home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   rec.drugs.misc      Misc. recreational drugs      5,419 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 4,012 of 5,419   
   Vomit.Breath@BitchFace.com to rfgdxm@SPAMSUCKSmochamail.com   
   Re: DXM News: DXM abuse said to be about   
   08 Jan 04 18:32:38   
   
   XPost: alt.drugs.psychedelics, alt.drugs, alt.drugs.rfg   
   XPost: rec.drugs.psychedelic   
      
   On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:13:07 -0500, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"   
    wrote:   
      
   >Vomit.Breath@BitchFace.com wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:44:36 -0500, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"   
   >>  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>> Talk your shit fuck bag, there are a lot of deaths and ER visits   
   >>>> that you are direectly and indirectly linked to.  I hope you feel   
   >>>> proud and this new level of destruction that you have helped be a   
   >>>> part of.   
   >>>   
   >>>   Proof of that allegation, please?   
   >>   
   >> Ok, your website, and your posts here, and the rising numbers of vists   
   >> in the ER.   
   >   
   >  Did you read the original post:   
   >   
   >"Leah Young, director of SAMHSA media relations, explains that the agency's   
   >Drug Abuse Warning Network monitors several hospital emergency rooms for   
   >reports of drug-related visits. The network estimates suggest that about   
   >2,000 people using DXM end up in emergency rooms each year. While that   
   >number peaked at 2,311 visits in 2002, there's been no statistically   
   >significant increase since 1994."   
   >   
   >   According to the US government, there has been no statistically   
   >significant increase in ER visits due to DXM since 1994. I got on the   
   >Internet in 1997.   
      
   And we all know how reliable, accurate, honest and trustworthy our   
   government is, NOT!   
      
   So you found one artical (your using to promote DXM's abuse) that   
   loosely supports the '94 claim,  Big deal.  I work with large   
   databases in a very large company which is used by various types of   
   analysts and I know they can make any report come out the way I want   
   it, so this really doesn't mean anything other than someone wrote a   
   report to appear favorable.  I don't trust it.  Lets say for the sake   
   of arguement that they got it right for once, which I highly doubt.   
   Then I say, why isn't it lower now than in '94?  It's b/c of shit for   
   brains ass holes like you that have perpetuated the problem.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca