr 26 2008, 05:11 PM
Post #44



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2008, 01:56 AM) [snapback]1422530[/snapback]
QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.


Of coarse if a tiny amount was given a rat could survive, but not the same amount as a human wich was my whole point. You will just disagree with and try and contradict anyone to look smarter, won't you?

QUOTE
Tax revenue, better knowledge of usage, better awareness of groups using it, better targeting to stop people using it, reduction of crime due to increased availability,


ah, I forgot to meantion tax in my previous post, though I don't agree it will reduce crime.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Apr 26 2008, 05:20 PM
Post #45


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 26 2008, 06:11 PM) [snapback]1422593[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2008, 01:56 AM) [snapback]1422530[/snapback]
QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.


Of coarse if a tiny amount was given a rat could survive, but not the same amount as a human wich was my whole point. You will just disagree with and try and contradict anyone to look smarter, won't you?
In proportion to mass they will both be able to take similar amounts, you shouldn't make useless statements that in reality just make you look stupid, everyone knows a rat couldn't take the same amount as a human, it could drink the same amount of water as a human without dying, it is a irrelevant point, the mass of the organism has to be taken into account.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Tax revenue, better knowledge of usage, better awareness of groups using it, better targeting to stop people using it, reduction of crime due to increased availability,
ah, I forgot to meantion tax in my previous post, though I don't agree it will reduce crime.

Why won't it reduce crime? I know why it will, or at least will in a certain area of the criminal spectra.

This post has been edited by psychÝ: Apr 26 2008, 05:24 PM


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gingergenius
post Apr 26 2008, 05:30 PM
Post #46


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 21-January 06
From: London, UK
Member No.: 27,536



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 26 2008, 05:27 PM) [snapback]1422558[/snapback]
QUOTE
1) You won't trust a well respected journalist (look up Peter Jennings, his reputation is by no means controversial), while you would trust a scientist who produced a paper and then realised he'd based the results on the wrong drug. Fine.
The results were wrong and the paper was with drawn, when did I say I trusted it, I have yet to see see papers showing the godly powers of E.

QUOTE

2) Pills only contain other sorts of shit because they are illegal and profit is a paramount for criminals who don't have to comply with anything like health and safety.
Enjoy copying me do you maybe you should read a post before quoting it.

QUOTE
You seem to have lost this argument, and are now nitpicking what everyone else says and disagreeing with it for the sake of saving face.

You seem to have just changed the words of my response and then claimed you thought of it, really doesn't work if the post is right above yours, maybe E doesn't do you so much good after all. rolleyes.gif

I fail to see how I am losing this argument you have failed to produce one valid scientific paper in favour or against ecstasy.


So in order to lose an argument you need a scientific paper? How about looking at it from the time when Ecstasy was legal. Then, as now, there was no valid scientific paper that supported it's classification as a Class A drug. Yet it was made so. How about you show me a scientific paper saying it is as dangerous as it's supposed to be, and I'll accept that it should be illegal.

As for copying you, you've just gone and said "it isn't hard to hid (sic) other compounds with a tablet". You appeared to be saying that in order to say that despite Ecstasy on its own maybe not being harmful, it is impure which makes it harmful. I then said that the reason it's impure is because it's illegal. I fail to see where I've copied you...
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post Apr 26 2008, 05:35 PM
Post #47



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2008, 03:20 AM) [snapback]1422602[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 26 2008, 06:11 PM) [snapback]1422593[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2008, 01:56 AM) [snapback]1422530[/snapback]
QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.


Of coarse if a tiny amount was given a rat could survive, but not the same amount as a human wich was my whole point. You will just disagree with and try and contradict anyone to look smarter, won't you?
In proportion to mass they will both be able to take similar amounts, you shouldn't make useless statements that in reality just make you look stupid, everyone knows a rat couldn't take the same amount as a human, it could drink the same amount of water as a human without dying, it is a irrelevant point, the mass of the organism has to be taken into account.

Irrelevant how? He said it meant nothing that ex is harmless in small amounts because so is rat poison, but thats because rat poison is meant to kill rats not humans. I said we could but a rat couldn't survive that amount and the stuff is designed to kill rats.

QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2008, 03:20 AM) [snapback]1422602[/snapback]
QUOTE
QUOTE
Tax revenue, better knowledge of usage, better awareness of groups using it, better targeting to stop people using it, reduction of crime due to increased availability,
ah, I forgot to meantion tax in my previous post, though I don't agree it will reduce crime.

Why won't it reduce crime? I know why it will, or at least will in a certain area of the criminal spectra.


