1007 - hilarious

I thought the nanny episode was so funny. He really is the ultimate brat, so spoiled and manipulative and causes so much trouble.

After even the supernannies can't handle him, it was a dog trainer who put him in line. And how Cartman was yelling how he wasn't a dog as he jumped up and down for a piece of fried chicken. We all know how cruel Cartman is to the point of being a sociopath, and this line is great:

"I don't understand why you became a nanny. If you love children so much, how come you're not a mommy? You're sterile, is that it? No, that's too convenient of an excuse. The truth is nobody ever wanted to have babies with you, isn't that it? Always the mom's maid and never the mom? Must be hard on you, knowing that the years are ticking away, your friends all getting married and all the while your uterus is slowly shriveling away, drying up, becoming totally worthless. Yes, let the anger come! Strike me down while you can, but it won't make your dried-up ovaries any more fertile!"

yeah, Cartman's great. the names of drugs don't make you look cool though. lsd was developed as a weapon for use in war, and is used pretty much exactly as intended

take chemistry; find out how to draw the "diethylamide" part

On Thu, 04 May 2006 23:40:10 GMT, lysergic acid diethylamide wrote:

[email] wrote...

LSD was discovered, not invented, and it was discovered by a Swiss researcher at Sandoz who was simply looking for compounds in the ergot fungus that might have medicinal use. LSD-25 had actually been discovered several years before, it was only when Albert Hoffman accidentally ingested some while preparing a sample that its hallucinogenic properties were discovered. It just happened to be in WWII, but it was not invented as a weapon. After WWII the CIA did try to find ways to use it as a weapon.

LSD has to be my favorite drug of all time. The only thing that sucks is that purity of the street doses is unknown. There is no way to verify that the piece of blotter paper contains any LSD at all, much less how much is in the dose (50 micrograms seems to be typical). I personally think it is so beneficial to mental health that it should be added to the water supply like fluoride is added for dental health.

Drugs are bad m'kay?

"lysergic acid diethylamide" wrote in message news:8WM6g.73297$[email]...

Neil Coward wrote...

You just need some clear liquid to get your head straight.

On Fri, 05 May 2006 18:35:48 GMT, lysergic acid diethylamide wrote:

fluoride, a toxic byproduct of the aluminium industry, was used in prisoner of war camps to make the prisoners docile. it is known to decrease fertility. it is only claimed to have beneficial effects on the teeth of children below the age of 14. patients on dialysis must avoid tap water or the fluoride will kill them very quickly

On Sat, 6 May 2006 11:38:49 -0400, [email] wrote (in article ):

There is such a miniscule amount of fluoride added to tap water that I find it hard to believe there is some sort conspiracy going on. It's certainly not making anyone rich at these quantities and in amounts this small I doubt it has much effect on people's docility or fertility. Not every United States city fluoridates their water, so if it was some sort of national effort to affect the US population in some way then why isn't it a federal requirement for all US water supplies? And why would they allow bottled water to go unfluorinated? Not to mention the fact that there's no reason for some shadowy element to make us any more docile than tv and radio already does and there's no reason to make us any more infertile than synthetic hormone mimics in out environment already do.

Even your usage of the word "toxic" isn't quite correct. From wikipedia "A central concept of toxicology is that effects are dose-dependent; even water is toxic to a human in large enough doses, whereas for even a very toxic substance such as snake venom there is a dose for which there is no toxic effect detectable." So labeling flouride as "toxic" the way you did is inaccurate in the way you are using it. At what concentration are you claiming fluoride is toxic? Where is your peer-reviewed statistical evidence?

I don't wanna sound harsh here and I don't wanna sound like I'm saying there aren't real bad people doing real bad things, but claiming the sky is falling without backing it up with solid evidence is as bad as doing nothing at all. Fluoride may in fact be as bad as you say, but nobody will listen to you unless you back your statements up with hard facts and rigorous analysis. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

P.S. I don't even know why I'm wasting my energy. My guess is that you're probably either a troll or a person who isn't swayed by logic and reason. However I'm sure you'll make your best attempt to prove me wrong.

Nth Degree wrote:

No, probably just accuse you of being a liberal-commie-pinko-fag-etc. Guys like that don't try to prove anything - beyond the scope of their understanding.

OK, I'll reply to the flames here, and only here. Then I'll be away from this group until October or so, like most.

On Sat, 06 May 2006 08:17:03 GMT, Nth Degree wrote:

I just presented the facts (copied out again at the end of this post, so you can check). I said almost nothing about the reason for them.

And this from "Nth Degree", renowned toxicologist! I stand corrected, sir!

where has "national effort" come from?

who are "they"? the only responsibility *I* apportioned was the aluminum industry lobby who have an economic interest in fluoridisation

again, this is *your* baby...

Outstanding reasoning. Like "nukes kill, so biological weapons are A-OK".

Arsenic is toxic. Rat poison is toxic. Fluoride is toxic. Cyanide is toxic. These are true statements. Don't be pedantic! Perhaps you would like just a little cyanide in the water?

I was simply responding to a moron who said he wanted to put LSD in the water supply "like fluoride". It was too moronic to respond to directly , so I attacked the idea of forced medication, a very interesting subject

Many of people are interested in debunking the "fluoride is good for you" theory. I don't claim to be the guy with the one way to make everyone hear it.

That's like a journalist who says "sources suggest..." to degrade their subject without having any proof. Come toward the light...

