torn asunder

i saw an article on this earlier! i only have one thing to say...

HA! a few years ago, i actually requested du hast & they played it! i was stoked!

he looks like the michelin man!!

true, about the "absolutely nothing working" part. my thought is that the med companies are going to just continue to manufacture new chemicals, rather than look at the "old" ones. that problem could/would be solved by legalizing and and taking control of the manufacturing process. it's likely the half-life" problem is due to piss-poor care in production. anything can be addictive. i know guys selling 1 pill of adderol for $5, and they're selling out! oxy, vicoden, etc, are all script drugs, and can have just as high an addiction rate as many street drugs - it all depends on the person, which is why i think having it under a doctor's control would be so important.

understood, but i'm not talking about free choice illegal drugs vs. scheduled, prescription medicine, i'm talking about prescribing "illegal" drugs, if that makes any sense... for example, if none of the current antidepression meds are working for an individual, is it possible that something like coke, ecstasy, speed, etc. might have the same/similar effects that, say, celexa has on others? am i making any sense? sorry if not, i can try to be a bit clearer if it'll help!

ecstasy's formula has been around since between 1912 & 1927 (debated) from what i could find, formulated by Merck. SSRIs were developed in the '80's it appears, but i'm not sure how that relates!? anyway, my point was that, if these other "illegal" drugs were legal and prescribed, with standard dosing schedules, like amphetamine (ritalin) is now, what would/could be the result? i mean, if we didn't have the preconcieved notion that cocaine/"X"/etc. was bad, (for example, if we gave these chemicals different names & did clinical trials), would the results be similar to those of the SSRIs & such? would/could long-term controlled medical use of these drugs affect the same types of change, personality-wise, that the antidepression meds do? partly, i'm curious because i've been exposed to all of these, and 1) haven't found *any* of them addictive, and 2) found that i felt the most "myself" with ritalin and coke. i know several people, some on this board, that say that they feel like who they really should be, while taking antidepression meds. are we limiting our medical options by not looking at some drugs that we've now labeled bad/illegal? i don't mean to limit the discussion only to those i've mentioned - i'm sure there are other drugs that may have medicinal uses as well. did i explain myself a bit better this time? i feel like my first post was a little light on meaning, and i wanted to clarify!

yeah, i get that it's an end-around, but it just irked me. i mean, hell, water is harmful to humans too, depending, but i don't see anyone making the same declaration about it, yanno!? (and don't even try to bring up dihydrogen monoxide!!) it was just the "1st impression" absurdity that got to me.

hey, if we're going to open it up to different nationalities, i think we're going to need some friends in immigration!

ditto...

i was reading an article on livescience, and a thought occurred to me... antidepressants change people's brain chemistry, and possibly their personality over the long-term. everyone seems to be ok with this, even encouraging others to "sue" them. well, what about other drugs? i mean, ritalin is basically amphetamine salts; speed, if you will; what can ritalin do that, for example, cocaine can't? what do antidepressants do that pot/ecstacy can't? i mean, from what i understand, ecstacy was actually one of the first antidepressants created. (i may be wrong, i haven't researched this, was just told) these "illegal" drugs change one's personality, long-term, as well. guess my point is, what would be the difference between a script for antidepressants/add-adhd medicines, and a script for pot/cocaine/ecstacy, medically speaking? even ethically speaking, now that i think about it, because they all have the possibility of being abused. what makes one ok, and not the other? and let's discount the "they're illegal" debate, for now. thoughts?

cited? by da po-po? wut fo?? as you can tell, i'm feeling a bit silly!

hey, i had a thought about this - rather than requesting specific songs, what if it was "play something like {this song}"! example: the only band i really know in this genre is VNV nation, and i only have one album (praise the fallen, i think!?). i'd love to find some new music that sounds similar to them, so i say "hey, i really dig 'joy' or 'ascension' by VNV nation - could you play something new, that sounds like those songs?" what do you think? helpful, or not? if not, i'll shut up!

fyi, there have been several occasions where threads have been 'split" into two different topics due to the nature of the discussions. it's not unheard of, and as far as i know, isn't frowned upon. i do follow your point though, and i agree about it being directly related to the "aftermath" thread. i just sent raev a pm; you're more than free to message me as well!

no sweat, you made some very good points! i don't think people really mean "suck" when they say it, it's just a quick way to say that they weren't feeling the song selection. unfortunately, it can come across as a personal affront to the djs, when i'm fairly sure that isn't what was intended. that being said, most djs getting know going into the biz (or learn shortly thereafter) that people are pretty blunt, and they would benefit from learning to have a "thick skin" so to speak. comments like that are part of the business, you know?

if i may, it seems that the few people who elaborated were 'complaining" that the songs all sounded the same (all one type/style of sound); not so much that it was new stuff, but that there wasn't enough "style" variety, for lack of a better term. not being an expert in this genre, i have no idea if there are enough new artists with relatively different sound styles or not, but that might be a place to start!? of course, since i wasn't there i have no idea, and i may be reading too much into things, or putting words in others' mouths, but that's the impression i got...

understood - that part was directed towards saint!

lighten up, francis. do you want input or not? if not, then don't post, it's pretty simple. you both asked for input, didn't you? that doesn't mean you get to treat people disrespectfully.

hey now, we can do without the "shut the fuck up" comments, alright?

now, how can you ask such a silly question!?

c'mon all you people who didn't care for the music this night need to help the djs out - let them know what you thought the issue was with their song choices, otherwise, how will they ever know how to modify it in the future? they want people to be happy with their work - they're doing it all for you guys, you know! here's a link to the setlist that night. speak up!! sorry i personally can't be of any help, but even on the nights i go, i actually know less than one percent of the music that get's played, so i have nothing helpful to offer.

you know, the thing that really got to me about this, the main reason i posted it was... how the fuck can you have something declared harmful to humans, wehn it's something that the human body naturally expels!? are you people (politicians) insane?

and i, as usual, will be playing the role of the "antisocial" antisocial mod!

right now, i'm eating pizza and watching "the princess bride" for the 114th time! (and yes, that's *literally* 114 times! i love this movie!!)

if it's "require", you can count me out. if i knew single people, i wouldn't need to attend this event!