> From: jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com
> > The evidence seems to
> > be that pot smoking is less (but it still is carcinogenic).
>
> Ahah...
>
> Finally, are you now admitting that Pot *is* carcinogenic?
>
> You contradict yourself, young sir!
You don't pay attention, old sir! Pot is not carcinogenic. Pot
*smoke* is carcinogenic.
> > What is unpure pot?
> I'm talking about Joints that are rolled using tobacco as well as
> Cannabis. If you smoke it pure, it is rolled with nothing other
> than weed in the Rizzla.
First it was "meme speak", now it is "pot speak"? Do you always
make up terms in order to try and win a discussion?
>Does that make more sense to you, or should
> I try again using words of no more than 2 syllables?
You should try again using words of no more than 2 syllables since
that would be more on your level of reasoning. You went over your
head again when you wrote this reply.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 23 2002 - 04:00:35 MDT