advanced drug discussion subforum for nfhc

[Rizzo in a box]

This is one subforum that I think we could really really use and I know of several people off of the top of my head that would both contribute & enjoy browsing it. Sometimes I'd like to post lots of random interesting studies about drugs but I'd feel like I was cluttering up NFHC.

this might have been suggested before. either way, I think it's a damn good idea.

[Rizzo in a box]

no, not at all. f&b is for chemistry, I'm talking more about pharmacology.

[T.K. Baha]

This would go better on Bluelight (yeah I know I hate that place too) or Drugs Forum. The majority of drug discussion here isn't very scientific.

[InspiredByMe]

Bluelight has Blacklight for their advanced discussion.

NFHC could really use this, I see a lot of knowledge and maybe more text files coming out of this.

[Slave of the Beast]

No doubt the OP would use it for sharing his 'secret knowledge'.

Lol, why not?

[Nolte]

That's a good idea. I'd be doing alot of reading in there.

[Virus]

There is nothing advanced about drug addicts talking about pseudo chemistry + pharmacology on meth induced rants.

[Headspin]

I support this idea.

[BungHole]

There is nothing advanced about drug addicts talking about pseudo chemistry + pharmacology on meth induced rants.

Yeah.....Okay......

[kervin]

There is nothing advanced about drug addicts talking about pseudo chemistry + pharmacology on meth induced rants.

this is one of the reasons i only go to nfhc for the lulz, but if you browse around there are a few posters that have the background for chemistry discussion, and i think if we had a subforum that encompasses pharmacology and some biochemistry we could attract enough of the good posters to hold constructive conversation. I know next to nothing about pharmacology, and would really appreciate the opportunity to absorb

[Headspin]

Yeah.....Okay......

this

[Virus]

this is one of the reasons i only go to nfhc for the lulz, but if you browse around there are a few posters that have the background for chemistry discussion, and i think if we had a subforum that encompasses pharmacology and some biochemistry we could attract enough of the good posters to hold constructive conversation. I know next to nothing about pharmacology, and would really appreciate the opportunity to absorb

Name a few.

[Rizzo in a box]

Name a few.

JoePedo, Hydro, BungHole, nshanin, stateofhack, mandelbrots uncle, myself(more on the pharmacological side than the chemical), and quite a few others but those are the ones that are off the top of my ecstasy addled head.

[kervin]

Name a few.

joepedo hydroponicchronic bunghole for a few, some of the others from f+b regularly post in nfhc. although i lack a background in pharmacology. biochem is an academic interest for me, i would appreciate a subforum to discuss.

pharmacology + biochem subforum ftw :thumbsup:

many of the posters on this forum went or are in school for chemistry. no doubt the creation of a pharm/biochem subforum would attract those who dont regularly post in nfhc as well as those that already do

[Virus]

JoePedo, Hydro, BungHole, nshanin, stateofhack, mandelbrots uncle, myself(more on the pharmacological side than the chemical), and quite a few others but those are the ones that are off the top of my ecstasy addled head.

joepedo hydroponicchronic bunghole for a few, some of the others from f+b regularly post in nfhc. although i lack a background in pharmacology. biochem is an academic interest for me, i would appreciate a subforum to discuss.

pharmacology + biochem subforum ftw :thumbsup:

So basically you're trying to justify an entire new forum that Flasks and Beakers + Math and Science already covers by using primarily moderators of the flasks and beakers forums?

Okay I'll take Slave's stance on this one. Don't whine when I make fun of all the chemistry and pharm that doesn't work or point out your 'experiments' were flawed in addition to the lab report. :thumbsup:

[Rizzo in a box]

So basically you're trying to justify an entire new forum that Flasks and Beakers + Math and Science already covers by using primarily moderators of the flasks and beakers forums?

The spice must flow.

The point is, there are enough people here that can talk about it & there are a lot more people that have a casual interest and would probably bring the forum traffic. I can't really think of a single reason to be against this, NFHC has needed this for a while.

[BungHole]

Okay I'll take Slave's stance on this one. Don't whine when I make fun of all the chemistry and pharm that doesn't work or point out your 'experiments' were flawed in addition to the lab report. :thumbsup:

Will it be well educated constructive criticism?:)

[Daran]

Against better judgment, I'm going to have to vote yes for this idea.
Far too often NFHC (and Zoklet as a whole, but that's a different story) has threads that contain either the potential for good discussion but lack of interest/replies, or ever so rarely a good topic and good discussion. What devalues these threads is the amount of threads with topics that have been discussed frequently in the past, troll threads, and dare I say (and I shouldn't because there is no such thing) stupid questions mainly resulting from the failure to take ten seconds to google/erowid said question.

