^Ok, but what is your specific response in the context of the arguments above that argue against that notion?
I don't wish to be rude, but for someone who writes using a broad vocabulary at every turn and probably isn't hampered by a lack of education... you seem slightly naïve.
Journalists lie in order to feather their own nest. The only reason that guy told you to write in was:
- so his editor is given the impression that his 'story' generated interest, rather than the usual eye-rolling and bewilderment such gash would normally be regarded with
- so that the letters could be used to perpetuate the sensationalism
- so that the free and uncensored debate that can be had efficiently online, can be controlled and staggered in a dying print media
The only reason he told you that he was skeptical of some of the claims about magic mushrooms, was so that you'd hold out some hope that there might be somebody in the media who was "on your side". It's bullshit. He's just stringing you along for his own ends. There's other threads on BL where (despite being warned by other Bluelighters) members have been conned by journalists who initially gained their trust, then fucking annihilated them in print or on camera.
The fact that he'd write a garbage article when he has doubts as to its veracity should tell you something about the kind of person you're dealing with. I particularly laughed at this part:
Peter de Graaf said:
...my views have no place in a newspaper story (there would be, quite rightfully, howls of complaint if I did try to pass off my views in the guise of a news story)
Ah, that old chestnut. They
always say that.
Yet from his
article, perhaps he could explain who's view is:
"users could also do things while hallucinating that they normally wouldn't, such as trying to fly from a building"?
No attributable quotation marks. No evidence. Just speculative regurgitation of sensationalist crap.
Or maybe he'd like to point to the ownership of this gem:
"the mushrooms' active ingredient, psilocybin, was a class A controlled drug... ...cannabis was by comparison only class C, which illustrated the seriousness of magic mushrooms".
Hahahaha! :D Yes Peter, because as we know, drug classifications are logical, proportionate and totally evidence-based. Therefor, a higher classification means it must be "more serious". Not a hint of non-sequitur, eh?
And these are the
critical thinkers you want to influence?
The irony is, the arguments against dealing with journalists are contained within the very responses that you've received from this guy. Bluelight would do well to maintain a guarded distance from these cretins.