Jump to content
The Corroboree
GregKasarik

Transcendent Compounds - Hunger Strike for Religious and Spiritual Freedom - 2012

Recommended Posts

Those who were at last year's EGA conference may remember my impassioned, impromptu "Something is actually happening, Reg" speech in which I said that I was considering doing a hunger strike in the Burke Street Mall.

Given the off the cuff nature of the announcement, I received a surprising amount of support from attendees, but after discussing the issue with several of the other more experienced members of the EGA community, I decided to postpone the action, both so that I could seek to further engage with the Government, but also so that when I did go down that path, I would have more support behind me.

9 months later and the only thing that has changed is that the Victorian Government is now totally ignoring my requests to discuss the issue. It is now clear that without radical action, nothing is going to change. Ever.

So, today, I am announcing that on November 14, I will be going ahead with the Huger Strike in the Burke Street Mall and that it will be running until December 21.

This action will not succeed without the support of the broader Entheogenic Community, so I'd hope that everyone will help in one way, or another.

I've created a Facebook event for it, and everyone is encouraged to invite as many people as might be interested. http://www.facebook....87789641289553/

There is additional information on my website: http://kasarik.com/Hunger-Strike-2012.php

The Facebook blurb is below:

The use of Transcendent Compounds is an ancient and valid form of religious and spiritual practice. As Transcendent Compounds are non-addictive, non-toxic and psychologically safe in an appropriate dose, set and setting, there can be no legitimate reason for prohibiting their use within religious and spiritual frameworks.

Religious freedoms are protected within the State of Victoria by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006). Greg Kasarik has been directly lobbying the Victor

ian Government for around 18 months in order to ensure that these protections are formally extended to persons who use Transcendent Compounds as a part of their religious practice.

Initially, the Victorian Government stated that the prohibition was required in order to protect "Community Health and Safety", but since being presented with peer reviewed literature that effectively debunks that claim, they have refused to even discuss the issue.

Because of the intransigence of the Victorian Government, on November 14 2012, he will be commencing a hunger strike in Melbourne's Bourke Street Mall, in order to pressure the Victorian Government to conform with their obligations under the Charter.

The demands are simple: "That the Victorian Government provide regulated access to Transcendent Compounds for religious and spiritual purposes, as per their obligations under sections 7 and 14 of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006)".

This action is intended to pressure the Government into complying with the law and to provide an opportunity to educate the wider public about the reality of Transcendent Compounds and the fact that their use is a safe and appropriate form of religious, spiritual and mystical expression.

This is an open event and everyone is encouraged to invite anyone they wish to come along, or to provide support.

For further information: http://kasarik.com/Hunger-Strike-2012.php

If you don't wish this action to go ahead, Greg is not the person to be speaking to. The person you should be contacting is the one who has decided that his religious freedoms, and those of thousands of other Victorians are not worth protecting.

The Premier of Victoria, Mr Ted Baillieu, can be contacted thusly:

Ministerial Office

Address Level 1, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne, VIC

Phone (03) 9651 5000

Fax (03) 9651 5054

Email Address [email protected]

This action will happily be terminated the moment Ted Baillieu and his government demonstrate that they are willing to take concrete steps that will result in regulated access to Transcendent Compounds for religious and spiritual purposes within a reasonable time frame.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy Shitballs!

Good luck Greg, your passion and dedication is most admirable, i'll be sure to visit you down there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too far to travel. I might skip lunch on the first day :P

But seriously good on ya. I hope you turn a few heads (maybe inside out)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm does it make any difference if someone in NSW writes to the VIC Government, and are there NSW laws that are similar?

I admire your hardline stance, Greg, I hope we can get enough publicity going to make it worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no NSW laws that are similar, although the ACT does have almost exactly the same Charter of Human Rights, as ours was largely based on theirs.

I'd encourage you to write to the Victorian Government, because the more mail that they receive the greater the impression of support and the more likely they are to come to the table.

Whether you write to your own government is a tricky one. Personally, I'd hope that you to do so, because I am sick of us slinking around in the darkness and never having the courage to stand up to the authoritarians who oppress us.

We will never change anything in our lives while we are cowed and too afraid to act.

But ultimately, it is your life and you need to judge the risks that you are prepared to take versus the oppression that you are prepared to endure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg what sort of physical training will you be doing to prepare your body for this? the end of December can be brutally hot,

have you fasted for any length before?

will you allow proper hydration (with sugars and salts) etc,

im interested in the practacalities of this

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a problem with exploiting laws regarding religious freedom because they violate the rights of 'non-believers'. The premise is that if you believe in God, or a god, or choose to describe your practices as religious, then you are entitled to rights that everyone should have anyway. I mean, you wouldn't be pushing for the religious freedom to practice human sacrifice, or child abuse, so what you are asking is that people with religious beliefs be given the right to practice activities that do not violate anyone's rights and therefore should be available to everyone in a free society.

But what this means is that 'religious' people are given rights that non-religious people are not, and this goes strongly against the principle that freedom of religion should include freedom from religion, because it indicates that to be allowed to exercise ones rights, one must identify with a religion or claim a belief in God.

Having said that, I admire the effort you have gone to, and what you are planning on doing, and I hope you have some success because I think that giving rights to some people may be the first step in giving rights to all people. But I don't think I can personally offer support because I believe the premise is strongly flawed.

Good luck! :)

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the factor lacking is cohesion, plant heads aren't and don't want to be a 'group', they're a heterogeneous, disconnected segment of Australia. i'm of the opinion that were it the case that an organised, legislated procedure addressing this rose to the level of a social institution, i sure as f would have nothing to do with it.

i have admiration for the strength of character you show Greg, you probly don't remember but i spoke to you briefly in front of the vegetarian pasta stall at EGA. You seem to be a good bloke, but i don't agree with the way you have framed this, and i think hunger strikes are childish. Be safe, and please do not act as though you speak for anyone but yourself and those who explicitly endorse what you propose.

Best of luck :)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of Transcendent Compounds is an ancient and valid form of religious and spiritual practice. As Transcendent Compounds are non-addictive, non-toxic and psychologically safe in an appropriate dose, set and setting, there can be no legitimate reason for prohibiting their use within religious and spiritual frameworks.

LSD has no ancient history of such use.

As for 'psychologically safe' if many sensible people here who are pro-psychedelics would eschew such a strong claim, how do you expect to be taken seriously by the government? They only need to check wikipedia to find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin

Reactions characterized by violence, aggression, homicidal and suicidal attempts,[121] prolonged schizophrenia-like psychosis,[82][122] and convulsions[123] have been reported in the literature. A 2005 survey conducted in the United Kingdom found that almost a quarter of those who had used psilocybin mushrooms in the past year had experienced a panic attack.[45] Other adverse effects less frequently reported include paranoia, confusion, derealization, disconnection from reality, and mania.[124] Psilocybin usage can temporarily induce a state of depersonalization disorder.[125] Usage by those with schizophrenia can induce acute psychotic states requiring hospitalization.[45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsd

people with such conditions as schizophrenia and depression can worsen with LSD.[52] There are some cases of LSD inducing a psychosis in people who appeared to be healthy before taking LSD.[56] In most cases, the psychosis-like reaction is of short duration, but in other cases it may be chronic.

I think you are extremely arrogant and foolhardy, but sometimes that is exactly what certain situations require. So I wish you good luck, but I do wish you would be a little more careful and responsible with the way you present your claims, and hope no one comes to any physical, psychological or legal harm as a result of your actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the best on your journey...may you resurrect some of the powers that are slowly being eroded from out of our grasp.

The power to choose, would be a nice place to start...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big news is that Dennis McKenna has been in touch to say that he supports what I am doing and thinks that "it is good that this is now being grappled with in Australia, along with other places".

It is great to get the support of someone who, along with his late brother Terrance, has been so important in introducing so many thousands of people to the benefits that these compounds provide.

Apart from this we are of to a slow start, but there are promising signs.

The facebook page has 5 people "attending" with 7 saying "maybe". Not really a good conversion rate from the over 400 invitations issued, but hopefully it will get better with time.

I've also had two donations totalling $47 dollars between them. I'll be putting up a donation page listing everything I spend and receive in the next couple of days.. While this might just reinforce how much support I don't have, I am committed to totally open accounting in whatever I do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg what sort of physical training will you be doing to prepare your body for this? the end of December can be brutally hot,

have you fasted for any length before?

will you allow proper hydration (with sugars and salts) etc,

im interested in the practacalities of this

Fasting is one of those things that us mystical types get up to. I've previously fasted for 11 days (one for each of the Principles), so am not too concerned with this. To be honest, once you get past day three it is surprisingly easy to refrain from food, although It might change once my body enters catabolysis after about day 15.

Dehydration is an issue, particularly later on when the body starts to loose track of thirst. It is even more an issue with me, because I have a condition whereby I am continually thirsty irrespective of how much water I drink. Because of this, I'll be making sure that I am drinking regularly and on a schedule. I'll also be looking to include vitamin and other supplements as well, in order to avoid scurvy and other starvation related diseases. This is isn't an exercise in self harm and is more about symbolism and making a point. The idea is to get to 35 days without doing myself serious injury.

Edited by GregKasarik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, I admire the effort you have gone to, and what you are planning on doing, and I hope you have some success because I think that giving rights to some people may be the first step in giving rights to all people. But I don't think I can personally offer support because I believe the premise is strongly flawed.

Good luck! file:///C:\Users\WRAITH~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.gif

It disappoints me that you wish me “Good Luck”, but won't support me because you resent religion.

I didn’t write the laws. I didn’t determine our cultural values. I won’t apologise for them being in harmony with my own intentions and goals.

Societies promote religious freedom because religious belief is a particularly powerful motivator for human behaviour. Societies that quench religious and political freedoms inevitably suffer greatly for it. If my use of these compounds was purely recreational, I wouldn't have bothered going down this path. But they are important to me on a spiritual level, so here we are. You can either take advantage of it, or let opportunity slip by.

This isn’t just about religious and spiritual belief and practice. It is about culture, freedom and self determination. It goes to the heart of whether there even is such thing as an “Entheogenic Community”, where we are motivated by shared goals, or simply shattered and scattered mob, with little sense of common purpose.

Which is more important to you? Would you rather that we get our message out there and that we educate others about the value of these compounds, while moving us all towards a society in which we can live free? Or would you prefer to maintain your ideological purity from the comfort of the Entheogenic Ghetto?

Edited by GregKasarik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is more important to you? Would you rather that we get our message out there and that we educate others about the value of these compounds, while moving us all towards a society in which we can live free? Or would you prefer to maintain your ideological purity from the comfort of the Entheogenic Ghetto?

We can educate without evangelising.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It disappoints me that you wish me “Good Luck”, but won't support me because you resent religion.

I didn't say I resent religion. I don't think we should be grateful for laws that give rights to a group of people simply because they identify with a religion of one form or another.

I didn’t write the laws. I didn’t determine our cultural values. I won’t apologise for them being in harmony with my own intentions and goals.

So are you saying that discrimination against the non-religious among us is in harmony with your intentions and goals?

Societies promote religious freedom because religious belief is a particularly powerful motivator for human behaviour.

This implies that secular beliefs are less powerful, and I find this offensive. The most important things in my life and the values I hold most dear, are as important, and as dear, as those of people who pray every morning and night, or who go to church every Sunday. This idea that people who believe in God, a god, or gods, have more to live for, more to fight for, and more to die for, is just plain wrong, and it provides preferential treatment to those who claim to know something they cannot demonstrate to know. I don't care what you believe or why you believe it, but I don't think you should be given more rights than me just because you choose to label your beliefs as religious. This doesn't mean I resent religion. It means I resent the preferential treatment given to religions and the people who subscribe to them.

It goes to the heart of whether there even is such thing as an “Entheogenic Community”, where we are motivated by shared goals, or simply shattered and scattered mob, with little sense of common purpose.

What you call "little sense of common purpose", I call "diversity". I don't want to be part of a community that blindly subscribes to this or that belief.

Which is more important to you? Would you rather that we get our message out there and that we educate others about the value of these compounds, while moving us all towards a society in which we can live free? Or would you prefer to maintain your ideological purity from the comfort of the Entheogenic Ghetto?

The laws concerning religious freedom to use sacraments have been in place in the US for a long time, and they have not extended to the non-religious. The legalisation of cannabis, which is beginning to appear imminent in the US, has not come about through an extension of religious freedoms to secular drug users. I see no reason that this would be any different in Australia for "transcendent compounds". If you are successful, you will not be "moving us all towards a society in which we can live free". You will be moving some of us towards a society in which they can live free. The rest of us will be left behind in the "entheogenic ghetto".

I will reiterate that I wish you luck, because I really think you are doing this because you feel it is the right thing to do. So many people come up with ideas to try to make a difference and never actually put in the work to get it done, so I absolutely commend you for actually putting yourself out there and doing something about it rather than sitting around and just talking about it.

...but I can't agree with the premises behind it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on you greg for doing this, it will take a lot of courage to get through 35 days no doubt. That you are willing to do so much for this cause (not just the fasting, but the lobbying, interviews, webpage etc) shows how profound your experiences with these compounds has been. Much respect.

I think arguing for the legalisation of psychedelics, or transcendent compounds as you refer to them, via freedom of religion is actually the best approach. Whether we strictly agree with all the connotations of religion, it is how our society/culture approaches spirituality. Also it has the benefit of being a proven approach with the precedents set by the UDV, Native American Church, Santo Daime et al, however these cases all were based on traditional use of plants by recent ancestors (i.e. within a few hundred years, as opposed to the thousands of years us westerners would have to argue for e.g. mushrooms). Legalisation through religion may also circumvent problems relating to the commercialisation of these compounds if they were legalised as 'just another' intoxicant like alcohol and tobacco.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LSD has no ancient history of such use.

As for 'psychologically safe' if many sensible people here who are pro-psychedelics would eschew such a strong claim, how do you expect to be taken seriously by the government? They only need to check wikipedia to find:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Psilocybin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsd

I think you are extremely arrogant and foolhardy, but sometimes that is exactly what certain situations require. So I wish you good luck, but I do wish you would be a little more careful and responsible with the way you present your claims, and hope no one comes to any physical, psychological or legal harm as a result of your actions.

Seriously dude. You really need to take a chill pill or two. I might be arrogant, but what is it with you and your need to be obnoxious and continually pick fights? From looking at other threads in which you have participated, it seems that you spend most of your time here trying to piss people off.

Firstly I have never said that LSD has any history of ancient use. I have said that "Transcendent Compounds" have such use, which is perfectly true, given that peyote use in the archaeological record goes back over 5,500 years. It seems that you are incapable of differentiating the grammar that distinguishes generalities from specifics. Or more likely, you have an insane need to argue even the stupidest little thing.

Secondly, I stand by the decades of peer reviewed research that conclusively demonstrates that that these compounds are "psychologically safe", or more accurately that they are "psychologically safe in an appropriate dose, set and setting". Indeed, if you actually read what I wrote instead of simply mining it for things to object to, you'd notice that I say the following: "So while they can't be regarded as perfectly safe (nothing can), decades of research clearly show that they fall within the acceptable limits of safety when compared with other activities that are legal within our communities." http://www.kasarik.com/Entheogens1.php

I am well aware of the psilocybin paper cited in Wikipedia and just as aware of its significant issues, many of which have to do with the fact that it mostly discusses unsupervised use, poly drug use and the unfortunate fact that tourists were continually taking too many shrooms (with alcohol) and getting themselves into trouble. The abstract of the paper itself says:

"In conclusion, the use of magic mushrooms is relatively safe as only few and relatively mild adverse effects have been reported. The low prevalent but unpredictable provocation of panic attacks and flash-backs remain, however, a point of concern".

Nothing there that I would argue against. Even the "relatively safe" is appropriate for the types of use it mostly reported on, even though it is too conservative when discussing non-recreational use by an educated population, as would occur should access to these compounds be made in a regulated ,manner for religious and spiritual purposes.

Certainly these issues are ones that I've already had to deal with when dealing with the Government and sceptical members of the public. Andrew Bolt and his type will have a field day with this sort of stuff, but your crappy attitude, sanctimonious hysterics ("and hope no one comes to any physical, psychological or legal harm as a result of your actions" LOL!) and need to distort everything are wearing really, really thin.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ ballzac

You seem like a sensible sort and I hope that you'll appreciate that Ireally have no desire to get into another of the pointless arguments that seem to crop up whenever I pop up to let the SAB forums know what I'm up to. I also have no interest in becoming road kill in your culture wars.

If you want me to succeed you'll take steps to help make that a reality. If you don't want me to succeed, then you won't.

It is really that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering you want to convince the Government, and by implication the public who elect it, that you have a valid point to make, you might want to think about how you respond to people who disagree with you. The people on these boards are going to be the closest you can find to supporters; The idea of using chemicals to achieve altered states for religious purposes is very alien to most of the general public, religious or not. And if you respond to them the way you have responded to some people here, I can't think that you'll be winning many friends, nor gaining much support.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the factor lacking is cohesion, plant heads aren't and don't want to be a 'group', they're a heterogeneous, disconnected segment of Australia. i'm of the opinion that were it the case that an organised, legislated procedure addressing this rose to the level of a social institution, i sure as f would have nothing to do with it.

i have admiration for the strength of character you show Greg, you probly don't remember but i spoke to you briefly in front of the vegetarian pasta stall at EGA. You seem to be a good bloke, but i don't agree with the way you have framed this, and i think hunger strikes are childish. Be safe, and please do not act as though you speak for anyone but yourself and those who explicitly endorse what you propose.

Best of luck :)

BoP. This is a good point and explains precisely why we are still caught up in the dysfunctional war on drugs: Until people decide to act in concert to fight injustice, they'll continue to have the government boot on their necks. The way things are right now, when the authoritarians wish to make an example, it is too easy to separate a few of us from the docile herd.

Not sure what it is about hunger strikes that are "childish" (you never seen kids if dinner is a bit late?), but I'm sure that you and others won't hesitate to say, "I'm not with that guy". At least until it becomes convenient to change sides. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering you want to convince the Government, and by implication the public who elect it, that you have a valid point to make, you might want to think about how you respond to people who disagree with you. The people on these boards are going to be the closest you can find to supporters; The idea of using chemicals to achieve altered states for religious purposes is very alien to most of the general public, religious or not. And if you respond to them the way you have responded to some people here, I can't think that you'll be winning many friends, nor gaining much support.

Perhaps. But then again, I am the one who has the courage to get off his arse and actually do something, so maybe I don't have the patience I should have for anonymous armchair generals who insist on second guessing and complaining because I am not doing exactly what they want me to do.

You made it clear that you had no intention of helping because of the religious aspect of what I am doing. Fair enough. Its your life to do with as you wish and if ideological purity is that important to you, there isn't much I can do or say to change it and I have more important things to do right now. Which is why I also made it clear that I have no intention of engaging in your culture wars.

I think we should just leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good on you greg for doing this, it will take a lot of courage to get through 35 days no doubt. That you are willing to do so much for this cause (not just the fasting, but the lobbying, interviews, webpage etc) shows how profound your experiences with these compounds has been. Much respect. I think arguing for the legalisation of psychedelics, or transcendent compounds as you refer to them, via freedom of religion is actually the best approach. Whether we strictly agree with all the connotations of religion, it is how our society/culture approaches spirituality. Also it has the benefit of being a proven approach with the precedents set by the UDV, Native American Church, Santo Daime et al, however these cases all were based on traditional use of plants by recent ancestors (i.e. within a few hundred years, as opposed to the thousands of years us westerners would have to argue for e.g. mushrooms). Legalisation through religion may also circumvent problems relating to the commercialisation of these compounds if they were legalised as 'just another' intoxicant like alcohol and tobacco.

Thanks for this perspective, Kalika. I agree with you fully, but it also seems that by going down this path I am throwing myself under the culture wars bus, where people oppose me precisely because they object to anything related to religion, or spirituality.

Still, it is a fight that is worth fighting, and is on the battlefield of my choosing, so I shouldn't really complain overly much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously dude. You really need to take a chill pill or two. I might be arrogant, but what is it with you and your need to be obnoxious and continually pick fights? From looking at other threads in which you have participated, it seems that you spend most of your time here trying to piss people off.

It puzzles me when you say things like this. I am chilled, dude. When I write to you I don't feel angry or resentful, I am simply trying to communicate my own thoughts as best I can. I am a very straightforward person by nature, but it seems no matter what approach I take you pick out something to get upset about. I must admit I get a little bemused when I read some of your reactions, but that is the limit of how much emotion I have invested in any interaction with you. It's fine if you disagree or don't like my input, but please stop taking it so personally, it is not meant that way at all.

Firstly I have never said that LSD has any history of ancient use. I have said that "Transcendent Compounds" have such use, which is perfectly true, given that peyote use in the archaeological record goes back over 5,500 years. It seems that you are incapable of differentiating the grammar that distinguishes generalities from specifics. Or more likely, you have an insane need to argue even the stupidest little thing.

A lot of heated language and accusations there Greg. Your own website which you linked us to lists LSD as one of the so-called Transcendent Compounds. So is it, or isn't it? Don't accuse me of failing to understand grammar instead of addressing this inconsistency, it is silly and self-defeating. If you think this is arguing over stupid little details, I fail to see how you are going to have any success convincing the unsympathetic of your views, because it is these kind of inconsistencies they are going to bring to light.

Secondly, I stand by the decades of peer reviewed research that conclusively demonstrates that that these compounds are "psychologically safe", or more accurately that they are "psychologically safe in an appropriate dose, set and setting". Indeed, if you actually read what I wrote instead of simply mining it for things to object to, you'd notice that I say the following: "So while they can't be regarded as perfectly safe (nothing can), decades of research clearly show that they fall within the acceptable limits of safety when compared with other activities that are legal within our communities." http://www.kasarik.com/Entheogens1.php

I am well aware of the psilocybin paper cited in Wikipedia and just as aware of its significant issues, many of which have to do with the fact that it mostly discusses unsupervised use, poly drug use and the unfortunate fact that tourists were continually taking too many shrooms (with alcohol) and getting themselves into trouble. The abstract of the paper itself says:

"In conclusion, the use of magic mushrooms is relatively safe as only few and relatively mild adverse effects have been reported. The low prevalent but unpredictable provocation of panic attacks and flash-backs remain, however, a point of concern".

Nothing there that I would argue against. Even the "relatively safe" is appropriate for the types of use it mostly reported on, even though it is too conservative when discussing non-recreational use by an educated population, as would occur should access to these compounds be made in a regulated ,manner for religious and spiritual purposes.

I don't see what is so funny. Physical harm because you are doing a hunger strike. Psychological harm because you are claiming substances like LSD and mushrooms have been conclusively shown to be psychologically safe, and there are people who might believe you and end up doing themselves serious psychological harm. Legal harm because of the potential for half-cocked campaigns like this to bring even more negative attention to these compounds.

I am only suggesting that you are a little more cautious with how you phrase things. For example, whether LSD is a Transcendent Compound or not—all you would have to do to make your argument stronger is make your claim weaker, so that you say 'most Transcendent Compounds have a history of ancient use' Either that, of remove LSD from the list of Transcendent Compounds.

Similarly, you could qualify your claim to say 'relatively safe' which would be more accurate and would help your opponents to take your argument more seriously. As it is I think these inconsistencies greatly weaken your case and make it seem like your enthusiasm is clouding your judgment.

Certainly these issues are ones that I've already had to deal with when dealing with the Government and sceptical members of the public. Andrew Bolt and his type will have a field day with this sort of stuff, but your crappy attitude, sanctimonious hysterics ("and hope no one comes to any physical, psychological or legal harm as a result of your actions" LOL!) and need to distort everything are wearing really, really thin.

Fine, I am happy not to waste any more time on this as you seem incapable of accepting constructive criticism or listening to anyone who disagrees with you, and seem to prefer taking offence and resorting to insults and posing as a martyr instead of allowing your fixed ideas to be seriously scrutinized... wait a minute! You really are religious, aren't you? :P

I'll leave you to it then, like I said good luck with your hunger strike and take care.

I will add it seems strange to me that you evince such a patroinizing attitude towards these forums and only seem to use them to rally support for your cause, I think that is quite rude.

Edited by chilli
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, whether LSD is a Transcendent Compound or not—all you would have to do to make your argument stronger is make your claim weaker, so that you say 'most Transcendent Compounds have a history of ancient use' Either that, of remove LSD from the list of Transcendent Compounds.

While Greg hasn't really put me in the mood to jump to his defense :lol:, I feel the need to point out that television sets have been around for a hundred years or so, and by your reasoning we either have to say that my big sony 1080p LCD screen is not a TV, or modify the original claim to say that some TVs have been around for 100 years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my big sony 1080p LCD screen is not a TV.

I'll lend you something big... you can borrow my 100yr old 42" Panasonic Plasma... :drool2:

I'm surprised no-one has seen the potential to turn this into a science versus religion debate.. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×