Talk:Methamphetamine/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Disturbed[edit]

Ummm, I just checked out the Conservapedia page on methamphetamine and am very disturbed. Why do they think it is necessary for homeskewlers to know the process for cooking meth? Maybe we should contact the FBI and mention that Assfly is providing minors with a recipe and instructions for the manufacture of a schedule II narcotic?

That killed me when I checked if they had a page (I think I added the cp template here), convincing me we should send people to their article. humanUser talk:Human 10:18, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Strangely enough, the meth article was altered today to remove the 'synthesis' section. Another FBI incident? — Unsigned, by: Reddurango95 / talk / contribs

Damn, now we'll have to copy it and provide it here. With due credit given, of course :) humanUser talk:Human 16:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, in reality, the meth is in the middle, and phe in on the left and the amine is one the right and the the extra "t" and "am" kina fill up space... Sterileminichatroomthingy 16:56, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I'm a total noob. I only made this account because I am FURIOUS. I used to work out in the middle of the methbelt. I've seen 20 year olds with teeth so dead that the infection leeched through the bone and caused their face to collapse and kids that live in the same house as a basement meth lab and these zealot pricks have had an incredibly accurate recipe for meth up since NOVEMBER! That's almost 3 months! It's one thing to piss in the face of the entire scientific endeavor and claim Jeebus told you to, but for CHRIST'S SAKE! I could look the other way at dinosaurs with fucking pony saddles but this is criminal and I think we should do something about itReddurango95 17:25, 14 January 2008 (EST).

It's accurate? What did they do, google it? I sure as hell wouldn't try a science experiment promoted by those homskollars. Sorry to hear about your experiences, I hope our snarky approach does not minimize the scourge you have seen. Of course, we do say "speed kills". I stuffed their recipe in a subarticle. humanUser talk:Human 17:07, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I have no clue how with the general disdain for science, but yes it is in the ball park. I wouldn't like to sample what they have at the bottom of the bucket after four hours, but it sure as hell ain't bubblegum. This recipe leaves out some of the skill that a practiced cook would have, but this is more than enough to make a big fuming batch of poison. Besides my general eye popping FUROR, I actually enjoy the snarky approach. You know, I just don't get it. The Trustworthy Encyclopedia, which is aimed at children mind you, which refuses to have an article on the penis mind you, which can't stand the mere mention of a boob mind you, basically gives out the recipe for speed. My mind is just fucking boggled. Seriously, did noone stop to ask WWRD? Reddurango95 17:25, 14 January 2008 (EST)
A bit of research turned up this:
US Code Title 21, Chapter 13, §843: (b) Communication facility
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to use any communication facility in committing or in causing or facilitating the commission of any act or acts constituting a felony under any provision of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter. Each separate use of a communication facility shall be a separate offense under this subsection. For purposes of this subsection, the term “communication facility” means any and all public and private instrumentalities used or useful in the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds of all kinds and includes mail, telephone, wire, radio, and all other means of communication.
I don't have a lot of experience reading US law, but it seems to me that providing a freaking recipe is on at least some level equal to 'facilitating' the production of that stuff. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:48, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Then we sic the FBI on them. I mean, really. A golden oppurtunity to take them down. Let's not miss it. --"CURtalk 14:24, 8 February 2009 (EST)


rant[edit]

you guys are a bunch of retards you talk about talking st8 with the facts you should know that clean methamphetamine is one of the safest drugs to take one cant deny the empirical evidence as to the benefits of meth, its spiritual benefits. you havent listened to music til u have on meth. you are all about the facts and scientific proof and dont like shit cooked up by religios ppl and the media. Meth is a prescription drug in the US used to treat ADHD. stupid ignorant ppl - Unsigned by 98.223.168.66, 12:23, 25 November 2008

Hmmm... no citations. Rant fail. Sterilerationalize 08:33, 25 November 2008 (EST)
3/10. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 09:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Would have been perhaps 5/10 if no punctuation was used... ħumanUser talk:Human 18:13, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Lets see... noticable lack of citations in any way... minus three. Lack of caps after... one... two... three periods... that is a minus two. There is a noticiable lack of a period after "safest drugs to take", and a horrible shortening of "people" into "ppl"... minus three. He managed to get ADHD into all caps... plus one there. Oh hELL no, did he replace "you" with "u"?! UGH, minus 50, right there. Your rant fails so badly, fail doesn't even begin to describe it. Cheers. Javasca₧ Llamabean.gifLlamabean.gifLlamabean.gif

My rating:

  • Not knowing how to use paragraphs- -10
  • Lolspeak and internet slang- +5
  • Swearwords and ad homs- +10

FINAL RATING: 5 (FAIL, BUT NOT EPIC FAIL) --"CURtalk 14:31, 8 February 2009 (EST)

As convincing rational discourse, the Silmarillion of fail. As convincing demonstration of 'these are your critical capacities on meth', 99.44% pure win.