Guys, come on. Chill out. Arguing on the internet is about as stoopid as you can get. Especially on the Nexus. Settle your disagreements without the need to start flaming. Your old enough to know better thats for sure.

Now, behave before i put you both on the naughty step!

Art, you are a what we call a smartarse.
I always thought you were pretty chill, but these recent posts were unnecessary and obviously not done in good nature. You are in the wrong, 69Ron simply expressed his views, somewhat strongly, but there is nothing wrong with that point of view. That type of thinking is not dangerous to anyone, you paranoid idiot!
Ron has done more for science and humanity than you have, mate, i'm sorry but you should know your place. You are waaay out of line.

The reason there is so much outpouring for Ron is because he has taught half of us most of what we know about psychoactive substances and chemistry.
We all appreciate his help and input, his contributions to these forums have been invaluable.
If you cannot conduct yourself properly and have reasonable discussions then you shouldn't post.

Guys, I am appalled

The previous thread was moved far from the eyes of public because it had derailed in so many different ways and it had turned to a mud throwing contest.

I had the feeling that this would happen here and that more flaming would ensue after ron's post. This is why the mods rushed in to ease the situation. The mods are not here to help ron specifically but but to ensure that everything runs smoothly and in a civilised manner. For most of the time this is not even necessary since the nexus is a prety much civilised place anyway.

It seems however that things have the tendency to go the wrong way again.

So come on Nexus, show up your real character. Be it civilised or uncivilised. If this thread turns out to be a fight again, I will propose to the other mods to sticky it up as a "Wall of Shame" and redirect everyone who believes that the nexus is a great place here to see the "other face of the nexus"

Good job guys, thank you very much.

I have to say, this has burst my bubble of my thinking that the Nexus was the one forum where this kind of crap doesn't happen, and what sets it aside from all others making it a fantastic place for likeminded invididuals to view and post on. Still, I think it would be best if this was just wrote off as a glitch in the matrix, and service resumes as normal with no one trying to have the last word. Forgive and forget, of all places on earth, that should be able to happen here at the Nexus.

Just my 2 cents, I'll creep back into the shadows now.

Methtical

For the last time and as clearly as my English writing abilities can go, I'll try to explain something to Art.

Dear Mr. Art Van D' Lay, first of all let me try to explain two points that need to be clarified in order to calm this down.


1 The psychedelic Nazi argument

Assumptions:

You think that the stance some people took, specially ron, is that everyone must take psychedelics or otherwise they are stupid and/or inferior.
You think that he believes that psychedelics are the only way to be happy, fulfilled and/or right about life in general.

What's really happening:

The premise is that people who have not taken psychedelics are ignorant about some of the mental abilities they can experience.
By being ignorant about their own mind's potential, they are missing out an extraordinary part of the human capacities.
Psychedelics have shown to have the potential to increase the quality of life of both sick and sane individuals.
Psychedelic is an experience, not a set of beliefs or dogmas. Psychedelic goes in the same category as:

- Swimming naked on a lake
- Going to the moon
- Having sex with a beautiful person
- Climbing a high mountain

They are experiences, and these experiences are not mandatory. But missing these experiences can be sad in the eyes of people who have experienced this events or activities. If I haven't had sex, swam on a lake, climb a high mountain or go to the moon, I definitely have missed out big time. Of course experiencing psychedelics is way more easy than going to the moon, but if in the year 3050 the possibilities to go to the moon are available to everyone, you can be sure that whoever decides to not go to the moon will be missing out big time. Yes he or she would not be inferior or worth less than anybody else, but simply not visiting his/hers own satellite (when the possibility was at hand) is a sad thing to do.


2 The negative effect in the psychedelic community

Assumptions:

You think that the stance that "psychedelics are for everyone" can affect the interests of a psychedelic community that is at the same time trying to fight for the legalization of ethnobotanical plants and compounds. You think this is so, because people would see us as yet another group of fanatics saying thing like: "I'm right, your wrong."

What's really happening:

Quite the opposite. If we take the stand that "psychedelics are not for everyone" we would come off as an elitist group.
Who is to decide who can or cannot experience nature? No one. Not even doctors. Everyone is free to do what they want with their body, mind and soul. Even suicide.
It's about the realization that everyone can potentially benefit from the use of psychedelics. And everyone is free to decide what to make of it.

By saying "psychedelics are for everyone" ron69 is not saying "psychedelics are everything". Lets make that clear.

You fooled yourself in to thinking there could be a place where there is relief from the human condition.

Psychedelics are certainly not for everyone. How can one say what is best for another without being in their shoes. Not everyone thinks a like. Shulgin tells a story of an friend who he knew psychedelics would not work for and would have dangerous effects. I know Leary would agree. I believe and agree with him that many people would benefit from psychedelics but not all. It should be up to the individual to decide. Here are the facts, you decide....