But, before anyone can justify adding a new sub forum for technical discussions that could very well fit in existing forums, I'd like to bring the following questions to the table:


How, and by whom will it be moderated? How strictly will it be moderated? How often will it be used? How useful will it's existence be? Will it benefit the community as a whole or just serve to entertain a few specific members? How can it be moderated in a way that it stays accessible to your average member for open discussion without detracting from technical discussion or discouraging people from asking questions? Will it generate more traffic for the site?


The answer to this is Drugs.

[Fish]

I don't know how badly we need another subforum for Nfhc, but the biggest problem in my mind is always that people always want the forum first, and then just hope that content will follow. If it can be demonstrated that there's a need for the forum (ie, lots of threads that would probably be moved into it upon the new forum's creation), then the chances of the forum being made will be much higher.

But I think that if we're just creating a new forum and hoping that users will feel like contributing, I'd vote no. It's not just my call, but if you talk to the mods of the forum and perhaps come up with an idea of what will be moved in there on day 1 (either mark them archived or make an index thread), it'll be much easier to justify the creation of the forum.

I'm all for promoting technical discussion of various topics, but I'm not sure why this content can't just be posted in the normal NFHC forum.

[Rizzo in a box]

I don't know how badly we need another subforum for Nfhc, but the biggest problem in my mind is always that people always want the forum first, and then just hope that content will follow. If it can be demonstrated that there's a need for the forum (ie, lots of threads that would probably be moved into it upon the new forum's creation), then the chances of the forum being made will be much higher.

But I think that if we're just creating a new forum and hoping that users will feel like contributing, I'd vote no. It's not just my call, but if you talk to the mods of the forum and perhaps come up with an idea of what will be moved in there on day 1 (either mark them archived or make an index thread), it'll be much easier to justify the creation of the forum.

I'm all for promoting technical discussion of various topics, but I'm not sure why this content can't just be posted in the normal NFHC forum.

All valid points, but I believe I can demonstrate that there are in fact plenty of threads, users, and posts to justify a more advanced subforum for NFHC. I'm a bit tied up for time at this exact moment but maybe tonight I'll have a chance to, if I don't get tied down and fed some supposedly European acid. om nom nom. but anyway...

The main reason it would be nice to have it separate from the main NFHC is because of the general amount of trolls, kidiots, and failure fucktards that inhabit it. The subforum could be more serious & strictly regulated, although I think to a fairly large extent it would regulate itself as long as the dumb mother fuckers know that the mods there will pwn with no mercy. Many of the more intelligent "trolls" (as in, users that contribute but also like some lulz) like Hydro or BungHole have said that they refuse to troll the more srsbsns forumz because of their respect for science.

NFHC is a fairly large forum that gets a fair amount of traffic and it's very easy for a good thread, or post, to go completely unnoticed because of the clutter. The fact is, I think that having a more advanced subforum might even bring in entirely new (or more accurately, might lure back old) members...If they see a section devoted entirely to more intelligent discussion of drugs with a lot less kidiot bullshit then they will be much more likely to want to participate.

[Virus]

All valid points, but I believe I can demonstrate that there are in fact plenty of threads, users, and posts to justify a more advanced subforum for NFHC. I'm a bit tied up for time at this exact moment but maybe tonight I'll have a chance to, if I don't get tied down and fed some supposedly European acid. om nom nom. but anyway...

The main reason it would be nice to have it separate from the main NFHC is because of the general amount of trolls, kidiots, and failure fucktards that inhabit it.

If they see a section devoted entirely to more intelligent discussion of drugs with a lot less kidiot bullshit then they will be much more likely to want to participate.

See this discussion:

So Linus Pauling, have you verified that what you were doing actually meant anything and wasn't complete and utter gibberish?

So do you think he even knows how to figure out resonance structures?

Hey, I'm holding out for a full retrosynthetic analysis.

That reminds me, I've got a good book you might be interested in:

Advanced Organic Synthesis: Methods and Techniques

Richard S. Monson

Whoa, whoa, whoa, what's all this chemistry mumbo jumbo? Rizzo doesn't need chemical bonds! He's psychic!:mad:

lol, whatever.

Rizzo! Don't just sit there and take that!

With a a little electronegativity, you too can make it seem as though you can violate the octet rule!;)

I've got plenty of things I'd rather do than argue with two of the biggest assholes on this site (virus & slave).

What a shame, I'd opened my book of 'secret mystical knowledge' on to a blank page ready to take notes and everything.

Funny thing is, it's full of blank pages.

