How many people here have actualy done large doses and cookups,/
of aya and acuminadta phylodes.
not just talking about alkaloids.
but fully drinking aya hard core in the desert,?
surounded by the trees,
heaps.???
we drink while,! we cook!
everytime.!!!
every tree is diferent.!!!

dont need tlc's???
just tast the bark and phyllodes.
youl get the hang of it.

the only people that call it a pissing contest,?
are the ones that drivel.!!!

(egos only ego when you got no reason to have one!?)
quote by (ME)

PEACEOUT

OM MANI PADME HUNG

ACACIA DREAMING
DOWNUNDER

OM MANI PADME HUM

DONT LET YOUR KARMA RUN OVER YOUR DOGMA

just having fun.

(NO ANIMALS OR PLANTS WERE HURT IN THE MAKING OF THIS POST)
(LOL)

PEACEOUT

OM MANI PADME HUM

LIMOLORDS

WESTCOAST

Limolords, you are posting a lot of messages that have no content that can be considered useful, be it to the thread to which they are added, or even to the forum at all. By going about it in this way, you are merely cluttering up the forum. I am sure that you did not come here meaning only to annoy the other users of this forum.

To add insult to injury, your style of writing is at times atrocious to the eye. Though form may be secondary to substance, they often are (and should be) related. Sloppy form often goes hand in hand with shoddy substance. If the substance is good, why not give it the appropriate form it deserves? Please communicate your message clearly and concisely with a fitting presentation.

If you only want to share with us some pictures that you happen to like, you can post them in one of the dedicated pictures threads, for example this one. Yes I know you will need full member status to post there. If you want to attain full membership, it would help a bit if you cleaned up your contributions, both in substance and in form.

Best wishes to you!

Sorry to bump this old thread,
Hey @limolords
You spoke of a pdf about acuminata identification and sub species, but I can't find it anywhere. Can you please help point me to it?
Thanks

Ugh,

Welcome to the lower socioeconomic classes of Australia. Such ramblings are consistent with classes of people who don't have a great deal of education past year 10 high school and have a value system centered around tribal tattoos, sneakers, v8 cars, punching cones and livin the good loif ay. They are usually loud, obnoxious, highly egotistical, easily resort to violence, tend to ramble a lot, have short attention spans, drink a lot of beer, usually have a lack of consideration for the weight of their actions and constantly use words like oi-wiv-bruh-cuz-kunt. I may be wrong in my judgement of this person and it may be that this guy might just be shitfaced drunk alone in his room with nothing better to do..

I get that such people usually are valueble to society in that they usually take on the laborious and lower paid jobs (unless they are involved in crime or delinquency), but there comes a point where i really think i wish they were replaced with peaceful foreigners whos english maybe wasn't up to scratch or something, perhaps we can ship them out to a new colony and call it New Australia much like england did in the 19th century

I don't think he knows what hes on about.

If you want help identifying you can look here at some pictures: http://worldwidewattle.c...iesgallery/acuminata.php

remember there are thre variants:

A. acuminata (small seed variant)

A. acuminata (narrow phyllode variant)

A. acuminata (broad phyllode variant / typical variant)

I dont think the looks of the first post is a broad leaf variant IMO, broad leaf variety have thicker and more green phyllodes. I could be wrong and i dont want to promote misinformation here but I think broad leaf = typical and small seed varient looks more like trees like this with thinner leaves like peppermint trees:





Whereas broad leaf (typical varient) looks more shrub like with darker foliage like this:







Yes the acacia thread reveals it has 50% its goodies as mthbc, but the broad leaf means REALLY broad and they are quite different looking than small seed variant which I think is pictured in OP. I have consistently gotten low yields from Broad leaf versions and by low yields i means 0.01-0.5% and there hasn't been make up for this by and mthbc goo in the extraction, it seems as if it simply doesn't pull it. I

This kind of elitist crap doesnt belong on the nexus imo.

Dismissing a whole 'socio-economic class' of people using these kinds of crude stereotypes is the same game played by racists and fascists.

You want to ship them out? Why not ship out the Blacks, Asians Irish, homosexuals etc too? Just pointing out where this line of thinking can lead.



Pitubo, whom you quoted, was merely criticising Limolord's poorly presented and sometimes irrelevant posts, not the entire class of people you assume he is a part of. Big difference.



I wouldnt have normally bothered bringing this up, but where I live, in the UK, there has lately been a lot of angry debate between people over the 'Brexit' issue, which often has nothing to do with leaving the EU, and everything to do with socio-ecomomic class. Many working class people are feeling that they have been marginalised and ridiculed by a middle class elite. This has helped fuel the rise of right wing populism in a similar way to how Trump swept to power in the US. Meanwhile, the actual (upper class) elite is rejoicing, having separated the working class from their traditional allies, the left wing intelligentsia. The old divide and rule.

Surely us dmt enthusiasts should be uniting across social class divides, and around our common interests, not attacking each other?

