this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
1323 points (97.9% liked)
Greentext
4657 readers
1746 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I made zero qualitative statements about LSD - I'm not sure where this mix of a rant with defending the drug came from. You can use it without freaking out about any mention of LSD online, I wasn't "misled" about anything and made absolutely zero statements about LSD itself.
But as a biologist, I'd like just to respond to your statement:
No it wasn't, I'm not sure were you got that from, please refrain from making statements about fields you do not have experience with.
https://maps.org/2004/08/08/nobel-prize-genius-crick-was-high-on-lsd-when-he-discovered-dna/
please refrain from being a condescending jerk just because you’re a biologist….
and you certainly implied that throwing lsd parties wasn’t a good thing… but it is.
You're doubling down on it? The structure was figured out after Rosalind Franklin, an absolute genius on X-ray diffraction, collected all the data that Crick and Watson used and purposefuly didn't credit. It wasn't LSD, it was their female colleague, who gave them the missing information required to infer the proper shape.
damn, you’re such a hostile tool… take the L, buddy…
Rosalind Franklin may have been integral, but crick was still taking lsd when he inferred the proper shape, and i’d bet $20 Rosalind was taking it too….
….
you’re definitely not a biologist though, fuckin liar… a real scientist would appreciate the nuance and not just try to argue bullshit side points to be right on a forum.
You seriously can’t see how the way you wrote that comment all but explicitly states that the LSD usage was a bad thing?
If that wasn’t your intention you need to critically re-examine how you write.
Don't bring your preconceptions to my comment, or at the very least, don't accuse me of subtext with your own delusions as a source.
My comment was mocking Steve Jobs' productivity, as in, what was he actually working in. LSD parties and interfering with HR is not working directly with the engineering and quality of the products. That's the extent of the comment. Your perceptions on LSD are irrelevant to me.
Clearly I'm not the only person who read it that way. No need to single me out.
Single you out? You're the one replying as if you're correct in your interpretation.
But sure, if that hurt you: you and the single other person who misread the comment are both equally wrong. Better?
You’re replying as if you’re correct too…? It’s called a disagreement? Christ you’re a hostile one aren’t you