| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
9 |
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I believe it was germane (GeH4), not the element germanium.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Fuck that shit! I'm sorry but no other group of words could express how I feel about that comment.
That's just bullshit.
If you have a decent home lab, you probably have at least one list 1 chemical in your possession right now. How dare you say that ANYONE ordering a
list 1 chemical deserves "what they get".
Errr... 
[Edited on 13-3-2008 by MagicJigPipe] |
Get the proper credentials. If you have a list 1 chemical and you get busted you have no one but your self to bitch about. if you don't like the law
do something to change it.
Joe
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by microcosmicus
Over and above whether one thinks amphetamines should be legal or
illegal, over and above considerations of what this is doing to home
chemistry, even to science in general, there is the troubling issue that
the this approach to enforcing the law via proscribing chemicals perverts
basic, well established legal principles. Namely, to prove a crime, especially
an attempted crime, one is expected to demonstrate means, motive and
opportunity. Here, however, means alone are being propounded as sufficient.
Therefore, It is one thing to say "Anyone caught cooking meth deserves
exactly what they get.." and quite another to say "Anyone caught buying a
list 1 chemical deserves exactly what they get.". To illustrate, suppose that
someone were in contact with known drug dealers, were actively swimming
around cook listservers looking for information, had only chemicals
and apparatus related to meth cookery in his lab, and got caught ordering
phosphorous. In that case, I think most of us would agree that this person
was trying to cook meth. However, if somebody else happened to order
phosphorous, but also had a varied supply of chemicals one would expect in
a chemical laboratory on theshelf and there was no evidence linking him to
drug dealers or cooks. I would have a lot of reasonable doubts that this person
was cooking drugs and think he should be acquitted. Ordinarily, conspiracy
cases are hard to prove but, in the zeal to enforce this law on drugs, the
safeguards have been set aside to make convicting easy. This is particularly the
case for Texas law.
To underscore how lopsided this is, let us apply the same standard to a
different situation, bike stealing. Suppose that someone happened to
spend a lot of time hanging around bike racks, was seen in a chop
shop, and got caught after picking up a bolt cutter from the hardware
store and heading towards a bike rack at a time when there were
few people around. Under those circumstances, a good case could
be made that that person intended to steal a bike and would have
carried through with his plan had he not been stopped. However,
it would be a quite a different matter if someone were accused
solely on the basis of owning a boltcutter and picks with no evidence
to indicate that that person was preparing to put them to use in theivery.
As for predictions, I think Cl2 is next. Maybe I'll say more about this later,
but the sense I get is that the focus of attention of the feds has shifted from
drug dealers to terrorists --- in particular, think of Operation Green
Cloud. As for iodine, I would not be surprised if, in a few years, once
the tightening on ephedrine runs the cooks out of business, lobbying
from horse breeders and the like will lead to the restrictions on I2 being
lifted to what they were a year ago. However, if things stay their
current course, this may be little cause for rejoicing as other things we
now take for granted could be banned --- maybe possession of a chlorate
cell will constitute proof that one is a terrorist improvising explosives,
for instance. Of course, P is equally well suited for incendiary devices,
so fat chance of seeing it legalized. As far as elements go, in the
thread on the DHS list, some people mentioned that Ge is
being watched. |
Do something to change the law. Simply breaking it or setting yourself for charges, bogus or not, is not going to change the law and prove that it
needs tighter enforcement. I don't like the law but I'm actively working with my representatives to get them changed - not sitting on here
complaining that the law is out to get me.
Joe
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 590
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by joeflsts
Anyone caught buying a list 1 chemical deserves exactly what they get. |
I have to disagree with this 100%.
First of all, buying a list 1 does not actually mean buying a list 1 for making drugs. There are many non-drug uses for a lot of them, including
specifically RP. (E.g., woelen describes a number of experiments using RP, and I am 100% sure he isn't using to reduce pseudoephedrine.)
Second, to my knowledge, there is nothing illegal about buying a list 1 chemical. AFAIK, the only legal requirements are that the seller must keep
paperwork about the buyer. In practical terms, list 1 chems are not available to hobbyists, but that doesn't mean illegal. (Importing such may
change things, and there may also be local laws that also change it, e.g. in Texas.)
