Your reasoning is incomprehensible and your posts are nearly illegible. Given your “drug warrior” status, are you strictly obeying the dosage recommendations from Doctor Happy?
[[your posts are nearly illegible.]]
I do appologize for that- I think fast, type fast, and my fingers are dyslexic-like (some have suggested it’s a neurological problem (along iwth just plain sloppy typing- but you’ll not certain words are almost always typed backerds or discombobulated- suggesting a problems- I even say words messed up too- certain words quite frequently
[[Given your “drug warrior” status,]]
First I’m a ‘drug pohibitionist’ and now I’m a “Drug Warrior’? Geeez- no wodner I’m Skitzo (and so am I)[Old joke- Roses are red, I don’t know why, I’m skitzophrenic, and so am I]
[[Your reasoning is incomprehensible]]
It’s not really, it’s just hard to decipher due to the myriad spelling mistakes n cobbed togehr thoguhts- but hte intent and meanings of hte posts and statements are sound-
The basic premise of th argument I’m havign with Nannies is that just because a Site says that you can’t coem to reasonable conclusions becasue there ‘may be’ variables that are unknown’ is bunk, and My contnetion is that if the study reposrts that their’s a strong connectio nbetween drug use and icnreased psychotic events, that there’s NO reason to ASSUME that there must be variables unnaccoutned for, and no reason to ASSUME that the study results must ONLY be discussing the idea that only a coupel of folks experienced that increase as it’s is a reasoanble assumption that the researchers woudl have qualified their ‘strong connection’ with hte idea that it was only observed in rare cases liek Nannies suggested- That’s the crux of the discussion