Well, if ex is no longer illegal criminals will just move to other drugs/crimes and it won't make much diffrence at all.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caliguy
post Apr 26 2008, 05:43 PM
Post #48


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 132



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 26 2008, 10:35 AM) [snapback]1422616[/snapback]
Well, if ex is no longer illegal criminals will just move to other drugs/crimes and it won't make much diffrence at all.


QFT.

I think there would be far more cons than pros if drugs like these were suddenly legalized.

BTW, psycho, when I said "sure, smoke", I was talking about marijuana.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Apr 26 2008, 06:01 PM
Post #49


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE

Irrelevant how? He said it meant nothing that ex is harmless in small amounts because so is rat poison, but thats because rat poison is meant to kill rats not humans. I said we could but a rat couldn't survive that amount and the stuff is designed to kill rats.
What? Rat poison isn't designed to kill rats it will kill anything it is just used on rats.
QUOTE

Well, if ex is no longer illegal criminals will just move to other drugs/crimes and it won't make much diffrence at all.

It removes one drug from the list which means people have less chance of being exploited by crime, plus it will stop a source of income.
QUOTE
BTW, psycho, when I said "sure, smoke", I was talking about marijuana.
And that makes it better how?


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
.DoC.
post Apr 26 2008, 06:24 PM
Post #50


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 12-March 07
Member No.: 35,273



"God gave every human freedom in every sense" As in he is not responsible on what we do and the path we take. So now governments playing God? Theyre to say what we can and cannot do? Isn't it GODS law to be free and live in freedom? They use God and the Bible to bring up points such as its not the way God intented our lives. Well he didn't intend it to be controlled by other people either, so let us do our "drugs" and drink our alcohol. SHIIIIIT!


--------------------
Sig is far too wide. Please re-size
It is not enough that I succeed, but that all others must fail. -Some Famous Person
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post Jun 15 2008, 04:55 AM
Post #51



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(GTA~BOSS @ Apr 23 2008, 04:22 AM) [snapback]1418407[/snapback]
just for the love of god legalize maryjane she done nothin wrong tobacco kills millions in a year maryjane never killed anyone

She may not kill anyone, but when it's sold it's almost impossible to tax. Prices increase depending on the way it's grown and who would actualy declare the way they are growing it or even weather or not they are growing it only to have to pay more tax? It would be terrible for the ecconomy. They've tried making it so you can grow a plant for yourself but people kept on selling it.

Even if it doesn't kill you, if it were made legal (wich would only be if they somehow found a way to tax it) people would be smoking like, 10 cones a day because they would be so cheap and no one would get very much done. It's not a good idea to legalise it, unless the governmet controlled growhouses and increased the penalties for growing it tax free. It would be cheaper so no kids would steal to buy weed, but it would be hard to stop people buying an excese of pot and we might still end up with a society full of bums.

Some of my (ex) friends have recently become hooked on it and we don't want too many people like that running around. trust me, it would be more trouble than it's worth.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amnesiac
post Jun 15 2008, 11:18 PM
Post #52


Nobody Special
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 2-November 04
Member No.: 4,201



If not legalization, then what about decriminalization? People should not be locked up in our already overpopulated prison system for something as simple as a plant.
With marijuana in a grey market right now, those who stand to lose profit from legalization the most would be our tobacco and alcohol corporations, most of which use massive payoffs to lobbyists to keep this little plant illegal.

On the issue of ecstasy though, in moderation and in very spaced out time intervals, it is about as harmful as aspirin.
However, eat triple-stacks every other night and you'll wind up doing some very serious brain damage. Like MrPMonkey said, moderation...


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post Jun 16 2008, 06:30 AM
Post #53



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



Decriminalisation might work, though they would have to be pretty steep finds for growing or even possesing marijuana, since more people are going to start to sell and grow it, instead of pay tax from their job in a book store.

But, again, even if weed doesn't kill you, it can turn you into an asshole and I think we might like to keep the asshole population to a minimum.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Jun 16 2008, 10:11 AM
Post #54


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Jun 16 2008, 07:30 AM) [snapback]1448294[/snapback]
Decriminalisation might work, though they would have to be pretty steep finds for growing or even possesing marijuana, since more people are going to start to sell and grow it, instead of pay tax from their job in a book store.

But, again, even if weed doesn't kill you, it can turn you into an asshole and I think we might like to keep the asshole population to a minimum.

Your tax argument is a bunch of crap, if you brew beer and don't sell it you don't pay tax, so it is an irrelevant argument as if it is there too buy people will because the majority will be too lazy to grow a plant.


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post Jun 16 2008, 01:03 PM
Post #55



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Jun 16 2008, 08:11 PM) [snapback]1448337[/snapback]
as if it is there too buy people will because the majority will be too lazy to grow a plant.