So you are saying that, someone who buys something that:
a) Has legitimate uses in the hobby we all enjoy, and
b) is not illegal to own
deserves 'what they get' which may likely be a considerable prison term?
No, I cannot agree with that at all.
However, I will agree, that anybody who tries to buy something fom TCC is indeed a fool, but only because it looks like an obvious sting.
|
|
|
-jeffB
Hazard to Others
Posts: 185
Registered: 6-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by joeflsts
Do something to change the law. Simply breaking it or setting yourself for charges, bogus or not, is not going to change the law and prove that it
needs tighter enforcement. I don't like the law but I'm actively working with my representatives to get them changed - not sitting on here
complaining that the law is out to get me.
|
Detailed suggestions are welcome. How do you work with your representatives? Is there another thread where you've discussed this?
I'd love to take this up with my representatives, but I'm sort of at a loss how to proceed, and how to respond when they say "but the scope of the
meth problem outweighs the desires of a tiny hobbyist minority".
[Edited on 3-14-08 by -jeffB]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
JeffB, they will always say that and as long as more than 50% of voters don't care then nothing will change. I have tried the "talking to my rep"
thing before and I can say that most of the time the rep never gets your message/letter.
Unfortunately, it's too late for democracy because that's out the window. The only way to change things now is ACTION (not words). Hopefully, we
won't be left with only one choice of action (seems inevitable).
"I don't like the law but I'm actively working with my representatives to get them changed - not sitting on here complaining that the law is out to
get me."
Good luck with that. I'm actually glad you're still doing that just in case it isn't a waste of time.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
evil_lurker
National Hazard
Posts: 767
Registered: 12-3-2005
Location: United States of Elbonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: On the wagon again.
|
|
You might as well give up on getting the governement to cave on RP restrictions cause it just ain't happening.
The only thing that might be accomplished is to bitch about the registration costs which to my knowledge is required for purchase... IIRC the fees
alone run over $2K USD.
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in
beer.
|
|
|
kilowatt
Hazard to Others
Posts: 322
Registered: 11-10-2007
Location: Montana
Member Is Offline
Mood: nitric
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm almost certain this is the first time in history that a govt. has banned or heavily regulated 2 non-radioactive, non-precious elements. I mean, it
just says iodine so could that be construed to mean all ions of I? I-? I3-? My prediction is that iodine ions (especially I-) are next.
|
The only other time in history I can think of where similar controls have existed is during the Inquisition in the Dark Ages. Someone caught dabbling
with alchemy and other little understood sciences would have been convicted as a heretic and burned.
With regard to your iodine ion prediction, that is already the case. Any iodine salts (KI, NaI, etc) and hydrogen iodide are just as heavily
regulated as I2. Iodates are also listed as far as I know.
| Quote: |
Anyone caught buying a list 1 chemical deserves exactly what they get. Good post. |
Why did you sign up to a message board where you believe many or most of its members deserve a hefty prison sentence or at least a destructve
paramilitary raid on their home and lab? Any decent home chemist has list 1 chemicals, as was stated earlier, and the credentials to possess them
"legitimately" as you suggest are far out of reach for any indvidual or anyone without major funding really, as I believe has also been implied in
this thread. Sadly, at this point, government restrictions will continue to build regardless of how much anyone protests. Voting for Ron Paul as
president is the one of the best things we can do right now.
The mind cannot decide the truth; it can only find the truth.
|
|
|
-jeffB
Hazard to Others
Posts: 185
Registered: 6-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by kilowatt
With regard to your iodine ion prediction, that is already the case. Any iodine salts (KI, NaI, etc) and hydrogen iodide are just as heavily
regulated as I2. Iodates are also listed as far as I know.
|
No, sodium and potassium iodide are still freely available, albeit expensive as ever. I'm considering a "lifetime buy" on KI, though, because I do
expect it to be regulated in the next couple of years.
|
|
|
YT2095
International Hazard
Posts: 1091
Registered: 31-5-2003
Location: Just left of Europe and down a bit.
