I cannot post in the DMT Paper thread because the moderator has made me a "new member" again. Yes, I was vulgar, because I saw what Laughingcat posted and I imagined some 16 year old kid finding it on google, believing it all to be true without question. It may seem silly to members of this forum, but this is disturbing to me. That is why I am angry. Ideas like that, especially when they are strictly hypothetical are the reason that many of my friends ended up with... less than successful lives. You may say no, but I had known them for years. They were exposed to this stuff too young and it went to their heads.

Having a lot of very intelligent people praising the work doesn't help the situation. You see it as a fun exercise and so do I. We are smart enough to know it's just for fun. 95% of people are not. That's it. And my critique stands. There is no data collected to support any of it. I don't need to write a rebuttal when I can do it in one sentence. That's what makes it unscientific, but a fun exercise nonetheless. The answer to the "alternate realities" question is pointless until we address normal consciousness first. And even then, I fully doubt that it will capture the experience, which is why we are all here in the first place.

When I read something, my first question is always.
"Why did someone put 1000 hours into doing this?"

I sought for an answer with this and it was : "So that people who are skeptical will see that the DMT experience is legitimate and an irreplaceable part of being human." And also, "I am very very smart and will bamboozle you with how much I know before I throw in some quick, unrelated conclusions that are contingent upon your experience and not upon quantified observation" (or even a survey of opinions. That's the least that could have been done.)

To me, these are not good reasons to write something. Is this why he wrote it? Maybe not, but the fact that he came across that way to me shows that he didn't communicate his ideas properly.

And for the love of St. Patrick, the jazz fusion thing was a crack about using qualitative experience to justify a logical argument.

Thanks.

I don't see why you were demoted, sure your opinion wasn't well received and you may have come off a bit confrontational, but there was no serious misconduct or vulgarity or any serious violation of the rules that I was able to see. Your last 10 posts don't show any kind of serious misconduct either.

I'm working on figuring out exactly what happened here. I'm gonna leave things as they are for now because I don't want to step on any toes if the other mod had a good reason. I suspect it's a simple misunderstanding though.

You made a BIG mistake by asking him whats his favorite music and blast off to that...

His theory is not such a weird theory at all, it is very logical - if your open to it. I also have to agree with him that DMT is produced during sleep, as you suggested other substances would be neurotransmitters also, but I never met a human producing amphetamine, dtp, pcp etc while a sleep...

So sorry to say, but you cannot flush this paper down the drain because it doesn't seem scientific enough in your eyes.. I think this is exactly the problem with the modern science dogma.

I think he broke many rules stated in the attitude section. Not at the point that would warrant being banned but I def agree with demotion as you are voted to full member based on how you conduct yourself.

I am not sure about the demotion but i do think that you need to work on your debating technique. Shit happens. We"ll all be ok by Christmas.

After having read the thread in question I was alreacy ready to give my opinion but decided to read said paper first...

I got as far as the title, which claimed "astonishing" effects/properties of DMT...

This is when I stopped reading...

I feel expressing qualitative/subjective ideas in the title of a scientific document a bit weird to say the least, it makes me wonder whether I'm about to read an objective report or a biased one...

I mean, it reminds me of what in publishing is called "an advertorial"...

I admit dmt does have astonishing effects, but still, expressing opinions in the title of a scientific paper gives me a feeling of having to deal with marketing/propaganda...

That being said, and not having read the paper, I think this case has more to do with some people taking offence than in one person being offensive - but that's just my opinion... By the way, some of the rebuttals you were given could also be regarded as being offensive, except that it didn't say "YOU are vitriolic" but saying "SOME PEOPLE" which is just a clever way of saying it like this and meaning it like that...

Instead of saying "this is not scientific" you should have said "this is not scientific - or is it?" thus asking a question and not expressing an opinion (anyone remember that South Park episode, the one where Cartman does the morning announcements?)

I do think, however, that the author of the paper in question has the best intentions and is not willingly trying to "do bad science", he's just in the middle of a learning process, as are all of us (or at least should be)...

PLUR

PS I like to be pretty straightforward as well and I know all too well how easily this is perceived by some people as a form of aggression... Says more about them than about me

^^ this.

Thanks for the responses. I think I need to take a break from the forums for awhile. I'm really not cut out for friendly debate, at least in print. I also feel that I am naive in regard to the beliefs that people hold and to what extremes they go. If I return, hopefully I will have a thicker skin.

This issue has been discussed amongst the mod team and appropriate action is being taken. This thread is now locked.

Have a nice day.