That was pretty hilarious too, to be fair.mandalorian2298 wrote:Best Prank Ever: Hectar convincing Whump that he became a Mod.
Moderator: Community Team
You do know what addiction means do you ?Plutoman wrote:I don't see a difference. But arguing against a whole board of them is useless, as you and the rest are not going to get off the addiction due to the words of someone else online.Dancing Mustard wrote:Whoopsie!Plutoman wrote:I'm getting the impression that a majority of the population here are drug addicts...
Looks like you mispelt 'casual occasional users' as 'addicts'... how embarassing for you.
I have thought about it, still don't see a difference. Like I said, it's worthless arguing about it with a whole forum of druggies, so I am going to stop posting about it. Kinda ruined the forum for me thought to come on and find half of them are drug addicts.The1exile wrote:Then stop typing 100,000 posts on the subject and think about it.Plutoman wrote:I don't see a difference.
No... ignorant conservatives usually don't.Plutoman wrote:I don't see a difference.
Actually I think it's the bit where you don't have a clue about the reality of the topic you're considering discussing that makes the enterprise useless... the fact that we all disagree with your uninformed and unrealistic viewpoint that appears to have absolutely no anchorage in fact or truth, is pretty much by-the-by.Plutoman wrote:But arguing against a whole board of them is useless.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Oh, hang on... I see what the problem here is: You're actually an imbecile.Plutoman wrote:If everyone here wasn't addicted to drugs, they wouldn't use them.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Thats pretty f'n funny but would hate for it to happen to me. I wanna try this at work now, lol.hiitsmestevie1 wrote:i have a family full of pranksters. but i think the worst was katsup packets uner the little prongs on a toilet seat .. (so when someone sits down ,the katsup squirts out..(onto the walls,and their clothing.) hard for me to explain.. but everyone seems to think it was funny as heck. so my dad had to do one up,and use mustard packets at his work. im sure his employees loved him for that one!
No you don't know what addiction means; what you are talking about; or the meaning of the cosmos. And do you know what? it's waiting to share its secrets with you.Plutoman wrote:I have thought about it, still don't see a difference. Like I said, it's worthless arguing about it with a whole forum of druggies, so I am going to stop posting about it. Kinda ruined the forum for me thought to come on and find half of them are drug addicts.The1exile wrote:Then stop typing 100,000 posts on the subject and think about it.Plutoman wrote:I don't see a difference.
And yes, comic boy, I do know what addiction means. If everyone here wasn't addicted to drugs, they wouldn't use them.

The point you've missed is that everyone on drugs claims that - most people claim they cna avoid the addiction in the first place when they try them. And always, in every single case I've seen (not a small amount, either), they've been an addict that didn't realize it. It's not something that you notice right away. It's not something you notice at all until you try to get off the drugs.Dancing Mustard wrote: Here's a teeny-tiny clue to helping you see the dichotomoy though: It's kind of hard to be an 'addict' if you're not actually addicted to something.
Or is your experience of prohibited substances so limited that you actually imagine it's impossible to use a 'drug' without becoming instantly dependant upon it?
I know quite a bit about the subject, and the fact that you're trying to deny it all tells me quite a bit. I'm guessing you know how to get them and smoke them, and that's probably about it. And bringing up the fact that most of you disagree? Invalid. Considering everyone disagreeing is in the same situation as you.Dancing Mustard wrote:Actually I think it's the bit where you don't have a clue about the reality of the topic you're considering discussing that makes the enterprise useless... the fact that we all disagree with your uninformed and unrealistic viewpoint that appears to have absolutely no anchorage in fact or truth, is pretty much by-the-by.
It's not ignorant when all the signs are thereDancing Mustard wrote:Anyway, until next time, have fun in your fantastical narcophobic world... but try to lay off the 'j00 R ADDICTS!!!1' bollocks for the while; it's not only woefully ignorant and inaccurate of you to use the word, but it's also mildly insulting to those you're addressing.
Considering you just mentioned that calling you an addict was mildly insulting, this seems slightly hypocritical to me.Dancing Mustard wrote:Oh, hang on... I see what the problem here is: You're actually an imbecile.
