I have tried 2C-E but not 2C-P. Would you say for someone who has both, that 2C-E would be the logical first one to explore and explore well before trying 2C-P? I'm just curious as to your opinion on that.
Also I wonder how much 2C-P relates to 2C-T-7 which is so very wonderful. It's an analogy that really boosts the semi-bad rep 2C-P has in my eyes, which probably comes from the tired sighs and doubting reactions of those who pioneered the material first. Sounded like 'too much of a good thing'. But then again we are not all young and venture-starting, ready for those round the clock tripping ordeals, but some of us are.
I've worn myself out over the years and am less motivated to face even the more intesting DOX compounds head-on right now. The end result might be expected as other heavy-duty ones: 'worth it and glad I did it but would not do it again soon or ever; interesting but not pleasant'. It's that typical kind of thing people say after an onslaught of novelty but without being able to shake the "onslaught" part.
Anyway carry on!
Also I wonder how much 2C-P relates to 2C-T-7 which is so very wonderful. It's an analogy that really boosts the semi-bad rep 2C-P has in my eyes, which probably comes from the tired sighs and doubting reactions of those who pioneered the material first. Sounded like 'too much of a good thing'. But then again we are not all young and venture-starting, ready for those round the clock tripping ordeals, but some of us are.
I've worn myself out over the years and am less motivated to face even the more intesting DOX compounds head-on right now. The end result might be expected as other heavy-duty ones: 'worth it and glad I did it but would not do it again soon or ever; interesting but not pleasant'. It's that typical kind of thing people say after an onslaught of novelty but without being able to shake the "onslaught" part.
Anyway carry on!