Lets not kid our selves there have been some horrible examples of people who should not have used these things: Charles Manson ... Phillip Craig Garrido.... also psychedelics don't automaticaly make one a better person either... they can show one the way and assist but the ultimate decision is up to the individual. Plenty of people have had psychedelics experiences and are still terrible people.

I don't think Art was taking an elitist view just that these things are not for everyone. It should be up to the individual to decide that said those with predisposing psychosis should be warned of the risks of taking these agents. As should those who are suicidal or have psychologicsl issues without consulting a doctor. In addition the best "set" for the experience may differ depending on the "type of individual". Some would benefit from extreme preperation,..therapy, therapist guide present,..or with friends....

Art : believe me I know how Ron can be and it is frustrating at times. Don't let it get to you. Others know this, don't worry. I think many take his extremist views with a grain of salt...and Ron you do not like to admit when you are wrong.... That said Ron has contributed A LOT to this community... not everyone is perfect and we are going to disagree but its one thing to debate and another to attack character. Ron .. I could hardly believe you made that post about how unnecessary and immature it was and then right below you made some shoots at art...

Not everyone must take psychedelics. True. As you say, it can be dangerous to some people. As many other things in life can be dangerous.
Riding a bike can be dangerous. Riding a horse can be dangerous. Swimming on a lake can be dangerous. Even ending a relationship can be dangerous.



Exactly.

All I did was show you his post and point out why it is imflamitory. That's all I did. I think most people can see how imflamitory his posts have become. Rather than argue he's resorted to name calling and the like. It's rather sad.

Bufoman, read his post with your name instead of mine and see how it makes you react



Do you find that appropriate? I surely don’t.

Inflammatory? Yup. Intended to be.

Inappropriate? Uh-huh. But a whole lot less so if you'd actually seen the entire exchange in context.

I presented my views in a measured and respectful manner in the other thread. They were met with a number of dismissive, condescending, childlike responses. But I guess you just had to be there.

Repost the thread.

You openly admit to posting stuff that is both inflammatory and inappropriate.

Well, you have no choice but to admit that, because it is so obvious.

I’m not upset about anything coming from you. You are no one of value to me personally, but to go on knowingly insulting people and trying to inflame people is very childish. Surely you see that.

Uncle Knucles, you need to clean up your language and clean up your attitude.

No, you did not. Be honest about it. You used terms like “close minded”, etc. If you did actually post respectfully as you say you did, I would have responded to your arguments rather than right them off as character attacks, which they were.

Look, if you want to disagree and say my opinions are wrong, that is fine. That’s what forums are for. But to go down to the level of character attacking is just plain wrong.

I started getting a little inflammatory at first as a reaction to your posts, but then I stopped because I saw it for what it was: childish. But you continued and continue in this thread as well, and you seem proud of it! That is just plain wrong. I hope you can see that.

So... Repost the thread. Or don't. But it would likely clear up a lot of confusion.

hahaha, phlux dude, you crack me up

I agree Ron but I was refering to these statements made by you see below. In my opinion they are meant to be attacks at Art. I understand we are all mad but I was just pointing out what seemed to be a "bit" of hypocrisy.

Qute:
"
Several attempts to insult me are made rather than to argue the facts. This is exactly the type of thing I’m talking about.

This user is obviously upset, and using words like “Ron's fragile feelings”, as if I actually care. That’s funny. Then we have “he made some extremely dictatorial remarks”, and then, “got his panties all in a bunch”, and then, “His whole stance was juvenile”, and then, “69Ron is not Psychedelic Jesus“.


This is hilarious and shows extremely poor taste when it comes to the choice of words the user had made. This is exactly the kind of post that is embarrassing I think, not for me but for Uncle Knucles.

I think most people find that distasteful.

I think your choice of words make you look very bad Art. I don’t think other people enjoy reading that kind of trashy talk. You should read that a few times and think why you picked that kind of language. I don't care what you write personally. You are not at all an important figure to me. But I think you can learn how to better construct your arguments. " End quote....


I am definitely a fan of Leary. He was obviously a genius although he had flaws; he was a major optimist and most of his predictions about "the next twenty years" never came true. Just like with McKenna there is some great information to be extracted once you get past the poetic dressing which is beautiful in its own right.

I think you are misunderstanding Leary Ron. Could you please site some specifics on what you claim to be his views. As I have read a lot of Leary and disagre with your analysis of him. As much as Leary supported LSD, he said many times that it is not necessary, that the mind state can be reached via other paths. He stated that while people in the 60-70's may have needed psychedelics he believed that future societies would not need psychedelics. Leary did NOT support LSD being used by EVERYONE.

Leary was actually fairly responsible, he stated many times that he never told anyone to take these agents although there was some legal reasoning behind such statements. Although he encourage use by many he did state that certain people should absolutely not take psychedelics My reference is from The Politics of Psychopharmacology: under the heading "Mind Expansion is not for everyone". I am not going to type it because I don't have time get the book. But it is not just psychotics he says should stay away.