Quite incorrect comparisons. None of those activities are addictive at all. Drugs produce a physiological need for them which most people can't feel unless they try to quit.Dancing Mustard wrote:You do realise that there are reasons for doing things that don't involve being addicted to them, right? Or does it also follow that whenever I drink a can of coke I'm only doing it because I'm 'addicted'? What about when I change my cat's litter tray, am I 'addicted' to that? Why is it that you seem to assume that banned substances are only indulged in because a user is automatically 'addicted', but that this isn't the case with all other substances (the non-banned ones)?
Dancing Mustard wrote:Whoah there Pluto! Don't think about touching your keyboard to reply! By using it you're just indulging your addiction to pressing its buttons.
Yes, I do happen to know what addiction means. I did research on drugs, as my family does foster care, and we had several druggies come into our household. Oddly, they were addicted, but always denied it, regardless of how much they tried to get more drugs. They also tried to defend their reasons for having the drugs. Seems to be the same thing here.heavycola wrote:No you don't know what addiction means; what you are talking about; or the meaning of the cosmos. And do you know what? it's waiting to share its secrets with you.
Just do it, man. Give in. Join the gang. Holding out against peer pressure is not 'cool', it's stupid. This forum is one big drugfest. I'm high right now, and have been for days. And you need to make a choice. Stop posting here, or get with the program.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
And everybody who has a beer is an alcoholic I suppose you silly man.Plutoman wrote:I have thought about it, still don't see a difference. Like I said, it's worthless arguing about it with a whole forum of druggies, so I am going to stop posting about it. Kinda ruined the forum for me thought to come on and find half of them are drug addicts.The1exile wrote:Then stop typing 100,000 posts on the subject and think about it.Plutoman wrote:I don't see a difference.
And yes, comic boy, I do know what addiction means. If everyone here wasn't addicted to drugs, they wouldn't use them.
Hmmm, that's an interesting but seperate issue... and one I suspect is best saved for a whole new thread.Napoleon Ier wrote:And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Don't be silly, alcohol is not a drug.comic boy wrote:And everybody who has a beer is an alcoholic I suppose you silly man.Plutoman wrote:I have thought about it, still don't see a difference. Like I said, it's worthless arguing about it with a whole forum of druggies, so I am going to stop posting about it. Kinda ruined the forum for me thought to come on and find half of them are drug addicts.The1exile wrote:Then stop typing 100,000 posts on the subject and think about it.Plutoman wrote:I don't see a difference.
And yes, comic boy, I do know what addiction means. If everyone here wasn't addicted to drugs, they wouldn't use them.
...wishful thinking indeed there HS; but I've certainly got my fingers crossed.HungrySomali wrote:How do you know, you could get hit by a bus tomorrowPlutoman wrote:
I've got a good life ahead of me
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Well yes when you actually pay tax then you could argue that and throw in those who eat,drink and smoke to excess if you like. However the point we are making is that everybody who takes ' drugs ' is not an addict and it is profoundly stupid to argue otherwise.Napoleon Ier wrote:And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.
That was Unhinged Melody, by the Self-righteous BrotherNapoleon Ier wrote:And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.

I do. I earn money. I spend it. And 17.5% goes to Gordon's slack jawed bespectacled side kick in n. 11.comic boy wrote:Well yes when you actually pay tax then you could argue that and throw in those who eat,drink and smoke to excess if you like. However the point we are making is that everybody who takes ' drugs ' is not an addict and it is profoundly stupid to argue otherwise.Napoleon Ier wrote:And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.
heavycola wrote:I actually converted around page 198. Unfortunately, I converted to satanism.Snorri1234 wrote:Man, this thread was great. A whopping 230 pages with noone changing their viewpoint.
VAT is a sales tax on certain items , if you dont like it then refrain from purchasing those itemsNapoleon Ier wrote:I do. I earn money. I spend it. And 17.5% goes to Gordon's slack jawed bespectacled side kick in n. 11.comic boy wrote:Well yes when you actually pay tax then you could argue that and throw in those who eat,drink and smoke to excess if you like. However the point we are making is that everybody who takes ' drugs ' is not an addict and it is profoundly stupid to argue otherwise.Napoleon Ier wrote:And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.