Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Reply to thread

Message

So I posted this...

Then you said this:

Clearly attempting to sidestep the issues I raised above, by offering a reply that tangentially engages with what I said, at best.

But even in your attempt to sidestep, you appear to be engaging in intellectual dishonesty, as cyb pointed out. You stated

Except the rest of the post that you, yourself, cited (which interestingly enough you chose to omit from your re-quoting here) goes on to state:

Now, everything gnrm23 presents here is true...

DMT freebase does not need an MAOI but using an MAOI will result in the high lasting longer (and having a different quality to it).

Nowhere in the post does grnm23 indicate that they "didn't see this information as being particularly valuable or important! " To the contrary, they let people know that utilizing an MAOI (whether smoked or oral) will lengthen the duration of the experience, but that it is not necessary.

I'm not going to guess at your motivations for omitting that section of grnm23's post, but that type of apparently selective reading is also not conducive to productive discussion. Especially not when you go on to state:

Which simultaneously erroneously reports the content of grnm23's post, and again suddenly shifts the issue to "why someone else has no recourse to claim to have originated changa" even though there's no evidence that the person in question ever had any interest in making such claims, even though their experimentation predates yours, by your own admission.

And now you are saying:

Numerous people have shown that numerous others (including that post by grnm23) combined MAOIs and DMT long before you had entered into psychedelics (I mean...ayahuasca...but I'll assume you mean smoked here, even though you didn't say that). Even if you had never heard of anyone else doing it, that doesn't mean they weren't and certainly doesn't mean your experiments somehow supersede the entirety of what came before you, especially not just because you "had never heard of anyone doing that."

Earlier you compared yourself to Leary (and Hofmann and Shulgin) and then told dreamer042 he was putting words in your mouth when he said you compared yourself to Leary.

Again, this level of contradiction and apparently intentional obfuscation makes discussion pretty much impossible and is rather inconsiderate to boot, imo.

<blockquote data-quote="SnozzleBerry" data-source="post: 3811228" data-attributes="member: 2497">So I posted this...Then you said this:Clearly attempting to sidestep the issues I raised above, by offering a reply that tangentially engages with what I said, at best.But even in your attempt to sidestep, you appear to be engaging in intellectual dishonesty, as cyb pointed out. You statedExcept the rest of the post that you, yourself, cited (which interestingly enough you chose to omit from your re-quoting here) goes on to state:Now, everything gnrm23 presents here is true...DMT freebase does not need an MAOI but using an MAOI will result in the high lasting longer (and having a different quality to it).Nowhere in the post does grnm23 indicate that they &quot;didn&#039;t see this information as being particularly valuable or important! &quot; To the contrary, they let people know that utilizing an MAOI (whether smoked or oral) will lengthen the duration of the experience, but that it is not necessary. I&#039;m not going to guess at your motivations for omitting that section of grnm23&#039;s post, but that type of apparently selective reading is also not conducive to productive discussion. Especially not when you go on to state:Which simultaneously erroneously reports the content of grnm23&#039;s post, and again suddenly shifts the issue to &quot;why someone else has no recourse to claim to have originated changa&quot; even though there&#039;s no evidence that the person in question ever had any interest in making such claims, even though their experimentation predates yours, by your own admission.And now you are saying:Numerous people have shown that numerous others (including that post by grnm23) combined MAOIs and DMT long before you had entered into psychedelics (I mean...ayahuasca...but I&#039;ll assume you mean smoked here, even though you didn&#039;t say that). Even if you had never heard of anyone else doing it, that doesn&#039;t mean they weren&#039;t and certainly doesn&#039;t mean your experiments somehow supersede the entirety of what came before you, especially not just because you &quot;had never heard of anyone doing that.&quot; Earlier you compared yourself to Leary (and Hofmann and Shulgin) and then told dreamer042 he was putting words in your mouth when he said you compared yourself to Leary.Again, this level of contradiction and apparently intentional obfuscation makes discussion pretty much impossible and is rather inconsiderate to boot, imo.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SnozzleBerry, post: 3811228, member: 2497"] So I posted this... Then you said this: Clearly attempting to sidestep the issues I raised above, by offering a reply that tangentially engages with what I said, at best. But even in your attempt to sidestep, you appear to be engaging in intellectual dishonesty, as cyb pointed out. You stated Except the rest of the post that you, yourself, cited (which interestingly enough you chose to omit from your re-quoting here) goes on to state: Now, everything gnrm23 presents here is true... DMT freebase does not [u][i][b]need[/b][/i][/u] an MAOI but using an MAOI will result in the high lasting longer (and having a different quality to it). Nowhere in the post does grnm23 indicate that they "didn't see this information as being particularly valuable or important! " To the contrary, they let people know that utilizing an MAOI (whether smoked or oral) will lengthen the duration of the experience, but that it is not necessary. I'm not going to guess at your motivations for omitting that section of grnm23's post, but that type of apparently selective reading is also not conducive to productive discussion. Especially not when you go on to state: Which simultaneously erroneously reports the content of grnm23's post, and again suddenly shifts the issue to "why someone else has no recourse to claim to have originated changa" even though there's no evidence that the person in question ever had any interest in making such claims, even though their experimentation predates yours, by your own admission. And now you are saying: Numerous people have shown that numerous others (including that post by grnm23) combined MAOIs and DMT long before you had entered into psychedelics (I mean...ayahuasca...but I'll assume you mean smoked here, even though you didn't say that). Even if you had never heard of anyone else doing it, that doesn't mean they weren't and certainly doesn't mean your experiments somehow supersede the entirety of what came before you, especially not just because you "had never heard of anyone doing that." Earlier you compared yourself to Leary (and Hofmann and Shulgin) and then told dreamer042 he was putting words in your mouth when he said you compared yourself to Leary. Again, this level of contradiction and apparently intentional obfuscation makes discussion pretty much impossible and is rather inconsiderate to boot, imo. [/QUOTE]