Look, you seem to have an unusually high opinion of the intelligence of the average guy in the street. I did, but after reading all your economically impractical ways to rip people off, I have changed my mind.
iTech, is that you?
I'll disregard your thinly veiled insult and jump straight to the point. You are a troll. Instead of disproving any of my statements, you avoid them entirely by breaking off into mindless tangents that assault the obviously hyperbolic exaggerations I use to illustrate a point, because they clash with some anally retentive technicality you seem to have picked up in a several decades old documentary. Of course, no counterargument is given other than numerous, not really subtle hints at a vast experience in drug trafficking (and possibly a mysterious past), aimed at giving your claims gravitas, since valid arguments aren't available. Tell me, do you have any actual proof to deny my claims, or is not being to grasp any meaning of a text other than the exact literal one the only reason you think them to be false? Is the world of metaphor, allegory and simile entirely lost on you?
Now before any more anal retentive nitpicking and clinging at straws on your end, I'll recapitulate your points that you've stated through vigorous denial of the exact opposites that I brought forth.
[*]Street drugs are 100% pure and safe of any additives because additives "wouldn't be feasible"; and that is because[*]in order to give a beginner the giggles you need to lace one joint (of pure, clean weed, of course) with one whole hit of heroin, three cow's worth of Ketamine, and a ladle of PCP. [*]Any concentration of weed and additives lower than that, i.e. one that would make you a profit, would be too weak for an infant to get cross-eyed, let alone to give a hardened first-timer a five-minute high. [*]But it's okay, because there are no beginners out there, and everyone and their grandmother can tell if the weed they got gave them the right kind of high that weed is supposed to give. You know, based on their rich (if nonexistent) experience. [*]Of course, you know all that because of your detailed knowledge of current drug prices, as well as exact amounts and tolerances to determine the effect a same money's worth of two given drugs would have on an individual. [*]When it comes to LSD, nothing has changed since Woodstock. [*]There is only one standard for the concentration of LSD used everywhere in the world, and is determined in micrograms per square inch.[*]It is impossible to sell ordinary, drugless blotting paper as LSD, because despite no actual visible difference from any fool could guess whether the paper is saturated with acid or not at ten paces. [*]People fall for the Nigerian bank scam, the PayPal order confirmation scam, order Viagra and magic slimming pills online, but when it comes to drugs, everyone is an expert and nobody can be fooled.Deny it all you want, these are your claims, since you won't accept (better yet, you try to make fun of) the opposite. And no invoking any "gray area"; you waived the right to a gray area when you tried to disprove mthr by citing not one but two dictionaries, unable to accept the wildly metaphorical term "square" as a valid expression.
Now, look up "hyperbole" in a dictionary somewhere, and learn the difference between them and literal meaning. I notice you clinging to stamps in my obviously exaggerated examples a little too tightly. How about you try to grasp the knob of my gist instead of analyzing noun by noun, because obviously you fail to see the forest for all the trees in your way.
Now, will you grace us with more broomstick-up-the-ass assaults on random expressions in this post you find too colourful to your liking, or will you admit that "I don't like the phrase he used" isn't valid argument?
Now, back on topic: VVoltz, if you want to try pot, do. Just make sure you're not doing it for the wrong reasons.
QUOTE(JPH @ Mar 19 2008, 08:47 PM)
