Mixmag - "Methoxetamine = roflcoptr" - *MUST READ*

[Transform]

One of the journalist's statuses about his article. Interesting that Cope hasn't commented or liked it.

Interesting that cope doesn't feature in the comments or likes.

Russell, please don't open roflcoptr for business tomorrow.

 

[Albion]

...I can't see anything revelatory there.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Aye neither could I. Strange post to be honest. Everything else is fucking quality though.

 

[Treacle]

Agreed. Fucking brilliant thread. It would be quite funny if all this was wrong, and we'd just wrecked some journo's career, though.

 

[tambourine-man]

Ah well.

*goes back to an untroubled slumber*

 

[Tronica]

Great to see our threads getting to the top of the Google search!

Tronica I completely agree that the evidence is circumstantial. However there are reasons that I find myself almost angry at your response.

I appreciate that it may be difficult to get the bluelight community to engage with researches. However in my opinion this is with good reason! Look at the majority of media coverage of chemicals in the past x years! (BTW please don't use the term 'sigh' again. This is an emotional thread for many people, and to try and reduce it to a 'childish' matter patronizes many people here.)

Hey I re-read what I wrote and I agree, I got a bit emotional myself. I am sorry if it came across as patronising; that was not my intention, I was just feeling a little dejected about trying to bridge gaps between two groups of people and failing fairly miserably.

Just had a good chat with my hubby about the issue of trust and researchers. It's one that goes round and round for me. I agree that most media drug stories are sensationalised, no doubt there, this Mixmag example included. It's difficult, though, for me to conclude that Bluelighters and all drug users should avoid all researchers and media and any other 'public' types. Obviously you are all entitled to disagree with me

On the personal level, I go to extra effort to build relationships and trust with the people who help me with my research. I've even published a paper about how the internet can help in this process, citing bluelight as one example. It's available here for those who are interested. So this issue is close to me, I admit having a conflict of interest in that I want to, as a researcher, engage with drug users. The reason for this? I'm not an outsider coming into this field wondering what all these 'drug users' are doing. I participate in projects as a drug user myself (yes I'm saying it on a public forum, more on that issue here). As a research participant I too have been annoyed by researchers who don't release publications or don't respond to communications. But, actually, many of them are accessible and are interested, and those are the ones I try to work with.

Tronica as a researcher I find it so hard to believe that you think attacks on the editor are unwarranted...

I'm not saying there isn't a major problem here. It's just now very difficult for me to continue to have a dialogue with the Mixmag editor in a way that allows me to post any more information about how he is dealing with Beaumont-Thomas. This is something I would have liked to have done but it was probably a bit ambitious in hindsight!

I'm generally not someone who likes 'attacks' so that's also why I don't think they are warranted.

Part of me would love to string both Cope and Beaumont-Thomas up right this instant, but we have to at least strive to be fair.

I agree that there's more than enough here to raise some very important questions, but it seems it's not enough for the editorship of Mixmag, who evidently don't take the prospect that their publication has been used to irresponsibly promote sombody's methoxetamine-peddling website at all seriously.

My (informed) guess is that they are taking it seriously but have no desire to pursue more discussions on this forum. We shall see what happens. Perhaps something in the next edition of Mixmag?

On that note, I asked Duncan Dick to send me a pdf copy of the original Mixmag article and I have not yet received it. If anyone has it and is able to scan it, would love to actually read it. Half the problem with this whole issue is not having access to the original source... (my email tronica [at] gmail.com)

 

[Myshkin]

Hey I re-read what I wrote and I agree, I got a bit emotional myself. I am sorry if it came across as patronising; that was not my intention, I was just feeling a little dejected about trying to bridge gaps between two groups of people and failing fairly miserably.

That's totally understandable and I think anyone else in your position would feel similar. At times the thread has been a little like a witch hunt, but I think that's just an unavoidable consequence of how passionate people feel about the subject. You just happened to enter the thread when the fervour was spilling over, I think.

Good work on approaching Mixmag for a PDF copy of the article. I really should have gone and bought a copy myself by now to be honest, considering the way this thread has developed. Keep us posted!

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

I've checked their code of conduct. Believe it or not, it's hard to see how this is covered. But they have a pre-complaint advice line I'm ringing tomorrow to see if it is worth pursuing that way.

Ok, PCC were lovely people and completely toothless, not least because they can only deal with media who have signed up to the PCC - and Mixmag haven't.

She put me in touch with the ASA. I expected them to say no straightaway too but they said could I send in a pdf of the article and they'll have a look. His FB page does reference the article. So if someone can get a link up/send one to me?

Ta muchly.

 

[parttime crackhead]

I'm going round to my mate's the afternoon & he will more than likely have a copy of the offending Mixmag. (& will probably be asking me if I can get him any Roflcoptr lol )

Neither of us possess a scanner though so the best I could do is try & take a few decent quality pictures with my phone?

 

[Marmalade]

you still need a copy SHM?

will have a scan for you in about 10 mins if so. my scanner's playing up and keeps sticking.

if it doesnt work, I'll take a photo, but the text is really small and unbolded so that'll probably look arse

will email it to you

[EDIT]
I updated my Profile pictures today, for those interested ;p

 

[Marmalade]

SHM - check your email

 

[tambourine-man]

Sweet. Thanks!

EDIT: To be fair, there's a few cautious bits of dosing advice in the article.

Nice of "Russ" to have contributed to the article advert. :D

 

[Treacle]

I was just going to comment on 'Russ', who the writer has apparently never heard of. Cunty bollocks.

 

[Danny Weed]

^lol just read it now, I agree

Fuckin hell cant believe there is a quote from Russ, surely that is them exposed now?

It is way too far fetched for them to claim that is a different Russel, Surely they don't think we are that stupid.

 

[Myshkin]

Why, it could have been any Russell, silly! Beaumont-Thomas is a journalist who prides himself on his integrity, so obviously he'd spend the time and effort to cast the net wide and recruit a group of interviewees from outside his immediate social circle, right?

 

[Danny Weed]

Yeah, I'm sure he knows loads and loads of russels, maybe his circle is full of russels.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

SHM - check your email

Yer a darling. (Room, now?)

Neither they nor I work weekends. Weekends is for playing.

Let's get copterd.

 

[skillet]

Oh yeah, I didn't notice the quotes by 'Russ'!

 

[Mailmonkey]

Let's get copterd.

I didn't know you were onto this copter lark too, am i the only cunt here that isn't???

Passive peer pressure, it's a terrible thang.

 

[Vader]

Well, that's the nail in the coffin of the idea that they might simply know the same people. Tronica/tambo, could you please explain Mixmag's relationship to GDS? It's referred to in the article as "our Global Drug Survey", is it an independent organisation or part of Mixmag?

Thanks for the link Marmz.