Scott:
First, as I explained before, the notion of whether CAS used drugs, the use of drugs as part of the creative process, etc., seems to me very much on topic for this forum. Second, it was Dr. Farmer who introduced the subject via his remarks.
Quote:I do not dismiss Don Fryer's assertions, I merely state that I do not know his sources.
Your remarks following that part of your post give a rather different impression, but I am glad that you are open-minded regarding the subject.
Quote:It seems to me that saying that not everyone who abuses alcohol is an alcoholic is a distinction without a difference, since an alcoholic is someone who abuses alcohol--or perhaps we might say, the alcohol abuses him?
I couldn't possibly disagree more. The college student who binge drinks on weekends, the occasional drinker who decides one night to drive under the influence of alcohol: All are, to my mind, persons who abuse alcohol without necessarily being alcoholics.
Quote:Looking over the history of this thread, I would hardly call Dr. Farmer's dismissal of your views on marijuana as "BS" as something beyond the pale of net etiquette, but hey! I'm a veteran of the Barker wars on alt.books-ghost-fiction! Then again, maybe my skin's a bit thicker than yours.
Your skin is hardly thicker than mine. For instance, although I thought that it showed questionable judgment, the posting of the anti-Iraqi war banner on this Web site didn't bother me a bit. On the other hand, it sent you (and others) into a rage--vastly more off topic, let me add--that far exceeded anything that I have posted in this thread. To each his own "triggers", I suppose. I suppose, as well, that it's easy to dismiss personal remarks when they aren't directed at you.
It wasn't merely the use of the vulgar term "BS" that irritated me, but also Farmer's patronizing tone and sweeping,
ad hominem generalizations and emotional "arguments", after which he would proclaim "
Q.E.D.," like a strutting cockerel. Calling someone "out of [his] depth", wthout offering even the slightest counter-argumentation or evidence to support such an assertion, is also not good "Netiquette", in my book. Perhaps standards are lower on the rest of the Web (I would hardly compare this forum to--*shudders*--a newsgroup), but I expect better here. That doesn't mean that I won't remove the gloves, when necessary, though.
As for the alleged pejorative use of the term "conservative", it was Philippe who introduced that term, not I. I merely agreed that the "gateway" theory is conservative propaganda. I dislike ideologues of all stripes, be they conservative, liberal, or other, and the "gateway" theory is purely the product of ideology, not science. In this case, it reflects the ideological bias of conservatives. One can certainly note such a fact without being subject to the accusation that one is leveling an "epithet" at a given group.
(By the way, if studies regarding the "gateway" theory are likely to be funded by pro-legalization groups, then why would conservative groups even use such a theory? They must have studies of their own that suggest a different conclusion. If that's the case, then such studies would be open to the same objection of bias that you raise. Anyway, all this is moot: The burden of proof lies with the proponent of a proposition, and I am still waiting to see that proof regarding the "gateway" theory. I'm going to have a long wait, because--having actually looked into the matter--I know that there isn't any).
As for giving this discussion a "decent burial", I have suggested that on more than one occasion, as well, but, after I do so, others seem determined to respond and keep the discussion alive! So long as others continue to respond to it, I shall, as well.