Do you have sources claiming its presence in ayahuasca brews?

According to Acute biphasic effects of Ayahuasca:
(referring to a UDV sample)

OK, looking at that post 2½ years later, I'd certainly phrase it a bit differently now. In fact it looks like the post should be edited!

Struggling to recall my thinking at the time, it was probably based on one analysis that Rivier and Lindgren did on P. viridis leaf (Economic Botany 26(1):101-129 (1971)) where a significant proportion of the alkaloids consisted of MTHBC, and its occurrence in lower amounts in a couple of other samples (McKenna et al., J. Ethnopharmacol. 10(2): 195-223 (1984)). Clearly my extrapolation was over-milking of the paucity of data I had to hand at that point in time, invalid reasoning and plain lazy - if over-optimistic - thinking.

We still don't know enough (or anything, really) about the psychopharmacological properties of MTHBC to comment on how it might affect the subjective experience of things like ayahuasca or changa. I'll take some time to look through published analyses of ayahuasca to see whether any detected MTHBC, and how many of the analyses screened for this substance. If it's there, the GCMS should see it.

I agree, us dmt enthusiasts should be uniting across social class divides, and around our common interests, not attacking each other. And i thank you for choosing to have a side about this and speak up.

However, when it comes to virtues... I stand up for them over anything else. If that makes me classist then so be it. Although making the argument that my level of thinking lends itself toward the path of bigotry and racism etc is misguided and I will proceed to explain why. If we are to be patient and respectful of people who clearly arent showing an acceptable level of virtue then they will become complacent and not realize any faults of their own.

Regardless of whether you want to admit it, stereotypes do work. They arent deductively valid, but neither is the scientific method. If a man is about to walk past you and he looks real shady, you're going to use stereotyping to possibly evade danger and cross the street. If you did this then you would also be deemed to be operating with "crude stereotypes that are same game played by racists and fascists". You and everyone else would be paralysed without such steoretyping within the modern world, they allow us to make quick and fast judgement that are usually more often than not correct. This isn't to say they are reliable 100% of the time and that there aren't exceptions, perhaps even in large amounts, but the reason there are common steoretypes to begin with is because a large percentage of some portion of a group is exhibiting characteristic x with stable consistency a large percent of the time.

In this case, this 'group of people' are exhibiting characteristics that ARE NOT virtuous (crime, drug abuse, violence, mental laziness, disregard for authority, drug abuse, deceitfulness, pride, arrogance). This isn't to say these behaviors of vice don't exist in different social classes, however, it is well-accepted that other classes are more civilized and aspire to virtues to a greater extent.

I would have no bone to pick with ANY class or race or type of human or any individual human for that matter who weren't lacking an acceptable level of virtue. What is an acceptable level? Well a good example is by what the law dictates (dont harm others), or even the golden rule (treat others how you wish to be treated), or even in a more general consensus of people in society (work or study hard and make the world a better place for yourself and for others).

I could easily pick on corporate assholes who are money hungry and have little concern of anything else but their own egos.. however they arent so much of a problem as a class of people who are more often than not having no concern for self-development, often show contempt for 'the system', are more at risk of falling in to criminal behavior than any other class, among other things.

No, I am afraid the politically correct culture you wish to endorse only fuels the issues we see today. If we go around accepting everyone's life choices without question of what they are and never say a word, even when they so clearly go against virtues that are evidently good for the human race in terms of its well-being and progression, then that is the moment we have given up our freedom of speech and regressed in to a culture of blind faith that holds individual freedom above the well-being of all.

Emptiness, Ill try to address some of your points briefly, as we're both hijacking this thread with a debate that should probably be in the politics section.

Firstly, I'm not part of the PC brigade, nor afraid to critisize people over their lifestyles, attitudes or beliefs, but as I said previously, there is a big difference between judging an individual and judging the entire class, race, or sex they belong to.

You talk about stereotypes being useful, helping us make quick judgements regarding the danger posed by certain people. I agree that one must make an initial assessment of someone, ie that they appear 'shifty', looking to pick a fight etc. But this is done individually with each person we encounter, based on our previous experiences with people. Judging people based on cultural stereotypes is like saying 'all gypsies are thieves' or 'all hippies are junkies', and avoiding interaction with these groups for fear of ones safety. Many people reading this forum would conclude that we are a bunch of deluded druggies.

Moving on to virtues, I agree that being virtuous is something to aspire to, but as with stereotyping, your definition of virtue is slightly different to mine. You give an example of an acceptable level of virtue being 'what the law dictates', yet you and I regularily break laws that dont fit our lifestyle. Maybe someone struggling to feed their kids wouldnt consider selling weed or even stealing food from a supermarket to be morally wrong.

I also disagree that as you say 'it is well accepted that other classes are more civilised...' I have lived and worked with people from all walks of life over many years and have had my own predgudices overturned time and time again. I know many people from the middle and upper clases, who, despite having a veneer of civilisation and respectability, are decidedly unvituous in all meanings of the word. I also know many highly intelligent, sensitive people from deprived backgrounds, with little formal education, and prone to violence and drug abuse.

