If I know how to fly an airplane, does that make me a bird? Just because a drug has stimulating effects, doesn't mean its a stimulant -- you have to look at the pharmacology and medicinal chemistry of the compound and other compounds which are closely related, and classify accordingly.
I don't think that anyone who's tried to refute me on the MDMA classification issue has even taken a look at that paper I mentioned above. David Nichols is one of the world's most recognized experts on psychedelics and entactogens -- and in that paper (which is confirmed by later work) he lays out all the evidence for entactogens representing a novel therapeutic class. Not even to mention, I presented two key pieces of evidence (which can be verified with a simple wikipedia search) that demonstrate the disparity between the pharmacology of psychedelics and entactogens.
I'm not going to argue this point anymore, I recommend anyone who's interested consult the relevant literature for further info. Nichols has published several papers on the issue that present persuasive evidence; and other experts in the field such as Shulgin and Vollenweider agree that the evidence is persuasive. Nobody who studies 5-HT psychedelics at the academic level would consider MDA or MDMA to be psychedelic drugs in the same sense as 3,4-DMA or DOM.
I'm not trying to dispute your knowledge, I respect you highly because I know that you know what you're talking about. I only questioned it because many people feel that there is a an element of 'psychedelia' in those drugs. I'm interested in pharmacology and when I get time I will learn more about it, but I wasn't really talking about a strict classification, merely saying that MDMA etc have certain characteristics that people associate with psychedelics.
