mushrooms enhance the Owens Corning museum, btw.....

Thanks you gave me the warm fuzzes.

You don't have to bans us. You all eventually will were us down to a nub with your crazy thoughts that we will just stop showing up like Quantum mushroom.

1 down 2 to go.

Once we leave you can have milk and cookies and celebrate. But do me a favor give @VoodooV the biggest cookie.

Interesting. First time I've seen a water jet turn into a mushroom cloud!

Why would you consider a child who obviously loves to perform, having such a high level of eidetic ability with so obscure a choice of a piece by such a youngster exploitation? It's not like she can do anything but develop more confidence and vocal skills having done so. Is she making NIKEs in some sweatshop in Kuala Lumpur or involved in child prostitution in Dubai? Fuck no, she's entertaining a huge audience with her performance of music.

Jeeez artician, over-thinking it a bit aren't we?

Agreed, these shows are crap for the most part, but I have a hard-on for hating television because so many people are programmed by it to become human mushrooms.

What the fuck is a troll and MY GOD!!? Aren't we the smart-ass.

Fitting too, that my last power-point earned trough resurrecting the dead vids was given to Januari, my comment applauded by some of the more self-aware individuals on the site, and you come in to do what you do best, be that actual troll that you are. I would like to discuss it with you at arm's length over broken glass but, you have chosen to ignore yourself so, round and round and motherfucking round your own, pathetic, dysfunction.

Thank you with a personal hard-on to see me burn because of your inability to process constructive criticism. We ALLLL love your contributions of video content and selective bullying as well, newtboy. You may well benefit from licking the glands of a few psychoactive frogs, maybe pop a few mushrooms?? Know thyself, motherfuckers.

He said jokingly...give me a fucking break!!? Hiding behind an invocation to avoid prosecution-Are you not, in doing so repeatedly, implicating yourself??

Fuck him once, shame on you....

"Snort... snuffle... mmm... slop... snort... mmm... mushrooms.... *THWACK!* ... snuffle... snort... snuffle... mmm... smells like marijuana and doritos... ohm nom nom"

...they ate Infected Mushroom?

For more than 20 years this was my favorite 'group' of musical artists. Then... they just stopped trying...?
I don't read interviews or keep up on any news outside of an artists album releases, but they went from revolutionizing (and I don't use that word lightly) electronic music with Classical Mushroom, to discovering whole new landscapes of sound, and bordering electro-pop, with Converting Vegetarians, and after that everything they released was unimaginative, repetitive, droning drivel. What happened?!

That was pretty cool. They sound like they sampled some Infected Mushroom at some point.

Laws must be reactionary, because you should not be punished for harms that you haven't yet committed.
'Imagined future harms' are a poor reason to take action against anyone.
Fundamentally, you're not in charge of other people's imagination. That's their business, not yours.

Inevitability is not an issue, incidents are inevitable for all drivers, without exception, so long as they keep driving.
Any non-zero probability will have an incident, given enough time.

Every driver is unique, and it is not deterministic that "driver A + 3 beers" is worse than "driver B".
It's not deterministic that driver B has a lower probability of incident.

These guys were good enough to get a license, and are legally 'suitable' to drive.
They are above the "absolute bar" determining 'ok' or 'not ok' to drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeIJ0kQtLyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I-OqmQc5hI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiRDv4nxe64
(Seriously, watch them end to end... it's amazing.)

Imagine the drivers that you know. Do you think a few beers will get them even close to as bad as the people in the links? Because it's enough to get them a DUI. Hence the irrationality of just saying "drink = unsuitable to drive".

There are lots things that impact your cognitive function.
too tired
too excited
too bored
too entertained
too preoccupied with memories
too preoccupied with anticipation
etc, etc, etc...
A driver at 90% attention due to these reasons is considered ok, but a driver at 95% attention [for whatever reason] ... that just happened to drink alcohol ... is a criminal. Again, irrationality.

The fact that you're operating in a diminished state /specifically/ due to alcohol is not meaningful.
How much you are diminished [regardless of why] is what matters - but that isn't even in the drinking and driving public discussion.
Heck, some people aren't even prepared when at 100% attention and 100% sober (like the folks in the links).