Oh and I would say that some corporate arseholes are more of a problem than your aussie trailer park characters, having a lot more money, power and influence, and a lot less chance of being brought to justice for their white collar crimes.

If I could just chime in briefly,

He specifically addressed that stereotyping doesn't give reason to make judgements like "all gypsies are thieves' or 'all hippies are junkies'. In fact he quite blatantly said that that wasn't the case at all. I side with him here because of that. His point was simply that: more often than not certain groups or kinds of people exhibit certain behaviors and while it isn't acceptable to say that all people in that cultural domain exhibit those behaviors, it nevertheless is intrinsically reliable to claim those people are exhibiting them a lot of the time. Which is exactly what true stereotyping is and which what makes stereotyping useful. It only gets a bad name when people start appropriating absolute truth on to a group or class of people. At the same time, promoting absolutes of anything is generally not a smart thing to do (only the sith deals in absolutes) To state this more simply, if you were to meet a person and they are part of a group of people that 80% of the time act in a certain sour way, then you have to be pretty naive to think that your judgements aren't going to be influenced by that probability. Perhaps your point here is that we shouldn't let our judgements be prone to very likely probabilities of the group the individual belongs to for the sake of promoting every individual a chance at proving themselves an exception to the stereotype, in which case, I would agree with you. However it is one thing to do that, it is another to outright claim that the probabilities are false, don't reflect reality in anyway and are not dependable. That would be evidently bad reasoning.

On another note, Emptiness only gave one example of something that would constitute virtue, he also gave many other examples (which you admit). I agree with you though that virtues are relative to the individual but it is super clear to me that he was pointing out how there are common virtues shared by mankind that are good for itself (like not to steal or harm others) and it is completely intuitive to think from that, that on all occasions, there are going to be times where virtues trump other virtues and sometimes that can mean breaking the law. However, common sense and principles like the golden rule largely dictate interactions of those kinds. There are laws that are bad and laws that are good. Some laws need to be revised because they only exist as a result of some virtue-less influences from 1) a by-gone era that didn't have good reason on their side and 2) a society that isn't currently listening to the science behind certain drugs. My point here is that you are tyring to create counter-examples that really dont exist to what Emptiness is trying to say, purely because he is coming from a place of relativism already.

Again, your last point of knowing people who are an exception to the rule is something he pointed out is not a point substantial enough to prove the invalidity of stereotyping within society classes. I mean, class attributes are largely consistent enough that the psychological sciences study them all the time and find very reliable correlations (especially on matters of IQ). Sure, there are going to be people who don't fit the stereotype, as you have figured out first hand. In fact, when I personally meet one of these people I am always so much more intrigued by them because of the sheer improbability of it. Nevertheless, I am in agreement with Emptiness here as it is pretty apparent to see the middleclass are the most dominant placeholders for civilized living, at least with respect for one another. They pay their taxes, live in boxes, put the bins out once a week, say hi to their neighbours occasionaly and go to work first thing monday. They aren't (for the most part) scheming how to rip someone off because for one reason or another a good education system has taught them enough about morality to not do so. What I would be concerned about though, is if you found that a large percentage of middle class people were indeed 'decidedly unvituous in all meanings of the word'. Then I would have to re-consider my stereotypes of the middle-class!

My only point of contention to you Emptiness is that you didn't mention the parts of the lower social classes that are of a different cultural background (such as immigrants) who usually (from what I have seen) have a strong work ethic (coming from poorer parts of the world) and are a big portion of the lower social classes (measured by income). However, I anticipate your response would be that your comment wern't intended to be inclusive of them. Which I suppose is something you could argue ijahdan in that there are sub-groups within the classes, which may be where some stereotypes of this kind fall short in to improbability.

edit: sorry emptiness if you are a girl, i just assumed ur gender

Well, it's been fun debating the nature of stereotypes with you guys (or girls?), but I dont get much time to go on the internet, so Im gonna leave it here. My experience of people has obviously been different to yours, and I actually find that while people do mostly conform to their cultural stereotypes in many ways, ie. manner of speaking, dress, diet, recreational activities, educational level etc., they vary in terms of being virtuous or unvirtuous just as widely within a given group or class as between different groups.

Also, my main reason for calling out Emptiness on his post was his obvious disgust of Australia's 'lower socioeconomic classes' and his suggestion of shipping them out to a new colony. If this was applied to an ethnic or religious group instead, for which negative stereotypes exist, do you think that would be acceptable?

It turns out that neurotoxic effects of MTHBC only manifest in working-class people, because they are less virtuous. The stronger virtue-signalling systems in middle-class people have the biochemical side-effect of detoxifying a wide range of otherwise neurotoxic compounds such as Rioja and Gorgonzola.

(That was a joke.)