Nah, I'm pretty sure it's because you realize that upon examination your drug inspired 'secret knowledge' will prove to be little more than meth-induced rambling.

Pretty much what Slave said. I see all sorts of shit in my head without drugs. I write some of it down, draft it, then test it to see what works and what doesn't. for example these started in my head:

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo99/Virus_/Rockerarm5.jpg

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo99/Virus_/rockerarm4.jpg

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo99/Virus_/rookproto.jpg

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo99/Virus_/IMG_3155.jpg

The difference is I actually go and try what I see, don't parade it around as some sort of secret knowledge when it is infact just bullshit like Rizzo does. Granted, that's the typical drug addict for you.

The scientific method is only as limited as the one who wields it; it offers no deception.

And virus and I are questioning the results, not the methodolgy. Paranormalists seem to have immense trouble in differentiating between the two, although I believe this to be a form of denialism; all results are subject to analysis irrespective of the method used to generate them.

And I reiterate: we are not questioning Rizzo's methods.

*reads the first dozen posts*

You guys realize everything you say is gibberish right?

Damn there's so many instances of "I understand everything but refuse to explain anything" in this thread, it makes my head spin.


That will be every thread before people who have actually worked in industry, have the education, and have bucked their bosses to try something new leave.

[Rizzo in a box]

Nice job at posting quotes of mine from Parafuckingnormal, you massive failure of a fucking human that you are, Virus.

[Virus]

Then post some of this 'serious drug discussion' that aren't already covered in the math and chem forum lolz.

[T.K. Baha]

Ill post a recipe for crack if we get said forum.

[BungHole]

See this discussion:
That will be every thread before people who have actually worked in industry, have the education, and have bucked their bosses to try something new leave.

Okay, now go look at the serious discussion I make in F&B.:)

Are you saying I can't post here until I'm finished with college?:confused:

Give me a break, I just finished twelfth grade on Thursday.:hrmph:

Besides, Paranormal is ate and Greyfox's turf. You know they're troll bait.:p

But hey, I don't demand a new forum. F&B and NfHC are quite comfy. But they made a forum just for weed, and although pharmacology really would be better in the biology forum in my opinion(F&F), does it really fit there? As for M&S, well, math and science are pretty all-encompassing. What doesn't fit there? People talk about chemistry and biology there, but the place seems more geared towards sciences like physics and astronomy. As for F&B, well, although I like to think of it as a general chemistry forum, it's mostly hands, practical chemistry, like lab practices and synthesis. Really, pharmacology belongs in NfHC. But, oh, the clutter. Not to mention, I would never want to make rules more strict for a bunch of drug users, but it would be nice to see some place to go where it's more serious. Why can't there be the fun place, and a place where, say, Mksnowboarder or JoePedo could mod, and anal rape anyone who posts useless or silly stuff (oh wait, did I say JP? ;)).

I mean, it isn't totally necessary, but we did get a forum just for cannabis, didn't we?

I say we need a geology forum though. Then we could talk about rocks.:thumbsup:

[nshanin]

Just bumping the thread and showing my support for this idea. The only place we can really have these types of discussions right now is in the Bullshit Thread in F&B because (except for the new arrivals asking "how do i maed mef?") it's largely self-regulating and the conversations usually drift to pharmacology anyway (and pharmacology is WAY different from the synthetic chemistry that takes up most discussions in F&B).

I mean I'm totally cool with leaving NFHC as the trollhole that it is because I visit BL's ADD and blacklight to get my dose of knowledge, but there's also quite a bit of potential for something awesome here on &Z as well (not least of all because we have a userbase that's eager to try out novel drugs). Remember JoePedo's DLPA thread, NOWARNING's opiate potentiation thread, and cannabinoid potentiation with tagamet? That was all &T's work and all those users are now on &Z. A thread like the above would not produce more than hearsay in NFHC but if bioassay description quality was rigorously controlled then a thread could get scientific data worthy of spreading online.

Look, either strictly mod NFHC (which nobody wants) or make the damn subforum.

[Erorr]

It should be called Flasks & Tweekers



lulz

[Oink The Pig]

cool m8 id accept the invetation to mod there but i just been two busy nowa-days

[-SpectraL]

...If it can be demonstrated that there's a need for the forum (ie, lots of threads that would probably be moved into it upon the new forum's creation), then the chances of the forum being made will be much higher.

But I think that if we're just creating a new forum and hoping that users will feel like contributing, I'd vote no. It's not just my call, but if you talk to the mods of the forum and perhaps come up with an idea of what will be moved in there on day 1 (either mark them archived or make an index thread), it'll be much easier to justify the creation of the forum. ...Good information.