I generally dislike how unprepared drivers are.
Just being able to drive around a few blocks, parallel park, and answer a few questions from a booklet you just read 5 minutes prior, is crap criteria.
IMO, it shouldn't even be criteria until much later.
IMO, people should be able to proficiently autocross in the wet before they are even given a chance to begin learning the road rules.

IMO, people consider driving a necessity (which it is if you want a normal life), and they throw driving into the same bucket as walking.
Something they need to do every day, it's mundane, nothing special, nothing worth concerning yourself about.
If they have an "accident" (the term accident should really be "operator error" 99% of the time), they even get offended if you say that they screwed up.
Like as if it's just an "Oh well, shit happens" sort of thing, and blaming them for what they did is profane.

At the same time, there's a religion of "drinking and driving hate" that has mushroomed into something not far from crazies frothing at the mouth.
"He drank... and drove! Burn him! Burn him!" ...
Imagine being the person that was arrested, watching people talk to you like you're the antichrist himself ... and you never even hurt anyone. Discussing amongst themselves 'what they need to do to you'.

Punishing only harm has two benefits :
A) It focuses on real victims.
B) It only involves people who were demonstrably not suitable drivers (the harm is the demonstration) - without any emotional bias for the reason behind the unsuitability.

Using the law for deterrence is possibly even illegal in itself (If I had my way, it would be seen as so).
There is supposed to be "no cruel and unusual punishment".
If you ask "what makes is it cruel/unusual?" - the answer will be that it causes excessive suffering.
Deterrence consists of punishing people in excess (making examples), in the hopes that it scares 3rd parties.
So then the idea is that the suffering should be in proportion to the crime.
Making examples, is by definition, punishing in excess of what is deserved.
DUI laws are by design an exercise in exactly this.

-scheherazade

@bcglorf

coming from the sifter who states,and i quote:
"Oh, and he thinks the Iraq "problem" was created by America in the last decade. America's role started with support for Saddam, and from there 99% of the "problem" with Iraq needs be laid at Saddams feet for the decades of brutal repression destruction of Iraqi society that he committed. All that damage had everything to do with how horrific and ugly Iraq is today."

i think maybe you should do a bit of research before you throw broad generalizations out there.
i.e: how the sift embraces something.what are we? borg?

so you choose this thread to continue your berating of people who happen to disagree with you.

so let me be clear.
all those examples in your incomplete list are proven facts.
F.A.C.T.S
there is NO concrete evidence assad's regime is responsible.
there is suspicion.
some information implicates.
but to use the 2003 bush administration jargon,there is no smoking gun that led to a mushroom cloud.

and here we are 10 years later.
6 million displaced.
over a half million dead.
a culture practically destroyed.
a population in tatters and government ineffectual.
all based on a LIE.

so those of us suggesting non-intervention or diplomacy are assholes?

look at what YOU are suggesting!
bomb bomb bomb

so let me ask YOU.
what do you think bombing syria will do?

*edit-and who the fuck is giving assad the "benefit of the doubt"? so because people are being cautious in a complicated issue all of sudden they are fans of a brutal dictator?
fucking seriously?

I think you'd have to try it firsthand. I don't know, either. But it is not like other tryptamines even if they share molecular structure. NN-DMT is unlike them all.

Like Joe Rogan said: "Mushrooms X 1,000,000 + Aliens = DMT"

Why do people see them and why do they "teach" people things. It's a good question. Maybe it is what McKenna said "The After-Life Machinery" or maybe it is very deep in the subconscious.

It doesn't really matter if it is "real" or not. It could drive a person crazy thinking about it after they have seen it "for real". What matters, is here is a deep mystery that anyone can experience for themselves, and it's fairly... beyond imagination.

That's exactly my issue with it. It's an expensive stopgap that will be appropriated by the military almost instantly.
General X: "Hey, we'd really like to drop a nuke on Iraq, but the radioactive fallout will raise a real shitstorm of bad press."
Aide Y: "How about that big mass-driver over there? Same damage potential, but no fallout."
General X: "Well I'll be..."

and two hours later, we have mushroom clouds.

We don't need that, no matter how much it'll help fill in the gap for a few years.

She probably <3s eating mushrooms too.