It's not about putting a disclaimer before everything you say, it's about not affirming with certainty something tangible as that certain non-alkaloidal plant oil is psychoactive, if you dont know (considering this is what you meant, read further down).
This whole forum is dedicated to such endeavours, and that our information here is reliable (hence why its so attractive to many people too) so dont you think it important that we are prudent with assertions we make? You know the whole thing with E-Prime (just as an example). Dont you think there is a very important difference in communication (and not much effort difference) between saying: " The compound XYZ is psychoactive" or "The compound XYZ might be psychoactive" ?
It might have been a misunderstanding from my part but your sentence really sounded like you were affirming that non-alkaloidal plant oils are active. Is that not what you meant? If not, then forgive me, I misunderstood..
Your 'tests' prove nothing regarding psychoactivity of plant oils. What they might show, though, is that there is a psychoactive fraction extracted from mimosa that probably isnt DMT (but still, would be interesting to analyse it, as burnt has shown even after multiple aliphatic petrochem re-x, there is still dmt left in jungle). That could be very well be NMT, DMT N-oxide, 2-MTHBC, a mixture of those, or who knows, maybe something else, or maybe your tests had some methodological issues that would have to be overcome to be more certain? Just a few possibilities, regardless, im glad you shared your tests, and more tests are always welcome, this is what this community is about
And your salvinorin example does not relate to what I asked you for. I never said you should say plant oils are inactive just because we havent proven they are active. I just said dont affirm they are active if you dont know yet. Please dont be offended, try to understand where im coming from, im definitely not questioning your experience with psychedelics.
This whole forum is dedicated to such endeavours, and that our information here is reliable (hence why its so attractive to many people too) so dont you think it important that we are prudent with assertions we make? You know the whole thing with E-Prime (just as an example). Dont you think there is a very important difference in communication (and not much effort difference) between saying: " The compound XYZ is psychoactive" or "The compound XYZ might be psychoactive" ?
It might have been a misunderstanding from my part but your sentence really sounded like you were affirming that non-alkaloidal plant oils are active. Is that not what you meant? If not, then forgive me, I misunderstood..
Your 'tests' prove nothing regarding psychoactivity of plant oils. What they might show, though, is that there is a psychoactive fraction extracted from mimosa that probably isnt DMT (but still, would be interesting to analyse it, as burnt has shown even after multiple aliphatic petrochem re-x, there is still dmt left in jungle). That could be very well be NMT, DMT N-oxide, 2-MTHBC, a mixture of those, or who knows, maybe something else, or maybe your tests had some methodological issues that would have to be overcome to be more certain? Just a few possibilities, regardless, im glad you shared your tests, and more tests are always welcome, this is what this community is about
And your salvinorin example does not relate to what I asked you for. I never said you should say plant oils are inactive just because we havent proven they are active. I just said dont affirm they are active if you dont know yet. Please dont be offended, try to understand where im coming from, im definitely not questioning your experience with psychedelics.