Whilst reading through one of Brisbane's better street newspapers Scence, I came across an article centred upon Bluelight. There are many fools in the world!!! And journalists are the best. The article was written by a closed-mind journalist who assessed Bluelight, and concluded that Bluelight is place for
"a cushy little club for drug takers to play in."
I shall now discuss why this journalist's article is a poor attempt at truth, and is no more useful than toilet paper. I have transcribed the actual article , paragraph by paragraph. Following each paragraph is proof that the journalist has not spent enough time exploring Bluelight, and thus, made incorrect conclusions about this informative website.
I have visited the websites that the journalist recommends as "Truly useful". True, the links that the journalist has suggested are useful, but only in a secondary manner. The sites inform the viewer about what certain drugs are, and what the warning signs are. All that type of information is only helpful when you know that what you have bought is for sure mdma/speed/etc. . There is nothing there that contains first hand information about what is actually going around on the streets. That is what is needed, which is exactly what Bluelight provides , not a "cushy club". Nothing ( not theory, intuition, or estimation) can be more helpful than first hand experience. Nothing at all!
A user cannot visit one of the above sites and ask what pills are dangerous, they also cannot discuss with other people what types of pills are potentially fatal or in the least case, dangerous. At Bluelight you can. Now to paragraph 2, which merely builds on what is said in paragraph 1, it doesn't need much commentary.
The next 2 paragraphs follow.
Now here's the fun part. The next para.
Again, how does this conclusion support the initial argument? I take it that this journalist doesn't care about that fact that there are dodgy and dangerous drugs around that can kill. I assume that he merely wants to make fun of whatever safeties and precautions users of drugs have. I guess he just doesn't care at all. This "cushy little club" has no doubt protected life, and will no doubt continue to do so. There is no other online source, as good as Bluelight, which delivers information that tells people what is dangerous, and what is not. Government support/endorsement however, is a good idea, under certain conditions of course.
If this journalist had actually read through the posts, he would have found posts which do emphasise against abuse, as well as posts regarding "moving on from X", and posts about how community member have gone though periods of abuse, and learnt from them, then shared their experience, as advice, against other people doing the same. I guess this journalist just never had the time and didn't want to look hard enough.
Oh, and most important of all, your argument has barely any evidence supporting it.
In all honesty I am far from a heavy user of E (Bluelight is of less use to man such a person). In the period of a year I wouldn't have more than four pills (in fact I've only ever had four E's). I find Bluelight an excellent resource to assist in making important decisions about what pills I buy. In the past I have bought a pill, which defintely wasn;t the real thing, and still has side effects (over 6 months later). For me, the core pupose of Bluelight is to provide information about what the good pills are, and what bad pills are.
Marc, when you next evaluate something, please examine at its fundamental levels. Look beyond the surface and take a closer look, you will only save yourself from embarrassment.
Marc has also noted in his article that he is open to "Any questions, suggestions, feedback, websites or stories." You can email him @ [email protected] or check his website http://www.bit.net.au/~marc
So people, comment please.
PS: Person X feel free to mail me.
[This message has been edited by BlackMonk (edited 23 April 2000).]
"a cushy little club for drug takers to play in."
I shall now discuss why this journalist's article is a poor attempt at truth, and is no more useful than toilet paper. I have transcribed the actual article , paragraph by paragraph. Following each paragraph is proof that the journalist has not spent enough time exploring Bluelight, and thus, made incorrect conclusions about this informative website.
Where do I start??? The first sentence is bollocks. The medical board is extremely helpful with answers to most problems. Raverdoc, just one of hundreds knowledgeable people, is very well versed in medicine and offers sound advice to hundreds of people. There would not be many people on this planet more specialised to E than several people within that board. I don't know how professional these Bluelighters are, but neither does the journalist, so how can he say the what he has? . Secondly, Bluelight is not principally concerned with things such as dosage, chemistry, advice on using, and so on. Bluelight is principally concerned with what is on the streets, and what to avoid , that is the BULK of Bluelight, and it is informative! The journalist's statement is not valid. If one was to traffic on pill-type posts, and compare it to the traffic on conversational type posts, the truth is revealed again.
I have visited the websites that the journalist recommends as "Truly useful". True, the links that the journalist has suggested are useful, but only in a secondary manner. The sites inform the viewer about what certain drugs are, and what the warning signs are. All that type of information is only helpful when you know that what you have bought is for sure mdma/speed/etc. . There is nothing there that contains first hand information about what is actually going around on the streets. That is what is needed, which is exactly what Bluelight provides , not a "cushy club". Nothing ( not theory, intuition, or estimation) can be more helpful than first hand experience. Nothing at all!
A user cannot visit one of the above sites and ask what pills are dangerous, they also cannot discuss with other people what types of pills are potentially fatal or in the least case, dangerous. At Bluelight you can. Now to paragraph 2, which merely builds on what is said in paragraph 1, it doesn't need much commentary.
Well it is a message board, not a fucken library. The responses are from the general public, and not the web site itself. The next Para.
Fool! Just what does this journalist mean when he says he has "the message boards covered". All he commented on was 1 OF 7 boards. I'll bet there's some sophisticated investigation and reporting going on there. You moron, I'm sorry to be so abrupt, but there you stand (in your written words) for what you are. None of the information above supports the journalists argument that this Bluelight is "a place to speak shit with a bunch of fellow ravers." The purpose of the Pill Reports section is to inform the user of what IS on the streets. Through this one KNOWS what is bad, and what is not. Now what is wrong with that. Imagine a pill goes around continaing a poison eg. Strychnine, imagine how many people could die? With knowledge one can prevent possible death, in this situation. Would this journalist now be so self-assured as to condemn something of a similar nature eg. a television wide warning of Strychnine in Panadol! In essence, that is what Bluelight about, safer use, where the direct threat to users is contaminants other than MDMA.
The next 2 paragraphs follow.
Again, none of the information above supports the journalist's argument that this Bluelight is "a place to speak shit with a bunch of fellow ravers". EZ Kits are, for obvious reasons, a very good idea and the fact that Bluelight promotes their use (again, a gov't site wouldn't do so) is supportive to Bluelight's cause. The rest of text is has no meaning and again, isn't supportive. If the journalist was looking for Health and Medical info, he could have JUST POSTED ON THE MEDICAL BOARD!!! Also, I'll bet that he never read the FAQ either.
Now here's the fun part. The next para.
I'll leave the article here.
Again, how does this conclusion support the initial argument? I take it that this journalist doesn't care about that fact that there are dodgy and dangerous drugs around that can kill. I assume that he merely wants to make fun of whatever safeties and precautions users of drugs have. I guess he just doesn't care at all. This "cushy little club" has no doubt protected life, and will no doubt continue to do so. There is no other online source, as good as Bluelight, which delivers information that tells people what is dangerous, and what is not. Government support/endorsement however, is a good idea, under certain conditions of course.
If this journalist had actually read through the posts, he would have found posts which do emphasise against abuse, as well as posts regarding "moving on from X", and posts about how community member have gone though periods of abuse, and learnt from them, then shared their experience, as advice, against other people doing the same. I guess this journalist just never had the time and didn't want to look hard enough.
Oh, and most important of all, your argument has barely any evidence supporting it.
In all honesty I am far from a heavy user of E (Bluelight is of less use to man such a person). In the period of a year I wouldn't have more than four pills (in fact I've only ever had four E's). I find Bluelight an excellent resource to assist in making important decisions about what pills I buy. In the past I have bought a pill, which defintely wasn;t the real thing, and still has side effects (over 6 months later). For me, the core pupose of Bluelight is to provide information about what the good pills are, and what bad pills are.
Marc, when you next evaluate something, please examine at its fundamental levels. Look beyond the surface and take a closer look, you will only save yourself from embarrassment.
Marc has also noted in his article that he is open to "Any questions, suggestions, feedback, websites or stories." You can email him @ [email protected] or check his website http://www.bit.net.au/~marc
So people, comment please.
PS: Person X feel free to mail me.
[This message has been edited by BlackMonk (edited 23 April 2000).]
