Chef Jim Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 I'll turn it back to you: what is accurate indicia of a highly functioning person? As opposed to "just functioning?" What are the distinguishing characteristics? My point is that I have known this person, and well. I know his friends well. And again, the "100% conjecture," just like the "no idea" language, is false on its face. Having less than a completely sure idea on an issue does not translate to "no idea" or "100% conjecture." Why am I supposed to define a term (highly functional) you used? I can explain all day long what "just functional" looks like however. Unless you work with him daily, know how successful he is at work, what his managers/bosses think of him you have no idea if he is highly functional. Correct? There are people I've known that have dropped dead from alcohol or drug abuse and was shocked to find out. We don't know what skeletons people have in their closets. So highly functioning is almost impossible to prove in this case. Correct? What does he do for a living? What are some of his achievements? If he has a PhD (a lot of loser PhD's out there) I would assume his accomplishments are known? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 So you're cool with the number of people out there impaired going up, and potentially going up dramatically? I'm much more concerned with idiots on smartphones Yes on 64 in CA!!! Once Cali goes adult use it's all over IMO. The end of this ridiculous prohibition is near! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nighttime in Nigeria Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Why am I supposed to define a term (highly functional) you used? I can explain all day long what "just functional" looks like however. Unless you work with him daily, know how successful he is at work, what his managers/bosses think of him you have no idea if he is highly functional. Correct? There are people I've known that have dropped dead from alcohol or drug abuse and was shocked to find out. We don't know what skeletons people have in their closets. So highly functioning is almost impossible to prove in this case. Correct? What does he do for a living? What are some of his achievements? If he has a PhD (a lot of loser PhD's out there) I would assume his accomplishments are known? Because YOU made the distinction between someone who is highly functioning and someone who is "just functioning." Not me. On what basis did you make that distinction? On what standard are you judging it against? You are taking issue with my characterization of highly functioning, but you fail to state on what basis, or even what you perceive that phrase to mean in opposition to mine. You seem to conclude that behavior within one's employment is the only factor to consider in assessing functionality at this point. Yes, there happen to be PhDs who are losers, just as there are losers with other advanced degrees. But someone who has a PhD shouldn't be presumed to be a loser because he smokes pot consistently. It seems as if you've made a conclusion regarding his maximum functionality based on information provided earlier, and any additional information will be put through the filter you seem to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Because YOU made the distinction between someone who is highly functioning and someone who is "just functioning." Not me. On what basis did you make that distinction? On what standard are you judging it against? You are taking issue with my characterization of highly functioning, but you fail to state on what basis, or even what you perceive that phrase to mean in opposition to mine. You seem to conclude that behavior within one's employment is the only factor to consider in assessing functionality at this point. Yes, there happen to be PhDs who are losers, just as there are losers with other advanced degrees. But someone who has a PhD shouldn't be presumed to be a loser because he smokes pot consistently. It seems as if you've made a conclusion regarding his maximum functionality based on information provided earlier, and any additional information will be put through the filter you seem to have. No you stated he's highly functional. Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nighttime in Nigeria Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 No you stated he's highly functional. Please explain. I did. And you took issue with my characterization, citing a difference between highly functional and just functioning. You would have to know what both definitions mean in order to know there's a difference. Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 I did. And you took issue with my characterization, citing a difference between highly functional and just functioning. You would have to know what both definitions mean in order to know there's a difference. Is that correct? You did not explain how he's highly functional. Hell you said you've lost touch since college. How long has that been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 I did. And you took issue with my characterization, citing a difference between highly functional and just functioning. You would have to know what both definitions mean in order to know there's a difference. Is that correct? In what circumstance would you classify a jobless Ph D as highly functioning? I'm not saying there can't be one, I'm just interested in your take on it. If you heard he had lost his job because he failed a pot test would you say that pot had impaired his function? I think the difference here is as simple as you saying he is highly functioning and then describing how he was highly functioning. Those are two different things which do not necessarily correlate. For instance, if I said OJ Simpson seems like a really good guy, it would be different than if I said OJ Simpson seemed like a very good guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nighttime in Nigeria Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 (edited) You did not explain how he's highly functional. Hell you said you've lost touch since college. How long has that been? As I stated above, we are both in our 20s. We've only recently lost contact. You apparently deduced from my posts what it meant in order to assert a distinction. Is that correct? As I've said, he has succeeded academically at every level, which I would believe matters. According to LinkedIn, he is a lead researcher at a prestigious University in the field of "condensed matter physics," with an accompanying description of details with which I'm not familiar. I cannot comment on the difficulty of this position. Should I try to obtain letters of recommendation to confirm his functionality, as well? In what circumstance would you classify a jobless Ph D as highly functioning? I'm not saying there can't be one, I'm just interested in your take on it. If you heard he had lost his job because he failed a pot test would you say that pot had impaired his function? I think the difference here is as simple as you saying he is highly functioning and then describing how he was highly functioning. Those are two different things which do not necessarily correlate. For instance, if I said OJ Simpson seems like a really good guy, it would be different than if I said OJ Simpson seemed like a very good guy. Now you now he's jobless? Wow! I thought you already inferred from my posts that he is employed, from a friend I'm apparently unfamiliar with. Which is it? Where are you deducing any employment information? From who? Edit: In this scenario, why is this hypothetical person unemployed? Edited November 8, 2016 by Nighttime in Nigeria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Now you now he's jobless? Wow! I thought you already inferred from my posts that he is employed, from a friend I'm apparently unfamiliar with. Which is it? Where are you deducing any employment information? From who? Are you stoned again? Because it sounds like you're stoned again. My question was a general one and not specific to your friend who you don't know but know some people who know who used to smoke pot and might still smoke pot who you looked up on Linked In. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 As I stated above, we are both in our 20s. We've only recently lost contact. You apparently deduced from my posts what it meant in order to assert a distinction. Is that correct? As I've said, he has succeeded academically at every level, which I would believe matters. According to LinkedIn, he is a lead researcher at a prestigious University in the field of "condensed matter physics," with an accompanying description of details with which I'm not familiar. I cannot comment on the difficulty of this position. Should I try to obtain letters of recommendation to confirm his functionality, as well? See now if you had said you knew absolutely nothing about how highly functional he is because you don't even know what the !@#$ he does you would have saved us both a lot of keystrokes. Ahhhh millenials. Ya gotta love 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Does anyone else find it unbelievably humorous watching these political videos of the people who want Pot legalized in New York State. Friggin hilarious burnouts. Yeah man.......psssssss.....bad buzz.......Yeah it should be legal........Wait what?...........psss....bad buzz Channel 7 was interviewing some of them. Where in the hell do they scrape this dirtbags up from? Burnouts are funny. If I'm a reporter I can only put burnouts on camera to skew my story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishDave Posted November 8, 2016 Author Share Posted November 8, 2016 Dope makes you dumb. - Especially regular use over a long time frame. Is that even debatable? The only ones who would argue otherwise are pot smokers who don't want to admit it is making them dumber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nighttime in Nigeria Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 See now if you had said you knew absolutely nothing about how highly functional he is because you don't even know what the !@#$ he does you would have saved us both a lot of keystrokes. Ahhhh millenials. Ya gotta love 'em. Whereas you can apparently distinguish between terms when you cannot articulate the meaning of one. Quite the amazing feat. Ahhh AARPers...gotta love 'em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Dope makes you dumb. - Especially regular use over a long time frame. Is that even debatable? The only ones who would argue otherwise are pot smokers who don't want to admit it is making them dumber. So what's your excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Whereas you can apparently distinguish between terms when you cannot articulate the meaning of one. Quite the amazing feat. Ahhh AARPers...gotta love 'em! Is: present tense Was : past tense I have as much or more respect for old people than anyone but let's face it, they didn't do a good job teaching their kids the language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nighttime in Nigeria Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Are you stoned again? Because it sounds like you're stoned again. My question was a general one and not specific to your friend who you don't know but know some people who know who used to smoke pot and might still smoke pot who you looked up on Linked In. Did you miss my posts above stating I've never been drunk, high, or otherwise intoxicated? I don't think I'm the one who people would presume is high in this thread. I think it's the person pulling information from where it doesn't exist. Like you. Is: present tense Was : past tense I have as much or more respect for old people than anyone but let's face it, they didn't do a good job teaching their kids the language. Don't fault me for your misinterpretations where its meaning is patently clear on its face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishDave Posted November 8, 2016 Author Share Posted November 8, 2016 (edited) So what's your excuse? Ba dum cha! good one. I burned a lot of green in my youth. And yes, it definitely made me dumber than I otherwise could/might have been. Kinda wish I could go back and not do it, but we don't get that luxury. There are a lot of things I can say that about. With weed, you just don't realize how dumb it is making you when you use it regularly. Your judgement is clouded by smoke. It is easier to just deny it than to admit you are closer to retarded as a result of your desire to giggle more often. I must admit though, it sure does make music a lot more enjoyable. oh...and food. Edited November 8, 2016 by PolishDave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Whereas you can apparently distinguish between terms when you cannot articulate the meaning of one. Quite the amazing feat. Ahhh AARPers...gotta love 'em! I don't have to distinguish the difference. You said he is HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL I'm just asking for clarification on how you know that and so far you have been unable to do that. And I will leave you with these questions. How highly functional when he drives after a couple of bong hits? How highly functional when he pays his bills after a couple fatties? How highly functional is he when he fills out a loan application after a couple spliffs? How highly functional is he when he as to decide between the regular or nacho cheese Doritos after a couple of bowls? If I remember correctly you've never used before so you have no clue as to how goofy it is to do some of these things after you got your buzz on. But you know he's highly functional. Once again. How do you know this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Dope makes you dumb. - Especially regular use over a long time frame. Is that even debatable? The only ones who would argue otherwise are pot smokers who don't want to admit it is making them dumber. Nope it's not debatable. It's completely false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 So what's your excuse? He's Polish Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts