Ryuk25 wrote:
I use an HDMI cable to my laptop to my TV, it much better because then its 1080p and Also you have to leave the chair to go outside and have fresh air and play some football and stuff, also to get a drink and have a relationship. You sound like you have no life at all no offense.

Also your a snitch you got my post taken off front page you snitcher.

Snitch's are bitch.

Run-on sentences, misplaced apostrophes, bad grammar..
I don't think you're in any position to tell people what they should do <.<
Ulterior Motives wrote:
Geldonyetich wrote:
Oh, so pot cures cancer now, eh?

Lol! Those pro-pot websites apparently don't have a maximum bullshit threshold to the articles they'll circulate.

Actually there have been numerous studies to this effect. It is given to cancer and AIDS patience to help with their appetite, nausea, and pain along with a wide variety of other diseases. With several studies showing that an active ingredient in marijuana prevents and even kills cell growth in cancerous cells.

If all else fails, Google it, or Wikipedia it. It's not just pot activist websites.

A friend of mine's mom had lung cancer from smoking cigarettes, the doctor said without treatment she would live six months. She starting smoking weed after this and continued smoking cigarettes. This was almost five years ago and she is still alive and never received any real medical treatment. The power of marijuana is real.

Hate to break it to you, but I learned to research my sources in school, and those sources are of absolutely lousy quality. They're not cited properly, if you dig into what was cited on any half-reputable source they listed, you see it's not saying what the site is saying it is. This is simply being used for false presentation.

You simply cannot take anything on a site with an agenda, like a pro-pot websites, as anything other than biased. Google and Wikipedia are not peer-reviewed sources, they are functionally useless for getting the real truth of a thing - the former because you'll trip over any idiot with a website who wants to make a claim - good HTML does not mean they're not lying to you through their teeth - and the later because Wikipedia's peer review is whoever's the fastest editor.

Take that at face value, as I'm not going to explain it further. I've been on more than one comment/forum thread with pro-pot people, and I know how desperate they are to misrepresent things in order to make their favorite habit legal.
The American Association for Cancer Research

Med Page Today

American Society for Clinical Investigation

Science Daily

These all seem like pretty credible sources to me. I'm sure it's just a bunch of pot head scientists and doctors claiming weed kills cancerous cells just so they can get some free weed for testing, though. /s

These are the sources that were used for citing statements on Wikipedia. They all seem right to me, so not really sure what you mean.

I've been on more than one comment/forum thread with people against pot, and I know how desperate they are to misrepresent things.
I'm only going to do this once. I don't have time for this shit today.

Ulterior Motives wrote:
The American Association for Cancer Research

"These effects seemed to occur as the result of an inhibition of the Id-1 gene at the promoter level. Importantly, CBD did not inhibit invasiveness in cells that ectopically expressed Id-1. In conclusion, CBD represents the first nontoxic exogenous agent that can significantly decrease Id-1 expression in metastatic breast cancer cells leading to the down-regulation of tumor aggressiveness"

Only works to slow growth in a very specific type of breast cancer tumor as something that worked better than the other agents they tested on a petri dish. It's a world apart from reversing growth of all cancer in an actual living organism when compared to agents which may be even better at it.

Med Page Today

"The confidence intervals around the odds ratios were wide however, and the odds ratios did not show a dose response."

The results they had indicated that the dosage of Cannabidoids had a very weak correlation that could even be coincidental.

American Society for Clinical Investigation

"In summary, in this study we identify what we believe is a new route that links the ER stress response to the activation of autophagy and promotes the apoptotic death of tumor cells."

He's recommending it specifically because it is a cell killing agent, not as a cure.

Science Daily

"Part of the iVillage Your Total Health Network"

Not even close to a peer reviewed source.

Seriously, if science was able to reliably establish "holy shit, marijuana cures cancer" then we'd be using it in hospitals right now along side other agents that are banned for recreational drug use like morphine.

In fact, they're so willing to do that, that they prescribe it as a glaucoma treatment even though (http://www.glaucoma.org/treating/medical_marijua.php), "Advocates of medicinal marijuana cite evidence that hemp products can lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in people with glaucoma. However, these products are less effective than safer and more available medicines."
Geldonyetich wrote:
He's recommending it specifically because it is a cell killing agent, not as a cure.

I don't think anyone, but you has assumed anything about a cure, or that it works on all cancers. The specific types of cancer cells it helps to kill off can be found in an earlier source I posted. These include breast, lung and brain cancers. This is a step in the right direction to more comprehensive research, as there is absolutely no reliable source that says marijuana doesn't help kill cancerous cells. You are assuming far too much about what is being said.

me > "With several studies showing that an active ingredient in marijuana prevents and even kills cell growth in cancerous cells."

me > "It can help out with the negative effects of smoking too."

Original Article's title > "New Study Explains How Pot Kills Cancer Cells"

Nothing about completely curing cancer has been said, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Most articles state a percentage of cells effected, cancer area, and cancer type. Nothing about a complete cure though. You just automatically replied with a, "they said pot cures cancers, lululz".


In the Med Page Today article it also says, "It's possible that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana smoke may encourage apoptosis, or programmed cell death, causing cells to die off before they have a chance to undergo malignant transformation, he said."

Everything else you said just pretty much backs up what I said. That it kills cancerous cells.

you > "Only works to slow growth in a very specific type of breast cancer tumor as something that worked better than the other agents they tested on a petri dish."

you > "He's recommending it specifically because it is a cell killing agent, not as a cure."

Then, "Seriously, if science was able to reliably establish "holy shit, marijuana cures cancer" then we'd be using it in hospitals right now along side other agents that are banned for recreational drug use like morphine." Is just more of you assuming anyone said anything about a cure for cancer.
That's it, grasp at those straws. Sorry, my tolerance is over for the day. I get too wrapped up in these arguments, and nothing good ever comes on it, so we're agreeing to disagree here.
So yeah, about my monitor?
It's alright if your monitor wants to smoke some pot.
Geldonyetich wrote:
It's alright if your monitor wants to smoke some pot.

Go make yourself a cup of tea, grab a biscuit of some kind, pace around the house stewing in your uncharacteristic rage while drinking said tea and eating said biscuit.

Then come back and comment on whether or not large monitors have a purpose in productivity and gaming, one or the other, or are nothing more than a simple dick extension. <.<
Ryuk25 wrote:
I use an HDMI cable to my laptop to my TV, it much better because then its 1080p

The monitor I linked too matches the specifications of an HD television.

and Also you have to leave the chair to go outside and have fresh air

I have a window directly next to me. If I want fresh air, all I have to do is open it.

and play some football and stuff

Yeah, not all of us are sports fans. I don't like sport, I find sport boring and the fact "professionals" get paid in the millions to play it insulting.

also to get a drink

Got me there. Good thing the closest drinks fridge is, ohh, five metres from me and my chair has wheels.

and have a relationship.

What the hell do I want one of those? Short of the sex, there is no benefit to a relationship for me at this point. All it would serve to do is bankrupt me. Pass.

You sound like you have no life at all no offense.

Trust me, nothing you say can offend me. And perhaps I don't want what you consider to be a life? Perhaps my ideal life is much different to yours and doesn't involve those social communications, twisted relationships of backstabbing and pointless sporting activities. I prefer things nice and simple.

Also your a snitch you got my post taken off front page you snitcher.

It was hidden because it was a pointless post that circumvented the swear filter. Regardless of what he did too you, you still calling him a little shit and a douche bag. You'll find the post was hidden because of that.
Tiberath wrote:
Geldonyetich wrote:
It's alright if your monitor wants to smoke some pot.

Go make yourself a cup of tea, grab a biscuit of some kind, pace around the house stewing in your uncharacteristic rage while drinking said tea and eating said biscuit.

If anyone needs me, I'll be in the angry dome.

But, actually, I couldn't be more chipper, I was just kidding. Come on, "What about my monitor?" "It's alright if your monitor wants to smoke some pot." That's ROFL territory, that is! ;P

Then come back and comment on whether or not large monitors have a purpose in productivity and gaming, one or the other, or are nothing more than a simple dick extension. <.<

Honestly, it's not all that complicated. The bigger the resolution, the bigger the video card, and the human eye can only notice so much pixel difference. If you want to go for a gigantic monitor, or several monitors (personally I never went back once I went dual monitor), your primary advantage will be desktop space and little else.

If you want to do something really fancy about your gaming, I recommend you heed my advice about the stereographic monitor. Who knows? What with the Nintendo 3DS featuring native 3D, perhaps stereographics are about to really catch on. Plus, you can still get some additional desktop space with a PCI card add on or somesuch.
Tiberath is this is true you don't like sports, why on axerob blog you said when you were in high school you played football huh!?
Ryuk25 wrote:
Tiberath is this is true you don't like sports, why on axerob blog you said when you were in high school you played football huh!?

Either you've got the wrong guy or you're misreading the sentence. Try again.

In fact, after a quick and simple search (using the hidden comments searching feature), you'll see that I've only left one comment on Axerob's blog ever.
Page: 1 2