Wich is the whole problem. No tax revenue would be earned, since people would never declare they are growing it for anything other than personal use.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Jun 16 2008, 06:33 PM
Post #56


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Jun 16 2008, 02:03 PM) [snapback]1448355[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Jun 16 2008, 08:11 PM) [snapback]1448337[/snapback]
as if it is there too buy people will because the majority will be too lazy to grow a plant.

Wich is the whole problem. No tax revenue would be earned, since people would never declare they are growing it for anything other than personal use.

Did you even read what I said....No clearly not.

And if you don't sell it you won't be taxed, which is how the whole system works, they will still get tax as everyone won't grow it.


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Severus Snape
post Jun 16 2008, 06:57 PM
Post #57


Litterer


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 8-March 06
From: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
Member No.: 28,564



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Jun 16 2008, 01:30 AM) [snapback]1448294[/snapback]
Decriminalisation might work, though they would have to be pretty steep finds for growing or even possesing marijuana, since more people are going to start to sell and grow it, instead of pay tax from their job in a book store.

But, again, even if weed doesn't kill you, it can turn you into an asshole and I think we might like to keep the asshole population to a minimum.

That, dear sir, is sig material.


--------------------
QUOTE (Massacre @ Mar 14 2011, 02:10 PM) *
We're more than capable of answering you, we're just not doing it because you're being a cunt, and it's you specifically we don't care about, we do care about the rest of the forums.


Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Jun 17 2008, 01:27 AM
Post #58


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



I'm pretty sure that ecstasy causes long term paranoia, shakes, and halucinations. Thats probably why it is illegal.

I don't understand why people insist on asking stupid questions.


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Jun 17 2008, 03:55 PM
Post #59


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jun 17 2008, 02:27 AM) [snapback]1448529[/snapback]
I'm pretty sure that ecstasy causes long term paranoia, shakes, and halucinations. Thats probably why it is illegal.

...

Because of course that comment was based on scientific research and not just pulled out of your arse. rolleyes.gif


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Loly Pop
post Jun 18 2008, 05:58 AM
Post #60


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 27-August 06
Member No.: 32,263



QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 10:53 AM) [snapback]1418293[/snapback]
QUOTE(Kryton @ Apr 22 2008, 12:00 PM) [snapback]1418150[/snapback]
Saw an Oprah special ages ago about people who take loads of E's every week and they had a scan of a chicks brain who had been doing like 20-40 E's a week for a year. She had holes in her brain the size of golf balls. ohmy.gif
Stopped me from takin E's right then.
Plus the comedown the next day is always a bitch


well duh. That's drug abuse. But that would happen if you took a raw amount of a prescription pill as well.

Normal ravers take a few pills on a night out and only the most hardcore go every weekend. That is considerably less than 20-40; a stupid reason to stop doing them..


Not true. The reason it affects the brain, the most important thing in your body, is because X is mindaltering. It targets the brain, which is why you hullicinate...Tylenol would hurt you in another way, but not THAT way.. not that bad

IT doesn't matter how much you do it...It still hurts you, even the slightest bit..

Like smoking: If you light up every Sunday you may not get lung cancer, but it's still bad for you and harms your body, even if iit's the slightest bit...

The government is fucked up and it's hard to draw lines when you know there is gonna be so many backlashes. It govt belongs to the people and on paper, the people can overthrow the government so it's a scary thought for the government to think of drawing lines and marking territories (metaphorically speaking) when you know people do have power and they can use it if they largely don't agree with you.

I.E. - Prohibition



EDIT: off topic but Leon's and Skinny's sexual relationship through the use of siggy quotes excites me. 070302buttsecks2.gif



EDIT 2: and psycho you are big ole dummy

QUOTE
QUOTE
If logic is the mentality you are using for this discussion, than it would make more sense to question what your own logic is instead of fighting Ginger once his proposition is presented to you.
Why are you even talking about logic, it has nothing to do with it, let me sum it up in simple terms for you, I don't want to hear a journalist who doesn't know wtf he is talking about and is just reading someone else's work, especially when I can just read what the person who has done the work and actually knows what the fuck they are on about has to say.


you basically said: "I don't want to read a journalist's work, even though it says the same shit as the guy he got it from."

By your logic, instead of simply reading the textbook and the Declaration of Independence inside, you fly to D.C. to see the "real shit"

and your argument will be: "No journalists actually don't know what they are talking about you twat."

But i insist, it's not hard to copy information...Come to think of it...look at your posts. You see to do it 20 times, each response, without fail. cookies for you.


This post has been edited by Loly Pop: Jun 18 2008, 06:10 AM


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th April 2014 - 05:42 AM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4