XPost: alt.support.depression, alt.support.schizophrenia, alt.bu   
   dha.short.fat.guy   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: being@apolka.sign   
      
   slider wrote:   
   > someone wrote:   
      
   >> Not sure what the point is at this point.   
   >   
   >### - (laughing) well that's not at all surprising, as you seem incapable   
   >of following very simple lines of thought without wandering all over the   
   >place away from them,   
      
   Seems, seems to me to be a good word to use.   
      
   Being accurate might not be something some people are,   
   at times, nor care to be, for the sake of a discussion.   
      
   >and then you turn around and ask: what were we   
   >talking about again? ahaha :)))   
      
   We did tend to drift quite a mite bit. :)))   
      
   It included, iirc, whether people   
   who have been diagnosed with a mental illness   
   were or are more or less capable than other people   
   to experience states of cconsciousness.   
      
   An average person was deemed the lowest of low   
   at one point which could be an other side track.   
      
   >in which case, all i can say is that IF you don't understand by now what   
   >it's all about, then i can't possibly explain it to you! it's clearly   
   >something beyond your ken...   
      
   Some of the items discussed thus far   
   included LSD and Ram Dass' guru, along with   
   abilities which were far beyond those   
   of most mortal people.   
      
   The experiment at Marsh Chapel was mentioned   
   to suggest how not all people get the same effect   
   when given a dose of a chemical.   
      
   Just as a conversation might not be an, actual   
   conversation, so to may the, same effect   
   not be the same as any effect at all.   
      
   Whether a substance is beneficial for people   
   who choose to function in a culture or for people who   
   seek to find different states of awareness, mystical, ecstatic   
   or religious types is subject to question, conversation, discussion.   
      
   >however, i originally joined this, erm, conversation (although it never   
   >actually got as far as actual conversation)   
      
   What your definition of, actual conversation is, is unknown to me.   
   Sometimes adjectives are used, e.g., real, true, and sew froth.   
      
   > to back-up the OP whom i felt   
   >wasn't given a fair shake, especially when some of the things he was   
   >saying imho actually had some merit when it comes to mental illness...   
      
   To insist a mushroom or an acid has some effect   
   on every body that takes it seemed to me to be   
   not quite the point from the very beginning.   
      
   For some people diagnosed with a mental illness   
   to take a trip might help. For others, not so much.   
      
   Set and setting doesn't guarantee an outcome.   
      
   Whether a so-called higher state of awareness   
   is better than a so-called normal state could also be   
   subject to discussion.   
      
   Whether a mental illness is a prerequisite was an   
   other topic touched up on in this thread.   
      
   >perforce i've tried to raise the issue he was referring to in order to   
   >demonstrate his naysayers being in error by debating the issues raised,   
      
   Some people with a different mind or brain from the norm   
   might be able to access states of being that are full   
   of wonder while others are unable to adjust.   
      
   >the only effort you've made, however, being to obfuscate/cloud the issue   
   >altogether by muddying the waters, a rather childish technique have   
   >encountered 100's of times over the years in various chatrooms & forums,   
      
   Not all effects of chemicals are wise, imo.   
      
   Water could be said to effect all physical bodies   
   who happen to have a drop on them or in them.   
      
   Sometimes water is necessary. Sometimes fatal.   
      
   >the reasons/excuses for it always being the same: they realise they've   
   >lost the argument very early-on and so seek to derail it altogether by   
   >repeatedly changing the subject,   
      
   To actually think, everyone, is affected by a chemical   
   and then ask for an example showing how not everyone is, and   
   then not accept what was shown appears to be what you did.   
      
   Why you would insist, everyone, is or isn't,   
   does or doesn't, suggests to me you over-generalized   
   at least once upon a time.   
      
   > in this instance to pedantically trifling   
   >over the words & terms used instead of sticking to the subject in hand (a   
   >grammarian? lol riiiight...)   
      
   It would have been easy to say, most,   
   many, practically everyone, and let it go.   
      
   What your point was, to insist, everyone   
   is effected by mushrooms or acid is odd, imo.   
      
   >i.e., it's very difficult for 'some' people to be 'able' to admit they   
   >were ever wrong   
      
   Apparently.   
      
   > so they resort to evasion   
      
   Qualifications vary.   
      
   > and to continually changing the subject,   
      
   To stay on-topic may be difficult for some people   
   some times and perhaps this is one of those times.   
      
   You appear to be on a side-track.   
      
   > all the time thinking they're quite clever to do this, only it   
   >ain't clever at all, it's actually rather revealing instead as to the   
   >inner state of that person's being...   
      
   If your inner state compels you to debate   
   and not admit to an generalization, over-generalizing,   
   then apparently that is your inner state of being.   
      
   >best advise therefore is: if there's something you maybe disagree with in   
   >future, and there will be, then to ask questions about it first 'before'   
      
   That was done.   
   An example was asked for and provided.   
      
   >just dismissing it out of hand because you just don't happen to like the   
   >sound of it, and coz that's just very dumb ya see, really dumb, ignorant   
   >being a better term for it, and no one's ever gonna entertain such   
   >nonsense for very long unless they themselves are as-confused.   
      
   Epistemology might be unfamiliar to you   
   in terms of knowing how, everyone, will be, do, etc.   
      
   If you are confused about logic   
   then you are confused about logic.   
      
   Rhetoric and hyperbole can be fun.   
      
   In terms of topics, newsgroups usually have them.   
   No idea what group you are cross-posting from.   
      
   Do you have or have you had depression, schizophrenia   
   or an interest in Buddhism, Taoism or Castaneda?   
      
   >so see ya "good 'ole mr normal" hehe + watch out for that next lamppost in   
   >case you walk straight into it and go: Bonk! which, let's face it IS   
   >highly likely considering your lack of clear seeing   
   >   
   >Bonk! (oop's too late haha) :)   
      
   - thanks! Cheers!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)