punkin Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) Good. Glad to hear they're at least somewhat effective. Sorry to here a grown person say that. That marine parks stop someone anchoring a boat to swim or partake of nature in an enviroment. That National parks lock people out of National Parks where they could enjoy a walk and some photography all the while doing nothing about the feral animals and plants that are corrupting and damaging some of our favourite areas in the local ecosystem to take children to teach them about the beauty and wonder that's around us. Can't get my little grandaughter into these places where my son learned his appreciation for nature anymore. The tracks are closed and left to wild sheep and pigs, dogs and weeds. A child can't walk in or anyone else that doesn't have full mobility, fitness and strength and is not prepared to stay only for an hour or overnight. I never thought you were that smallminded mate, that you'd like to see huge swaths of the country locked up for ferals to enjoy. And large parts of the ocean where people are not allowed to stop and picnic or swim, where there is zero science to say that it achieves anything at all. No wonder this site has so much petty bullshit and such a large archive of crap. I should never have stuck my head out of the mushroom door, won't make that mistake again. Edited May 20, 2011 by punkin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
punkin Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) To attempt to fully grasp the realm through which one must pass to attain the elixer's of eternal life is an effort kindred philosophers who have mapped the spheres of heaven would understand. To salute and prostrate with appropriate care at the entrances to such fields of non-existence...such worlds are filled with ghosts of information long out of date...non-human habituations trained into those who serve its life force... it must control to exist...that is its form and purpose... to allow such a thing to control whilst maintaining ones own essential life is the harmony found in all symbiotic relationships... the mechanisms by which thoughts may be created in an observer and the path along which one travels relative to those thoughts, finally arriving at a state of self similarity to the source of the informaiton is vital when organising people according to an accepted mode of logic...or dataset leading one to a rational conclusion... the packet that is sent, when removed from its context may appear meaningless...when it is united with its interdependences the truth of a situation may be wholy apprehended. to bring one other into alignment with a certain pattern of perception of reality involves the organisation of information into meaningful types which are suitable for being processed by the system through which it will pass. to pass through the gateway and become one of the members of an interactive community of beings whose main objective is to maintain a stable and reliable platform for implementing services, requires compassion and compromise. it is a learning process. for both parties. once the gates have been opened, and the initial familiarisation with characteristics has been completed, the work platform is much clearer in its expression according to rules. do not fear the entry into such a realm, however dangerous it may appear, you will be welcomed...and the effort to improve our culture and world through testing of its limitation shall continue. to respectfully and humbly submit the truth is the only way to heal that which within you is sickened... i intend to build unity and wholeness within my being. One more paragraph and you may well have been sucked up your own rectum. Try spinning faster next time. You should copy and print that and get it out and read it when your fifty IfAnyoneWantsMeI'llBeInMycologyPunkin Edited May 20, 2011 by punkin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted May 20, 2011 Edit my name out of that post punkin, it is very bad taste to use someone's real name on a public forum. I don't see conservation as small-minded, I see people putting there pursuits (such as fishing or hunting) before conservation as small minded. I didn't say I support leaving national parks full of feral animals, nor locking people out of them. In my experience, every national park I've been to people are allowed to walk in them and enjoy them. As for marine parks, I wholly support them. There is plenty of science to support the, you'd have to have your eyes closed to not see it. 90% of the world's fish stocks have been wiped out. Putting aside small areas for marine life is the least we should do. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reptyle Posted May 20, 2011 It's only funny cos you will nevr do anything to rememdy your greivances sir punkin...and as such...you, as a human, are destined to live as an ingrateful speck on the foot of humanity. May God Bless your eternal soul. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