This was a side-issue from a drugged-up nutcase, but the truth is, I've done pretty well. Don't be argumentative just for the sake of it. What is my crime here?

oh yes, and the fluoride is only supposed to be effective when it actually TOUCHES your teeth, not when it's being laboriously removed from your system by your organs, IF your organs are working perfectly

wrote in message news:[email]...

You are a raving loony. Many elements are toxic, they all occur in garden soil. All plants contain toxins, cyanide is a common one.

Only an enviro-crackpot thinks "death" whenever they hear "toxic".

In article , "Eric Gisin" wrote:

Well, life is toxic. It leads to death, and too much of it at once can kill you.

On Sat, 06 May 2006 15:05:14 -0400, Howard S Shubs wrote:

deep :)

In article , "[email]" wrote:

Heh :-) Maybe I should try making a .sig out of that. What the hell.

On Sat, 6 May 2006 13:52:53 -0400, Eric Gisin wrote (in article ):

I hate to break it to you, but there ARE trace amounts of cyanide in our environment, and yet we're all still alive. You need to do some more homework.

Nth Degree wrote in message news:[email]...

wikipedia "A

toxic

toxic

is

You twit, do you go around eating castor beans? How about munching on some Amanita Virosa? How about some industrial waste product dumped in your water supply? Fine by you? Glad it's working! What a freakin' fool!

On Sat, 6 May 2006 19:33:10 -0400, [email] wrote (in article ):

My time is too important to spend it arguing with you. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. Or you can keep arguing by yourself if you want, but I'm done discussing this topic.

[email] wrote:

LOL - you must wear a double tinfoil hat!

Always remember to preserve the purity of your natural bodily fluids.

Gen. J Ripper (deceased)

"Sparky Spartacus" wrote in message news:xp07g.121$[email]...

Let's hope not. A lot of so called tinfoil is actually ALUMINUM foil.

And aluminum absorption is now well linked to alhiemers, impotence, terminal flatulance, and unintended public urniation. So all those hats won't do any good at all.

add to that the fact that less than 5% of the water is drunk, you have the least efficient forced medication system in history. but the aluminum industry, who lobbied very hard for fluoridisation, hiring Sigmund Freud's son as a lobbyist, can get rid of their toxic, impossible-to-get-rid-of byproduct, for a profit

oh yes, and the fluoride is only supposed to be effective when it actually TOUCHES your teeth, not when it's being laboriously removed from your system by your organs, IF your organs are working perfectly

On Sat, 6 May 2006 12:08:36 -0400, [email] wrote (in article ):

To short circuit this whole off topic discussion I'm gonna post these links to wikipedia which lists every pro or con argument that any of us might make so that we don't need to repeat here what has already been argued a million different times in a millions different places.

Once Upon A Time Nth Degree wrote:

But Mr. Know-It-All, that trick *never* works!

** Captain Infinity ...looks like you're gonna need a new hat

On 6-May-2006, "[email]" wrote in message :

They're sapping our precious bodily fluids!

On Fri, 05 May 2006 18:21:29 -0700, [email] wrote:

Sheesh. Do you have some unreasonable fear of reading a book?

LSD was discovered by accident.

On Sat, 6 May 2006 00:17:43 -0400, AZ Nomad wrote (in article ):

In fact I saw a whole documentary on it and they interviewed the scientist who discovered it and did a recreation of his discovery with his voiceover of the story. He was working with this substance for some reason that had nothing to do with any possible psychological effects (I think it was as a possible antibiotic or something). They had no idea that in was a psychoactive chemical. In his experiments he unknowingly ingested some and was biking home and describes how he started to have a bizarre trip. He realized that these hallucinations must have been caused by this chemical that had inadvertently gotten into his body. It was only then that science discovered that LSD had any sort of psychotropic effects. Incidentally, he purposefully dosed himself a second time and had a bad trip.

On Sat, 6 May 2006 01:17:23 -0400, Nth Degree wrote (in article ):

Some of these details are bound to be slightly incorrect as I'm basing this on a documentary I saw a long time ago, but I know the basic premise is correct; Science was unaware that this chemical they knew about for a long time had psychoactive properties until this one particular scientist decided to research it and he accidentally got it in his system and tripped out.

There were trying to synthesis part of ergot, a fungus that grows on grain.

Lots of tin-foil hat kooks in the alt.* groups. South Park should do an episode.

"Nth Degree" wrote in message news:[email]...

Eric Gisin wrote in message news:[email]...

grain.

episode.

You sure are one of them. Now screw that foil down tighter as you brush your teeth and poison yourself with toxic waste flouride like a good little credulous hamburger.

I have seen your posts in can.politics, and it is obvious you are paranoid schizo.

"Detector" wrote in message news:[email]...

On Sat, 06 May 2006 04:17:43 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:

do you have some unreasonable fear of reading the original post? I didn't say anything about how it was discovered

On Sat, 06 May 2006 08:32:17 -0700, [email] wrote:

Look up the word develop. You seem to lack an understanding of something this basic. You cann't develop something you've already discovered.

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message news:[email]...

Years ago, people set out in ships to discover new lands. They couldn't develop them until they'd discovered them.

Now look up the word develop. You seem to lack an understanding of something this basic. You will see definitions such as:

"To bring from latency to or toward fulfillment" "To improve the quality of; refine" "To cause to become more complex or intricate; add detail and fullness to; elaborate"

Perhaps you're confusing "develop" with "create". Prior to something being created, it didn't exist. Prior to something being developed, it did exist but in a more primitive state.