>>16237
Dude, you're unqualified. I appreciate that you opted to.post during your recent experience, but please disclaimer your shit with "IDFK what I'm talking about, this its all a subjective tivr experience "
>>16239
I think he means well, hes just,... well an idiot.
>>16240
Of all the repfutations to employ you picked a logical fallacy?
Alright.
>>16237
Why are you advocating? Are you part of a sales team? Your opinion is irrelevant, just stick to the facts.
Psilocybin (in my experience) is not a fan or supporter of artifice and theres been alot. Skeptics are encouraged to be skeptical, but though flummoxed in his depiction, shroom anon has a point. Its only the sort of point that can be validated through experience though, so non parties will never have their concerns intellectually satisfied.
No bully, but you really have to experience it to qualitatively detract authoritatively. Not a criticism, just a disclaimer.
Having said, shroom anon, we need to talk. I have a simple question for you: what is its name? My point is, while having had an experience with psilocybin, are you qualified to suggest it? I'm not saying that many wouldn't have a good experience, I'm saying that are you prepared to talk someone into shrooms, only for them to have a bad (harmful) experience? An individual is welcome to experiment on their own, but to advocate suggests some degree of authority that quite frankly isnt evident. I guess we need a psylocybin thread, cuz this isnt it.