^Yeah, I didn't think there was any qualitative analogy held between the 2C-X series and the 25-X series. In short, knowing what 2C-X feels like tells you nothing about what 25-X feels like, though there is a reverse in potency, with 25C being more potent than 25E, for instance.
Maybe quantitatively it doesn't make much sense to try and make analogies but some descriptions of 25C-NBOMe and 25D-NBOMe really did remind me of 2C-C and 2C-D respectively. 25N-MBOMe sounds like it sucks a little, and 2C-N also remains controversial to me.
Despite my own lack of experience even when I have multiple ones to try out (I keep saying this almost ashamed), I think I would agree that it seems like you cannot base too many expectations on what you know about the 2C-X counterparts.
Why would I like to see 25T7-NBOMe rather than any other one? Well because 2C-T-7 was just damn peachy. It may not make much sense because no real predictions can be made but what else should one say? "I would like to see 25Q-NBOMe because 2C-Q sucks ass"? :D
Granted maybe I shouldn't say anything, maybe less should be said about these chemicals in general. I think some folks over at ADD tend to shake their heads in sadness about the pointless speculations that are made about what may or may not be so.
I think that it's partially true. I've done chemistry in college and I don't know what the fuck I am talking about most of the time with these frontier-novel drugs. But on the other hand, let a guy dream, lets shoot the shit and talk some hard to prove nonsense here by default shall we?
That is, until we get more actual reports in that can subjectively 'verify' some of our dreams.
If we would only talk about the absolutely proven stuff then I think I would find this place much less charming. Unless more harm is caused by all of this I think its quite alright. Anyway we have ADD to go donkey ass hardcore on the empirical properties of these stuffs.
just my 0.02
only 2