Brick Top
New Member
My personal stalking troll strikes again!
Dont listen to this bullshit.. because thats exactly what it is.
- Thread starter cannabisguru
- Start date
theexpress
Well-Known Member
were just going to have to agree to dissagree.... just so hard for me to let you talk about opinnion and not fact.... your just going to have to face a few things my friend... the 60's are over, you will NEVER BE that young again, and the weed you guys were smoking on back then isnt shit to what i smoke everyday......
Brick Top
New Member
These are the facts:
1.) You do not know what you are talking about. You are the one relying only on opinion.
2.) My age and my never being able to be young again has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of cannabis from the 60's and 70's anymore than it has to do with the quality of cannabis today.
3.) Do you know how THC levels were tested in the 60's and 70's and how years later, around the time of the birth of 'The Dutch Masters' the testing procedure was altered and how the change resulted in drastically different levels of THC in cannabis?
If you know all about it and how things were changed and how it affected the reported levels of THC please explain it to all those who do not know about it. If you do not know anything at all about it I would suggest that you drop this before you dig yourself into an ever deepening hole and find yourself unable to climb out of it.
theexpress
Well-Known Member
lol ooohh you wanna play who knows more??? im game..... AND UNLIKE YOU I WONT BE COPYING AND PASTEING SHIT.... cannaboids are measured by gas/chrom.....
theexpress
Well-Known Member
this pic is more typical of the weed you guys had back then... matter fact if it was even has good has this seedless, unbricked at all, schwag sativa.... this is what my current partner was growing before he met me and i came threw with the real genetics..... 
theexpress
Well-Known Member
you would prolly die for some of that, but i WOULDND SMOKE THAT SHIT WITH YOUR LUNGS EVEN!!!!this pic is more typical of the weed you guys had back then... matter fact if it was even has good has this seedless, unbricked at all, schwag sativa.... this is what my current partner was growing before he met me and i came threw with the real genetics.....
Brick Top
New Member
So you just admitted that you do not know that the testing procedure, not equipment, but the testing procedure was changed and how the change caused a major difference in reported levels of THC.
Thank you for admitting that. Now maybe you will stop your nonsense and quit talking about things you know nothing about.
theexpress
Well-Known Member
you very good at putting words that people didnt say in there mouths, and seeing what you wanna see in shit.... thc today is measured by Gas chromagraphy or runnin the ganj in a gas spectrometer are the only accurate ways to messure any chemical structure.
you should have neevr gotten into this with me..... after this your not going to be able to hold your head high around here... im gonna pick the flaws in everything you say...
you should have neevr gotten into this with me..... after this your not going to be able to hold your head high around here... im gonna pick the flaws in everything you say...
Brick Top
New Member
What in the wide, wide world of sports makes you believe that the picture that you pulled out of thin air is the same or anywhere near the same as the actual cannabis that I smoked in the 60's and the 70's? Because you want to believe it is the same or close enough to being the same to be accurately representative of what I smoked back then?
You really need to get a grip on reality troll.
Evidently you missed these pictures or forgot about them, a Maui sativa that have been kept going since the 70's. It sure out sparkles that mutt of yours.
____
Yep. that 70's Maui sativa is sure some schwaggy looking shit for sure! I can see why you would never lower yourself to smoke any of it when you have that less frosty pollen chucker mutt strain of yours to smoke instead.
theexpress
Well-Known Member
What in the wide, wide world of sports makes you believe that the picture that you pulled out of thin air is the same or anywhere near the same as the actual cannabis that I smoked in the 60's and the 70's? Because you want to believe it is the same or close enough to being the same to be accurately representative of what I smoked back then?
You really need to get a grip on reality troll.
Evidently you missed these pictures or forgot about them, a Maui sativa that have been kept going since the 70's. It sure out sparkles that mutt of yours.
____
Yep. that 70's Maui sativa is sure some schwaggy looking shit for sure! I can see why you would never lower yourself to smoke any of it when you have that less frosty pollen chucker mutt strain of yours to smoke instead.
lmmfao you must be smoking crack!!!! and were talking big boulders too..... fuck you foxtailing garbadge!!!!
theexpress
Well-Known Member
i can see more foliage on your shit then you can threw my trichomed out dank!!!!! and i dont beleave that what you have there is a 70's sativa.... some kind of sativa for sure...... maybe a worked up maui crossed to something danker to make it better.... show me some columbian gold!
Brick Top
New Member
You claim anyway that you can see more foliage then through your trichomed out 'skank'. All I remember seeing so far of what you claim you made and what you claim is so great has been a bud that wasn't anywhere near as frosty as the 70's Maui sativa.
You don't believe the pictures are a 70's Maui sativa that's been kept going all these years? Well that does not surprise me one bit. It proves your misconception of some 70's and earlier strains to be 100% inaccurate so of course you are going to attempt to cast doubt on it's genetics.
