View Full Version : Who is right?
REL0AD
26th April 2009, 04:50 PM
?????
Th0r
26th April 2009, 05:21 PM
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
The amount of chemical elements in existence in Space and around us means that it would be impossible for all chemicals to come from Space. Chemicals are produced in a range of means and come from lots of sources, therefore saying all chemicals come from one definitive source, and in the process confusing chemical elements with Fossil Fuels is wrong.
I'd analyse everything you two said to one another but frankly there's no translator available and I don't have time to kill.
REL0AD
26th April 2009, 05:26 PM
So I'm right?
Stone
26th April 2009, 10:33 PM
quarks -> particles -> atoms -> molecules
All plants are made of molecules, but many chemicals are made of just atoms (elements rather than compounds). Therefore, not all chemicals come from plants, but all plants do come from chemicals.
REL0AD
26th April 2009, 10:36 PM
Thankyou Stone.
Micro
27th April 2009, 11:11 PM
REL0AD's right, everything is chemical. Make hime explain noble gases and helium, which both react in no way with plants or anything living. And nearly everything can be made in a synthetic way. Everything.
And plants are just constructs made from chemicals, and plant's "live" thanks to a rather uncomplicated set of chemical reactions.
REL0AD
28th April 2009, 01:15 AM
REL0AD's right, everything is chemical.
Get in there. Btw Reedy is rorta member THE TWIST.
Also, this:
u hartles basterd i shal have u no my plants are the storongest natrual acuring halosanagenic
He's on about salvia here. I find it hard to belive it is the strongest natural halluniogen. Anyone care to help? - Apart from a sawn off shottie altering the way ya mind works eh? But aye, is this statement I made correct? I'm betting it is.
it is. anything that alters the way your mind or body works is a drug
This is correct right?
Twist
30th April 2009, 06:35 AM
Reloads right. Chemicals are two things, elements and compounds. Compunds are a mix of elements. Everything that will get you high is a chemical, and chemicals are in and of themselves seperate from a plant. Sure trees reform co2 oxygen that doesnt mean oxygen must grow from trees. Just as thc is seperate etc. etc.
Micro
30th April 2009, 01:59 PM
u hartles basterd i shal have u no my plants are the storongest natrual acuring halosanagenic
How bout DMT and it's naturally ocurring analogs?
I have herad numerous times that "DMT is the most potent naturally ocurring hallucinogen"
Stone
30th April 2009, 10:30 PM
Everybody reacts differently. While Salvia may be the most potent to one person, psilocybin might be the most potent to another.
Nox (ADVANCED)
1st May 2009, 12:34 AM
Everybody reacts differently.
QFT.
aurum est potestas
14th April 2010, 05:55 AM
Salvinorin A is one of the most potent naturally occurring psychoactive drugs known to date, with an effective dose in humans in the 200–1,000 μg range when smoked. In that way Salvinorin A's quantitative potency may be compared with a somewhat smaller dosage of LSD where 50–100 μg is usually considered an effective dosage), although it is important to note that the effect profile is significantly different than that of LSD and similar drugs, and has a different mechanism of action.
Salvinorin A is disputably the strongest naturally occuring hallucinogenic compound. Because it contains no nitrogen however it is not considered an alkaloid.
iceniner
14th April 2010, 08:35 AM
Someone needs to lay off the drugs.
_JT_
6th May 2010, 06:35 PM
Fuck me, this thread makes my brain bleed. Just trying to read it is hard work.
Th0r
6th May 2010, 06:50 PM
Fuck me, this thread makes my brain bleed. Just trying to read it is hard work.
I might translate it after I've placed 999 on speed dial in the event of haemorrhaging on my part.
_JT_
7th May 2010, 12:31 AM
It's just the complete lack of spelling ability... now I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed at the best of times but still, how can ANYONE really be that bad? The ignorance is just the icing on the fail-cake.
iceniner
7th May 2010, 03:10 AM
It's how chavs type. Reload is a higher class of chav in that he's capable of being intelligible. A great many of them aren't.
Saturday
7th May 2010, 08:53 AM
In terms of grammar, spelling, and overall clarity, I don't believe anyone is right (between Reedy and Reload).
However, it is an interesting conversation you start when talking about the origins of chemicals. First of all, "chemicals" are just the name we apply to things that are already in existence, whether the chemical exists as-is naturally or whether the elements which when combined form said chemical already exist, so the argument about what came first, the chicken or the egg, is moot.
This all brings to question humans and our role in the natural world and how we tend to view ourselves as seperate from the natural order of Earth. When something is synthetic, like plastic, we say it is man-made, which may be true, but we characterize this as unnatural, as opposed to something like an orange, which is completely natural (please no food additive counterpoints).
I tend to believe that we are more a part of the natural world than we would like to believe and that, in some ways, chemicals, technology, and the microscopic world are all just relatively new ways that we organize and rearrange things that ultimately already exist (granted, they may be dispersed), but we are really no different than a beaver taking various sticks and leaves from a forest and creating a dam from the materials, only we are dealing with many more materials and creating them for various other (mostly non-essential) reasons.
Then again, I also have a theory that humans are the result of something hitting earth (like an asteroid) that had enzymes or something similar that, when combined with the extremely basic life that already existed on earth, caused a more rapid evolution in certain gene pools. I don't have much to back it up, but, like I said, its a theory.
Th0r
7th May 2010, 08:54 AM
It's how chavs type. Reload is a higher class of chav in that he's capable of being intelligible. A great many of them aren't.
Almost everyone in that part of England dresses and talks like that, Iceniner. It's a bit like talking Cantanese to a Cat. If you don't speak the lingo, very few of them GET what you say.
iceniner
7th May 2010, 10:50 AM
What's interesting to me about it is that they're typically intelligent and well-educated compared to their US counterparts. With wiggers in the US (our equivalent) it can be very hard to get any complex idea across to them. I blame this on the education system here which is in shambles and deteriorating at an increasing rate in most urban areas.
Saturday
7th May 2010, 11:49 PM
Are you guys all English? Aside from the guy claiming to be from a third-world country.
By the way, you could live in Alabama or parts of New Jersey and have a legitimate claim to third-world status. So, if so, I understand.
iceniner
8th May 2010, 12:18 AM
< Not English.
I think jc might live in the Phillippines.
odin_dax
8th May 2010, 12:30 AM
American.
True Sounds
20th June 2010, 11:52 PM
fcor all LEGAL PURPOSES me too!(american)
Wherry
21st December 2010, 07:30 AM
Wow,I think you are right!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.