Leaderboard

Hi guys. Its part of my Gymnocalycium collection, I hope Youll enjoy watching it G.vatteri G. schickendantzii FR 444 G.mazanense f.polycephalum VS 46 G.quehlianum SE 6 G.asterium G.baldianum G.bayrianum G.horstii G.pflanzii G. platygonum JO 455b G.vatteri / G.bodenbenderianum de Ulepas

used a new tooth brush and scrubbed each cacti from head to toe. water + fert. im sure they loved it, looking sharp

I need a tissue to wipe away the tears

Hmmm, it's now at $330!, I'm out.... Who needs a cut of crested Trichocereus Bridgessii anyway pfft! Thanks for the opportunity anyway tipz. It was a great idea for a competition. I enjoyed the suspense . We need more of this sorta thing. I will be still watching. I can't get over the amount of eBay bids hey. PS; I was actually feeling confident and thought I was going to win hey,lol. Oh we'll , I can't win all the SAB comps.

That was a quick extraction !

Hiyall. I'm Back. Lots of interesting comments and feedback. First off, let me say that the hunger strike is still going ahead. I have done my very best to engage with the Government on this and will continue to do so right up until the 14th. I am hoping to meet socially with a few members of the Victorian Government on Melbourne Cup Day, so not all is yet lost. As of now, I have been completely ignored by the Government, so I am not expecting much. For those who are interested, I have updated my page on "Government Correspondence" to include all of this year's attempts to communicate with them and to highlight just how determined they are to pretend we don't exist. For those wishing to write to any Government in Australia, I'd suggest that many of the ideas that I have presented in my correspondence would be of use. http://www.kasarik.com/Government-Correspondence.php Much of the discussion in this thread has been around religion, spirituality and atheism. I'm not going to rehash it all, but if people are interested in the legal definition of "Religion" in Australia they should read this: http://www.kasarik.c...eligion%22-.php The specific legal argument on which I base my claim is only relevant to Victoria and the ACT, both of which have a "Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act", an can be found here:http://www.kasarik.c...al-Argument.php Unfortunately, no other state has such a provision, although Tasmania does have some very weak constitutional protections. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution doesn't do what people think it does (ie despite similar wording it is not an American style granting of freedoms) and is useless for any argument for religious freedom. Indeed, that section has been interpreted so conservatively by the High Court that I am not aware of any successful legal challenges being made under its provisions. In any case, drugs law is a State, rather than Federal concern. Having said this, once Victoria makes the change, it will be very difficult for the other states to deny the same basic freedoms, although they are unlikely to change their views overnight. I continue to be surprised that many people here are opposed to what I am doing simply because I am arguing for the religious and spiritual use of these compounds. Its a bit like arguing against protecting pandas because you also want tigers protected as well. It seems that there is the view that people shouldn't be granted special privileges simply because a behaviour is religious, rather than secular. While there is certainly merit in this argument, it ignores the historical reasons why religious and spiritual belief is given such special treatment. I don't really want to do an entire dissertation on the issue right now, but the fact is that religion is often fundamental to a person's sense of self concept in a way that few other things are and people can do all sorts of silly things when motivated by the idea that their actions might have some sort of special purpose, meaning, or god given validity. At the extreme, it can result in actions as diverse as fighting against slavery and helping the poor to committing atrocities and flying planes into buildings in foreign countries. So a key aspect of religious freedom isn't about allowing the religious to engage in behaviours that others can not, but rather to create a society in which people with different religious beliefs don't persecute and kill those who disagree with them. A side effect of this is that it allows greater latitude for some behaviours that can be described as "religious". In all honestly, I think that there is a very good rationale for treating atheism as a "religion" for purposes of law. But religion and atheism differ in at least one significant way and this is that religion often entails "the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief". For the purposes of this discussion, the use of Transcendent Compounds is such a "cannon of conduct". Atheism, by its very nature doesn't demand any behavioural response and even if one were to have one's atheism protected under law, you'd have a really hard time making the claim that the use of ayahuasca was an essential part of your being an atheist. But this doesn't mean that an atheist isn't going to be able to use these compounds within the boundaries of "religious and spiritual practice". Ultimately, it all boils down to the belief in a "supernatural being, thing, or principle" and many of the atheists that I have encountered within the EGA community certainly have aspects of these. Many of these ideas have a decidedly teleological ring to them. Indeed, if one looks at my own conceptualisations, I would be regarded by many as an atheist (although for the record, I describe myself as an "agnostic theist"), as I don't actually believe in "God" in the way that most people use the term. Rather, I believe that there is something more than just the universe which we inhabit, but because of the Uncertainty Principle, I recognise the impossibility of pretending that my understanding of what that might be is necessarily the correct one. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that life after death was me waking up to discover that I had been plugged into a Matrix the whole time. The beauty of these compounds is that they allow you to explore metaphysical conundrums and to experience possibilities beyond ordinary imagining. By definition, these are not going to fit within the framework of any organised religion and in many cases, the spirituality entailed is going to look very similar to atheism. Certainly there is no need for anyone to pretend to belong to Community of Infinite Colour (which is still more of a concept than an actuality). In fact the last thing that I'd want is for people to join me, just so they can get high. In going down this path, it is my intention to fight only the battles that I can conceivably win. My use of these compounds is inherently spiritual and the law is firmly on my side, so it makes sense for me to argue within that context. Given that the law is up for review and may well be gutted (http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/article/1446), I'd suggest that now is not the time to be faint of heart. If others wish to put the argument for secular, recreational use, they are perfectly welcome to do so. Frankly I wish that they would. With a few notable exceptions, such as Torsten and some of the EGA crew, I don't see anyone else publicly campaigning for our freedoms. I regularly sit down with key players in the Government, AoD community, academia and elsewhere and none of them have any idea of our existence. Until more of us have the determination to see things change and can muster the courage to follow through, we are always going to be marginalised, stigmatised and discriminated against. Nothing will change until we do.

Thats all good GOT. Just a small oversight Don't go throwing yourself out just yet. You are still in the running ;) All good here brother !

Not chili, but this guy gets messed up.

Wow They look really healthy. How big are the bottom ones Mutant ? Very nice Snowfella have they flowerd yet? I keep missing most of my flowers as they open after I go to work and are closed when I get home. Here are a couple of pics Edit ( to add a photo) Cheers Got

I think kate needs to change her name from "cactus kate" to "late kate"....lol

Come on, no need for a shit fight. Generally I am pretty lenient with stuff like this, but there is only one pup up for grabs and It is quite a desirable one. Kate, I am sorry but all entries were closed last night as stated in my initial post. I don't wanna be a hardass but unfortunately this time I have to stick by the rules. All entries are closed.. good luck to all and I suppose we will see who the winner is at the end of auction EDIT - GOT unfortunately she not only entered a guess that was lower than the current bid, It was unfortunately also a day late. Qualia does have a point. Lets keep this little comp nice and chill hey ?

Well u could start with the Sab webstore and support the people that provide this forum

Small sedges, chamomile, native violets, thymes.

Rubus australis (could be another species or a hybrid) had nice berries, a bit on the small side so they were seedy. Bush Lawyer would probably benefit from training in the same manner as blackberry etc Happy to send you some fresh Kowhai seed of the species microphylla, molloyi and tetraptera and probably some cultivars if you like Mindperformer This is probably the best book on Rongoa / NZ ethnobotany I have found.

Not sure about inducing pupping, but coconut milk is excellent for root growth and general plant growth due to phytohormones it contains. Cool bit about pupping, will have to try that come spring time.

this made me laugh and I didn't think it was appropriate in the synthetic drugs thread ;)

Fuck me chilli am I to blame for thousands of years of this shit? Turning it around and giving men several thousand years of the same is not a reasonable approach to dealing with historical problems we are doing our best to solve

I thought I had already made my position on this clear, but let me reiterate. I am not blaming feminism for the genesis of these problems. Most of the problems that face men have been around since the dawn of civilization. What I am blaming feminism for is the refusal to acknowledge that men's problems are worthy of consideration, that the average man is not in a position of privilege compared to his female neighbours, the fact that feminists continue to fight for women's rights at the expense of men's rights. The most acknowledgement you can usually get from a feminist that men suffer from sexism too is just lip-service. "Patriarchy hurts men too" is a way of turning the issue around to blame men, to say that if we support feminism then our rights will be improved too. But the improvement of men's rights is not even a secondary concern of mainstream feminism, it is incidental at best, and more often than not, feminist ideology actually supports politics that make things worse for the average man. I also have to question what you mean by "male-dominated" and "male-developed". A literal interpretation of "patriarchy" would mean that the head of state is male - a patriarch. Well, this is certainly not the case in much of the western world, so obviously it is more metaphorical than this. I think I may have already mentioned that I think, although the role of provider and protector for men and the child-like role of women, traditionally, was not ideal, there was some balance to this dynamic. But that's not the world we live in anymore, so even if you disagree with me about that, how do you determine that our society is "male-dominated"? Women comprise maybe 53% of the population and have the same voting rights as men, so politically, democratically, it could be said that women, as a group, have more of a say than men. Women have a lot of power that everyone acknowledges in a joking way, but people seem unwilling to acknowledge that this power is real. Men often refer to their wives as "SWMBO" (she who must be obeyed). Women will joke about how their husbands are "pussy-whipped", and about how they use sex to get what they want. Men, on average, earn more money than women, but women spend the majority of the disposable income. If men were really in control, wouldn't they be spending the money they earn? My point is about the fact that feminism ignores female perpetrated violence, and one of these forms of violence is violence by proxy. I'm not saying that feminists actively condone this sort of violence, but by ignoring its existence, they are implicitly allowing it. You're right that men who commit such violence have a choice, but there are very strong societal pressures for men to act to protect a woman's honour, and this includes being violent on her behalf. I can't think of anything more indicative of a female dominated society than that women can manipulate men into putting themselves in danger of physical harm, and then men are given sole responsibility for the violence than ensues. But mainstream feminism completely ignores the fact that men can be victims of domestic violence. I've told my story in comments on feminist blogs, not radical feminist blogs, but ones associated with universities and mainstream political groups, to explain that they're dismissing my experiences by saying that domestic violence only happens to women, and I've had my comments deleted or never approved, presumably because they either don't believe that I, as a man, could really have been a victim, or because my experiences are at odds with their blinkered view of the world. I am not saying that most feminists actively support female perpetrated violence. What I'm saying is that they allow it by refusing to acknowledge its existence. The studies mostly show the number of perpetrators are 50/50 when it comes to gender. This is not was feminism tells us. You can say that someone who isn't for true equality isn't a real feminist, but it begs the question of why you are using some abstract dictionary definition to define a movement, rather than defining it based on what the overwhelming majority of the self-identified members support. I never said that a woman should be held responsible for violence perpetrated by a man against a man. I was pointing out that while society expects men to protect women, under the assumption that women are more likely to suffer from a crime when they're out alone, the truth is that men are more at risk. The perpetrators may be more likely to be men (I don't know the figures on this but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) but you can't blame the victim for the gender of the perpetrator, so I really don't think it's relevant. If we want equality, then we have to treat the victims as though their gender is irrelevant, and saying that men are the perpetrators therefore male victims are less deserving of acknowledgement is absurd. I'm not blaming individual (innocent) women for what happens to men. I'm saying that, in our society, there is a fallacious assumption that women are more at risk. Go to any popular feminist blog or discussion forum, and you will see the prevailing notion that men do not know what it's like to be afraid of being attacked, and this is just false.

I can't believe I'm staying up to do an assignment for my girlfriend, or ex or whatever she is. I'm getting so ruled right now.

I think it's also worth considering female perpetrated violence by proxy. You may be less likely to be attacked directly by a woman than a man when out in public, but if a woman wants to cause you harm, it's not uncommon for her to get a man to actually commit the violence on her behalf. If you are attacked directly by a woman, there's not much you can do to protect yourself, because people who were standing around complacently while she was attacking you will jump to her defense the moment you try to protect yourself.

Piccies.... and decision has been made to cut the remaining stump and bury it under the ground.