The strain is traceable back to the 70's and has been offered to Neville to use in his current breeding project The Grail.
OK two can play at that game. I do not believe you made the strain you claim you made. I do not believe it is anywhere near to being what you claim it to be and that it wouldn't get anyone any higher than the worst lowest grade Mexican brickweed that was ever grown and like someone said about you in another thread, I believe that you are a kid and according to site rules that you are not even old enough to be on this site.
I had to look around a bit but here's a macro picture of some Colombian Gold.
Doesn't look too shabby, does it?
Here's another macro shot that was listed under Colombian Gold.
Neither of those pictures or any of the 70's Maui look at all like you incorrectly claim the best strains of the 60's and 70's were like, do they?
Of course you will attempt to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Colombian Gold pictures just as you have attempted to cast doubt on the authenticity of the 70's Maui sativa.
But then I highly doubt the bud you posted is what you claim it to be, in any and every way, including being your own creation, and I highly doubt that the pictures you posted that you claim to be what were the best the 60's and 70's had to offer are anything more than low grade Mexican that by the fluffy look of it was poorly grown.
Here's another Colombian Gold picture. Not as impressive looking as the first two but then not a macro shot but still vastly more impressive looking than the pictures of fluffy poorly grown low grade Mexican you attempted to claim was the best the 60's and 70's had to offer.
You do realize that we are all still waiting for you to prove that you know what you are talking about by explaining how the testing procedure was altered from how cannabis was tested for levels of THC back in the 60's and 70's to what it was later changed to and how that greatly altered reported THC levels.
If you really know what you are talking about you would know all about it and have at least a feasible explanation as to why the changes in the testing procedure that resulted in such a big difference in THC levels were actually because of something else and not the changes made in how THC levels were tested. Lacking that your argument is baseless, it is hollow, it is nothing more than your personal opinion, your personal belief and you are left without a leg to stand on.
So tell us all about it and explain away the instant big difference in levels of THC by telling us what actually caused them rather than the way THC levels being tested were changed.
Go for it big guy! You're the alleged expert on the quality of pot of the past and the present, and likely you believe for the future too.
What do you have to lose? Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong and to shut me up. So rather than make false allegations in a weak attempt to create a smokescreen to attempt to hide the fact that you do not have a clue of what you are talking about, get into facts and specifics.
theexpress
Well-Known Member
lol thats some schwaggy looking nuggs... just got a lil frost... if you look at my "skank" with your bifocles on you would see my shit is shitting all over you trash in terms of kief.... also i would be willing to bet anything that my shit smells waaaaaaaaaaaay harder then wtf ever you got!!!!! if it sits in a jar long enough i swear you can smell it threw glass!!!!! and i wish i could videotape you after you take a few ripps of my shit and put that shit on youtube and call it "old hippie gets waaaay too fucked up!"You claim anyway that you can see more foliage then through your trichomed out 'skank'. All I remember seeing so far of what you claim you made and what you claim is so great has been a bud that wasn't anywhere near as frosty as the 70's Maui sativa.
You don't believe the pictures are a 70's Maui sativa that's been kept going all these years? Well that does not surprise me one bit. It proves your misconception of some 70's and earlier strains to be 100% inaccurate so of course you are going to attempt to cast doubt on it's genetics.
The strain is traceable back to the 70's and has been offered to Neville to use in his current breeding project The Grail.
OK two can play at that game. I do not believe you made the strain you claim you made. I do not believe it is anywhere near to being what you claim it to be and that it wouldn't get anyone any higher than the worst lowest grade Mexican brickweed that was ever grown and like someone said about you in another thread, I believe that you are a kid and according to site rules that you are not even old enough to be on this site.
I had to look around a bit but here's a macro picture of some Colombian Gold.
Doesn't look too shabby, does it?
Here's another macro shot that was listed under Colombian Gold.
Neither of those pictures or any of the 70's Maui look at all like you incorrectly claim the best strains of the 60's and 70's were like, do they?
Of course you will attempt to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Colombian Gold pictures just as you have attempted to cast doubt on the authenticity of the 70's Maui sativa.
But then I highly doubt the bud you posted is what you claim it to be, in any and every way, including being your own creation, and I highly doubt that the pictures you posted that you claim to be what were the best the 60's and 70's had to offer are anything more than low grade Mexican that by the fluffy look of it was poorly grown.
Here's another Colombian Gold picture. Not as impressive looking as the first two but then not a macro shot but still vastly more impressive looking than the pictures of fluffy poorly grown low grade Mexican you attempted to claim was the best the 60's and 70's had to offer.
You do realize that we are all still waiting for you to prove that you know what you are talking about by explaining how the testing procedure was altered from how cannabis was tested for levels of THC back in the 60's and 70's to what it was later changed to and how that greatly altered reported THC levels.
