Cincinnatus had a farm,
veni vidi vic
And on that farm he had some slaves,
veni vidi vic,
With a suck suck here
And a suck suck there
Here a suck, there a suck
Everywhere a suck suck
Cincinnatus had a farm,
veni vidi vic.
Cincinnatus had a farm,. veni vidi vic. And on that farm he had some slaves,. veni vidi vic,. With a suck suck here. And a suck suck there
frick those stoner comics, they propogandized me back in 2010/2011. Became all day every day homosexual loser smoker and smoked my life away. Now im almost 30 and dishwashing. Frick me.
Cincinnatus had a farm,
veni vidi vic
And on that farm he grew good weed,
veni vidi vic,
With a prune prune here
And a prune prune there
Here a prune, there a prune
Everywhere a prune prune
Cincinnatus had a farm,
veni vidi vic.
I have also been smoking weed every day for over a decade but I work as a lab assistant and am married. Sorry my guy.
>propogandized me back in 2010/2011
How did a comic influence your life? This sounds like an outlandish claim. I'm sorry, anon.
cannabis sativa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU34EY7OhVo
It’s over.
I guess being straight edge early on pays off
>Now im almost 30
You can still do something with yourself. But I'd be cautious about blaming it all on weed.
weed is bad and for low-IQers. Objectively true, sorry
Meh, it quietens people down and makes them less annoying. As narcotics go it's superior to most pharmaceuticals designed for the same effect. Objectively true.
As if being annoying is bad, its sentimental value judgement
The only real problem is created by the lack of any real education on the subject; as a recreational thing it's great, not so much for activities requiring the brain though - I used to smoke a little and thought it helped my creativity but it really didn't; the hyper-focus was useless and the writing ended up being circular. But to blaze and play GTA was the best.
I haven't smoked in years btw, so this isn't coming from denialism.
>As if being annoying is bad
"As if being annoying is bad" (!)
Anon, you don't need me to point out the self-refutation in that statement.
>self refutation
I don't see one. again, its mostly just a sentimental value placed on a feeling, and "annoying" could mean many things
Is this actually a serious attempt to engage in an off-topic argument about "subjective feelings"? Or are you relating this to the comment you made, w/re: "weed being a good thing to give people who are annoying you",
shit, man what do you want, an essay? I'd think it would be obvious: the little irksome anal retentive nonsenses; fixation on silly details, that people get up to when they've got nothing better to do, for example, can be temporarily solved by giving them drugs so quieten them down.
I'd think it would be obvious that if you had a problem with a neighbor being fussy and you fed him a sedative drug that you wouldn't find he was being fussy anymore, but asleep on the sidewalk.
This is a good study.
Notice that the normal web is constructed with great effort and may end up only using 5% of its laborious construct to catch the actual flies.
The Marijuana retains the original form but its more streamlined; providing a big target for the flies with the excess cut off.
The Benzo has a smaller and more uneven center web but compensates by adding a rectangular net at the bottom, doubling the target area.
The Coffee seems most proficient but is spread thinly a few select target areas have been created covering the largest circumference with the least amount of work. This is the only web that does not follow the circle center pattern.
The Sleeping Pills shows the least effort with no solid target areas; but the circle center has been retained.
Whoa, you're academically stupid
Whoa, only a few humans out of several billion are clever enough to begin from the right starting point.
>begin from the right starting point
>spider webs
Yeah, sure thing, Anon.
>caffeine spiderweb logic
I've got no idea what you're talking about to be honest. What did you think was being said in the spider web example that was "..academically stupid.."? I'd like for one of you memers to make a point for once, instead of posting your "crying with laughters" at any intelligent thing that's said.
You do realize that an insect needs to come into contact with more than one web strand to get stuck, right? That, and a lot of insects will just fly right through the giant gaps in the drug-induced strands.
i figured that's where you were going with it, well yeah, no shit; but if you've ever seen spider webs in houses you'll notice that one big web for one tiny fly in't a great time investment; whereas you'll see ratty looking webs that have freshly caught fat flies in there and you only need to snag the wings to catch one; with a second line for support; so when you see the two close threads, that's designed for a fat fly.
The regular web, then, has the spider going to all the effort; the effort is diminished with the weed and benzos, i's absent with the sleeper, but it's taken on a new form entirely with the coffee. Minima time investment for the fattest returns.
smart spider.
drink more coffee
I have no idea what you're on about. Your entire argument depends on me accepting your personal observations about spiders, which I can neither confirm nor deny. Here's a few things I can say though:
Firstly, the drugged spider webs aren't as stable as the normal one. Sure they "cover more area" but the single strands are much more susceptible to breaking when not reinforced by other strands. I'm not sure if this is much of an issue for the spiders in your house, but it certainly would be for one in the woods.
Secondly, even if I go along with your idea that smaller insects get caught in the single strands and the "fatter" ones get caught in the overlapped strands, there's absolutely nothing to guarantee that the small insects wind up in the single strands and the "fatter" ones in the multi-strands. It's important to consider this in terms of probability, and probabilistically the normal web has a much better chance of catching insects of all sizes across the entirety of its area.
It seems to me that you've started at the conclusion that "drugs are always good" and have tried to create arguments in favor of the drugged webs without any regard to the efficiency of the normal one.
Hm. You make a good case, but consider the amount of excrement the spider needed to produce to make the first web. There's a point there in addition to the time spent as to the energy spent.
>drugs r good
naw, wasn't going that way at all. I found it more interesting that it was some caffeine that produced the best result, whereas the benzos and weed produced more or less 'normal' style webs that differed only slightly from the baseline designed; whereas the caffeine seemed to the best one for innovation that broke from the baseline completely. That's not really a pro drug statement.