botanicalSEEKER Posted May 25, 2011 I'm with punkin, that is complete fucking garble reptyle. Herd more complete and meaningful sentences coming out a paralytic mate attempting to relearn how to speak during a psychedelic foray. I'm trying to think hard at what your angle is and well i just cannot comprehend. And what is this bosh talk about banning alcohol, for whose sake, human kind or the now just temporarily enlightened being you are. Punkin is right, print that out and have a look at it when your older, should provide a laugh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quill Posted May 25, 2011 i can't believe you guys don't get it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Distracted Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) Good luck with your work reptyle. As far as i understand it... his 'garble' was simply a long winded way of explaining he has a long term goal in mind, if you only look at what he's doing now it may be confusing but if you adjust to his 'reality tunnel' or simply his 'train of thought, ideas and beliefs' he believes we'll all we better off. It was only confusing because he used words like 'observer' instead of 'self'. Punkin if you're still reading this thread... I think your national parks arguement would be done on a case by case basis, as with tripsis I don't know of any closed off parks. It sucks that a park that you had such sentimental value to has been closed and i'd give you the benefit of the doubt that you'd treat the native flora and fauna with respect. However I don't believe many Australians would and as such i'd support the temporary closure of parks to allow rejuvination. Not everybody sticks to the designated paths. However i'm just talking out my ass (<--you can quote that) as I don't know what park and what details really... it's all very vague. Australia is a pretty big place though and there are many other parks around. Maybe you should follow reptyle's example and talk to some local ministers or council members to get your park reopened and the tracks redone? It may not happen while your grandchildren are still young but you may help out the next generation of nature enthusiasts. Edited May 25, 2011 by Distracted 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kadakuda Posted May 26, 2011 good luck rep. One thing that would surely happen if it was banned (which it wouldnt be surely thats political suicide) is the people would stand up. not for entheogens, but for booze they would. at that stage, because all these plants and alcohol are lumped in together, the revolt for getting booze back would liekly end up bringing a lot of "entheogens" back with it because it would be clearly obvious how hypocritical it would be not to allow others. and people now will say, but its hypocritical now, but now there is not the public push. with alcohol banned, we have the public actaully standing up, thats the time to get shit done Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
botanicalSEEKER Posted May 26, 2011 @Distracted , what i meant by garble is exactly that. Its waffle and more waffle, use clear and concise language to convey your idea. If his argument is indeed "we would be better off believing as he does",well that isn't a very compelling argument. @punkin, implementing national park status is an effective land management tool due to it nearly removing the "human" variable while still promoting other management programs such as removing introduced species and reintroducing native species. It also is very effective in minimizing the distribution of phytophthora cinnamomi which is of paramount importance in some places. It is the precautionary principle at work and it is designed to ensure inter-generational equality, while it may not be apparent too you in your lifetime the evolution of the environment works on a different time scale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dude Posted May 26, 2011 (edited) @botanicalSEEKER, I found it to be quite an insightful garble. If you don't see it the same way, good for you, you don't need to be insulting... maybe you do, your loss. [edit] I heard that the past tense of "to hear" is actually spelled "heard", not "herd" -if not communicating clearly is what we're meant to be critical of. About that, if your reception is fuzzy try re-tuning your receiver first instead of just blaming the signal. Edited May 26, 2011 by The Dude Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
botanicalSEEKER Posted May 26, 2011 (edited) The dude, your first line i agree with. Maybe my tone was a little aggressive. This just isn't the first time i have "heard" someone write and talk in overly verbose ways to somehow signify spiritual enlightenment. I suppose it just annoys me, so i guess I'm sorry if anyone took offense. To your edit i say, please don't start the childish online grammar and spelling game. So what i used incorrect tense, did you not understand ?, would you like me to reiterate ? really your edit was just a small attempt at a sledge. botanical Edited May 26, 2011 by botanicalSEEKER Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reptyle Posted May 28, 2011 Sorry if my language wasnt clear enough... i often speak english, i know some people dont understand english though i am not a native speaker of any other languages so its my preference for communicating. Also...my clever coded logic programs which i use in my writting stops certain elements of the populous from correctly interpreting or investing time and effort into persuing...HAHAHA(as if) and so acts as a protective membrane from unwanted characters..(ahahha) Kakaduka has hit the nail on the proverbial head. Like cures like...^^^ as i said.... the regulation of therapuetic substances has nothing to do with politics...it has to do with science... the TGA is an entity exsisting by all appearances external to the political debate... it bases its decisions upon information provided and interpreted by a committee or delegate...so... when you submit an application for rescheduling it will be assessed according to its merits... if you follow the instructions above...and specifically PROVE that current legislative framework is not sufficient to protect the public from health risks...then... the TGA HAS NO CHOICE but to follow protocol. so... take it as you will...its alwyas worth the effort to get involved... i can send a zip file with all the info you will need for a successfull application...the TGA already are aware they are being scrutinised by the FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN over this issue so the ball is already rolling for anyone who wants to take a dive and capture it... Please dont judge me for being enlightened ok...thats discrimination... I would do it, though i am waiting for other processes to finalise before hand...the dat of 31st of may has nearly past and thats the next closing date before the june meeting so...after then there shall be more opportunities i suppose... does this make things clearer? or more clarified? or transluscenter? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutant Posted May 29, 2011 what a load of crap banning alcohol?? lol that's the stupidest thing ever after banning fucking PS: are you a believer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chnt Posted May 29, 2011 what a load of crap banning alcohol?? lol that's the stupidest thing ever after banning fucking PS: are you a believer? that's the whole point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutant Posted May 30, 2011 that's the whole point. they whole point was running the stupidest rally ever?? [excepting banning fucking] ok, if it is so, I rest my case, you got a winn[t]er in your hands... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chnt Posted May 30, 2011 they whole point was running the stupidest rally ever?? [excepting banning fucking] ok, if it is so, I rest my case, you got a winn[t]er in your hands... the whole point of banning alcohol is that it is a load of crap. extrapolate that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kadakuda Posted May 30, 2011 mutant, take a min to think about it. how stupid is banning alcohol? how stupid is banning weed? about the same to you and me, right? but not to Johnny bible thumper and soccer mom Julie. can we agree that in society as far as politics goes, alcohol is allowable and weed (read it: psychedelics) are not. right? but the word of the law says it cannot discriminate between things that have facts to back them up just because personal belief. So they HAVE to ban alcohol if they ban weed, as far as any shred of factual data. we agree on that? How many people will allow booze to be banned? there would be riots, its happened before. so this is our only hope at peaceful resolve in my opinion. they can only do 1 of 2 things without fully admitting that they are bias and choose laws based on personal belief not on factual data...this will result in a total mess. 1: they ban alcohol. how long before the country revolts and takes back their freedom? in this scenario people will likely open their eyes more to the fact this has been happening with many other thigns already and many of the safe things like shrooms and weed will most liekyl be carried back to allowable with alcohol. 2: the unschedule the other things because alcohol isnt and they are safer than ethanol. the whole point of his post, t least as i saw it, is that it is scientifically flawed, morally flawed, and politically confusing to ban a scientifically fairly safe drug that has infinite uses in industry and not ban a cleaning solvent, like ethanol, that harms, kills and has countless scientific data to prove the damage on society it has. and ethanol really has very little use other than cleaning/fuel. thats how i read this topic, and if thats right i 100% agree and fully respect reptyle for taking on such a noble fight. it should be done, because someone needs to point out how incredibly horrendous the gov is acting. If it was another nation doing this to us, we would call it terrorism or oppression. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Distracted Posted May 30, 2011 Yay devil's advocate!!! It's still had to tell if someone is stoned or not by qualtitive testing. Blood alcohol levels are easily tested but we can only test if there is some residue of pot in your system not if you're under the effect. Thus it's safer to ban any use of pot. ^^^^^^ Not my views but I imagine that would be an arguement made by someone who backs current laws. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutant Posted May 31, 2011 I get it alright but you would need a real master of situationism and recruiting of church organisations, conservatives and various fundamentalists to get this working even a bit. It would rule, to be held by many people, no just some people who dislike alcohol. but Its no good if taken too seriously Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kadakuda Posted May 31, 2011 i think the idea is that any kind of real fact, science or study points in the direction that alcohol kills, weed doesn't. that is jsut the reality of the 2 drugs. and it is this science that can be wheeled through the system to make them on the same page. And i can bet my house on the fact that alcohol will never be banned for long, if at all... i have been pushing and asking answers for this exact situation with my gov in canada for about a year through email conversation. they have answered me, but have NEVER once come close to answering my questions directly. the idea is not to ban alcohol. the idea is to process the information, have the gov turn it down cause they have to and then be forced to rule the same on other substances that are FAR less harmful to society because legally they have to. right now many "free" countries are going against the law and against the constitution (or their equivalent) and they need to be legally held to it using the system to process all the bullshit that we call common sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutant Posted June 1, 2011 maybe all this makes sense to you because where you're coming from a state partly or fully functional and the state laws are self-arranged, which I am sure is the case with Canada. Where I am coming from, the church is still stuck with the state, you make religious oath in court, and the laws are imported from USA and EU when the big brother tell us to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