If you really know what you are talking about you would know all about it and have at least a feasible explanation as to why the changes in the testing procedure that resulted in such a big difference in THC levels were actually because of something else and not the changes made in how THC levels were tested. Lacking that your argument is baseless, it is hollow, it is nothing more than your personal opinion, your personal belief and you are left without a leg to stand on.
So tell us all about it and explain away the instant big difference in levels of THC by telling us what actually caused them rather than the way THC levels being tested were changed.
Go for it big guy! You're the alleged expert on the quality of pot of the past and the present, and likely you believe for the future too.
What do you have to lose? Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong and to shut me up. So rather than make false allegations in a weak attempt to create a smokescreen to attempt to hide the fact that you do not have a clue of what you are talking about, get into facts and specifics.
theexpress
Well-Known Member
lol this pic is almost just like the one i posted only from a better camera!!!!! fuck this crap!!! i wouldnt pay more then 5 bux a gram for that and thats if i had to smoke it!
Brick Top
New Member
If you wanted the title of the video to be accurate you would have to call it 'Old hippie samples pure shit and walks away totally straight and highly disappointed.'
I can guarantee you that if I had some of the very best of the 60's and 70's and you smoked more than two hits, maybe even just two hits, in about 15 or 20 minutes if you were not crying for your mama you would be saying 'I have to go home and go to bed, I'm too high!' I saw true hardened party commandos who only took two hits of what my brother in law brought home from Vietnam say they were too high. It was not a case of paranoia, it was that they had been shot out into the farthest reaches of space and were not prepared for it, they were so far beyond just being in Oz that they could not deal with it. You would fare no better.
I know by the way you talk that you have never taken a true rocket-sled ride in your life because if you had, even if it was not your personal preference in highs, you would still have a great deal of respect for it. You might very well say that you didn't like it because it made you high, almost certainly too high, rather than stoned, but you would never claim it lacked major potency. Never!
The best of the era had octane levels that your unleaded strain could never come close to matching.
theexpress
Well-Known Member
lol whatever man... my shit will rock you for hours with just a bowl, while your shit would keep me buzzed for 20-30 min if i smoked a whole joint!!!!!! keep your schwagg...
Brick Top
New Member
If you had any idea of how wrong you are you would be so embarrassed that you would leave this site and never return.
But as I already said; "You do realize that we are all still waiting for you to prove that you know what you are talking about by explaining how the testing procedure was altered from how cannabis was tested for levels of THC back in the 60's and 70's to what it was later changed to and how that greatly altered reported THC levels.
If you really know what you are talking about you would know all about it and have at least a feasible explanation as to why the changes in the testing procedure that resulted in such a big difference in THC levels were actually because of something else and not the changes made in how THC levels were tested. Lacking that your argument is baseless, it is hollow, it is nothing more than your personal opinion, your personal belief and you are left without a leg to stand on.
So tell us all about it and explain away the instant big difference in levels of THC by telling us what actually caused them rather than the way THC levels being tested were changed.
Go for it big guy! You're the alleged expert on the quality of pot of the past and the present, and likely you believe for the future too.
What do you have to lose? Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong and to shut me up. So rather than make false allegations in a weak attempt to create a smokescreen to attempt to hide the fact that you do not have a clue of what you are talking about, get into facts and specifics."
theexpress
Well-Known Member
i bow down to no SATIVA!!!!!! NO SATIVA I EVER TRIED I WOULD EVER CALL "OVERPOWERING" AND I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU SAY IVE HAD THE BEST, IVE SMOKED ARJANS HAZE'S, IVE SMOKED THE ORIGENAL HAZE, IVE SMOKED BOTH SILVER HAZE, AND SUPER SILVER HAZE {SILVER HAZE X N.L.}, IVE SMOKED NEVILLES HAZE, IVE EVEN SMOKED ALOT OF THOSE SHITTY LANDRACES WE HAVE BEEN ARGUEING ABOUT...... IVE NEVER MET A SATIVA THAT PUT ME WHERE I WANTED TO BE....
Serapis
Well-Known Member
You are not going to ever get the last word with BT.... you are only encouraging him to keep at you. You are better off to just say "BT, you win" and move on.... I have him in my ignore list just for this same reason... he won't respect your opinion and he always has to have the last word.... I just remind people that BT has never bought or grown a Nirvana strain and therefore shouldn't be offering up opinions of others. There are many satisfied Nirvana customers, and if he wants to think of us as "flavor of the week growers" as he likes to put it, so be it.
Just saying, let it go... you'll be a happier person for it.
This message is hidden because Brick Top is on your ignore list.
That is music to my eyes....
Just saying, let it go... you'll be a happier person for it.
This message is hidden because Brick Top is on your ignore list.
That is music to my eyes....
Illumination
New Member
You liked to be stoned BT likes to be high...that is the good thing about having both...from the pure of either to the innumerable hybrid crosses one should find what they like...I also prefer the high of sativas and it is a hard search for us sat lovers as almost everything is indica crossed these days