The problem people have with Leary is that he was some what irresponsible with his statements and drug use. As much has he said he didn't he did support recreational use. This is fine, however many others wanted to integrate psychedelics into society from other avenues such as medicine and science. However the wide-spread recreational use lead to immediate scheduling and an end to research. Leary though a social revolution would change all this but it did not, yet anyway.... He was in an ideal position to help psychedelics responsibly integrate into society. He may have done a lot of good but he also did a lot of damage. damage that the scientific field has yet to recover from... although the healing has started....

enter: moderator.

69ron- i have the deepest of respect for you and your knowledge. your contributions to this forum of IMMENSE and everyone here owes a huge debt of gratitude for the pioneering work you have done/brought to us all.

Uncle Knucles- you are one of the most 'tell it like it is' people i know here. your no-nonsense views are enjoyed by most folks here and i, personally owe a tremendous amount of gratitude to you for introducing me to DMT in the first place!

i was one who read the deleted post from which this has been born. i personally think that both of you can very easily agree to disagree on this one and both just laugh it off. truly. in the original thread, Ron, you came off as a little dogmatic in your stance that for anyone to live a life without trying psychedelics was a waste. some of your wording even hinted at the notion that you would be less of a person for not having a psychedelic experience. now, don't get me wrong here...i actually agree. but you simply have to understand that it WAS worded in a way that came across as a little bit dogmatic and that got some individual's hackles up.

your statement got drug into the arena of 'judgementalism' and people got offended. i personally know that was not your intent, but you have to respect that - just as you stated proudly that you never change your views on things- so too other folks may have the same character trait.

and voila- a simple disagreement becomes toxic. and now a whole new thread has been created to keep the funk flowing.

we have so much more to offer one another. i know FOR A FACT that if the two of you met in person you would ABSOLUTELY hit it off as friends. ron- you would see what a sharp wit and dry sense of humor art has and trust me, you would be on your ass laughing for the majority of your visit. i also know FOR FACT that art would be absolutely beside himself to have a sit-down with you and learn even the smallest fraction of the vast knowledge that lives inside your cranium.

you both know that this childish bickering is IN NO WAY in tune with the spirit of this site. you guys both feel triggered and defensive towards one another right now....but i have to ask.....

about WHAT?

it's silly and you are both way beyond it. i love you both way too much to not step in and strongly recommend a "hug-it-out". didn't we figure out back in college that "the irresistable force vs. the immovable object" always results in a tie? let's cut out the unnecessary struggle and go straight to the mutual respect part.

WITH THE DEEPEST LOVE AND GRATITUDE!!

I just wanted to respond to this little part.

Believing that one has wisdom is the folly and the aged and the schooled.

Guys, I never saw the thread but I have read this and it is embarrassing to the forum.

What I've learned in my short life is that arguing about the past and trying to justify what what said is much more work than it is worth most of the time.

Can't we just say that people spoke honestly, maybe too openly for some. There was a disagreement and still is.



I think that it would settle a lot to just put aside HOW each of the arguments were said, clearly both parties took offense to how the other stated their beliefs.

That's in the past, you are both smart people with strong points of views. Lets forgive the past.


How about 69ron and Uncle Knucles post their point of views on the subject, not saying anything about the other except in reference to their views, and of course not HOW their views were state.

The two posts will likely contain lots of valuable and interesting information that I personally would love to read what they have to say in a non-argumentative fashion.


Maybe this has gone too far for this. But maybe it could help.

As usual Antrocles you are spot on. I see how my strong willed views could be seen that way by others. That’s fine. But what I object to is the attacks on character, not the attacks on the argument I made.

This argument is ended for me though. I've already said what I wanted to say, and you just repeated it for me. I believe a life lived without experiencing the psychedelic experience when it is available to you and you turned it down out of ignorance, is a shame. It’s an experience of a lifetime that one should not miss out on. It's a simple statement, and my belief. I think you owe it to yourself to experience it if you are at all interested in it. Like Leary, I think it can be very beneficial to human beings. The rest of the meanings I saw people throwing around are misinterpretations of what I was trying to say. It is your choice to make. I think choosing to try psychedelics for mind expansion purposes as Leary was proposing is a step in the right direction when done right and can be a great benefit to a human being, and to turn that down out of ignorance is a shame.

There’s a reason the NAC gives peyote to its members. They believe it is beneficial to mankind as Leary does. I think if you are at all interested in psychedelics you should make the move and join the NAC so that you can legally experience the psychedelic experience first hand. I think it’s an opportunity of a lifetime that should not be passed up on.

I keep saying read Leary’s books. Get the message from Leary. He says my views better than I can. I am not nearly as good as Leary is at explaining this. The mind expanding potentials of LSD are amazing. Mescaline, not so much, but LSD can't be used legally, while peyote can in some places, so I recommend that instead.