Member Is Offline
Mood: within Nominal Parameters
|
|
I have a simple question (not worthy of an entire thread) but this Iodine and its drug use, now I know Nothing about this stuff nor do I want to, but
WHY Iodine? can`t Chlorine or Bromine be used instead?
and surely they can`t ban all of those (can they?)
it all seems Quite insane from my perspective as to WHY RP and Iodine???
a Yes-No answer is fine, Are these the only 2 items that will work?
\"In a world full of wonders mankind has managed to invent boredom\" - Death
Twinkies don\'t have a shelf life. They have a half-life! -Caine (a friend of mine)
|
|
|
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It is not iodine itself that is used in the reduction of (pseudo)ephedrine. Iodine is used to form hydrogen iodide in situ by its reaction
with moist red phosphorous. The hydrogen iodide is the actual reagent that reduces (pseudo)ephedrine to that dreaded illegal drug. So, as you see,
chlorine and bromine are no alternatives since their reduction leads to HCl and HBr which are not able to reduce the substrate.
It is not like other methods can not be used. Illegal manufacturers of meth can also use the Birch reduction, hydrogenation or other methods all well
documented in every well stocked library. The problem is not the iodine or phosphorous. There are deeper political reasons for banning iodine instead
of the precursors that need to be banned - pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. The relationship between politics, neoliberalism and meth is a very complex
issue that can not be addressed considering only the prohibition. Haven't you noticed how pseudoephedrine containing products are being advertised in
EU lately? Haven't you noticed anything unusual?
EDIT: I remembered that I already posted about the differences between HI, HBr and HCl in the reduction of alkyl halides. I guess you are not
interested in the organic aspects of the reaction but here is that post anyway.
[Edited on 15/3/2008 by Nicodem]
|
|
|
YT2095
International Hazard
Posts: 1091
Registered: 31-5-2003
Location: Just left of Europe and down a bit.
Member Is Offline
Mood: within Nominal Parameters
|
|
Thanks for that, and No I can`t say I`v noticed, or if I have, I haven`t known it.
I`v no idea what things have it in there? beyond the American version of the Vics nasal device that some Skier got busted for in the olympics several
years ago.
I always assumed that with HCl from table salt, all you had to do to make HI was use NaI instead.
anyway, that`s answered my question more than perfectly, Thanks 
\"In a world full of wonders mankind has managed to invent boredom\" - Death
Twinkies don\'t have a shelf life. They have a half-life! -Caine (a friend of mine)
|
|
|
organometallic
Hazard to Self
Posts: 53
Registered: 22-7-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes! They're being advertised as "contains pseudoephedrine!", wait, why would that be advantageous to anyone but meth cooks? I'm sure I saw some sort
of cold medication on TV the other day.. sudafed maybe, that said in large letters "Contains pseudoephedrine" at the bottom..
In vials of ivory and coloured glass
Unstoppered, lurked her strange synthetic perfumes,
Unguent, powdered, or liquid - troubled, confused
And drowned the sense in odours.
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by pantone159
| Quote: | Originally posted by joeflsts
Anyone caught buying a list 1 chemical deserves exactly what they get. |
I have to disagree with this 100%.
First of all, buying a list 1 does not actually mean buying a list 1 for making drugs. There are many non-drug uses for a lot of them, including
specifically RP. (E.g., woelen describes a number of experiments using RP, and I am 100% sure he isn't using to reduce pseudoephedrine.)
Second, to my knowledge, there is nothing illegal about buying a list 1 chemical. AFAIK, the only legal requirements are that the seller must keep
paperwork about the buyer. In practical terms, list 1 chems are not available to hobbyists, but that doesn't mean illegal. (Importing such may
change things, and there may also be local laws that also change it, e.g. in Texas.)
So you are saying that, someone who buys something that:
a) Has legitimate uses in the hobby we all enjoy, and
b) is not illegal to own
deserves 'what they get' which may likely be a considerable prison term?
No, I cannot agree with that at all.
However, I will agree, that anybody who tries to buy something fom TCC is indeed a fool, but only because it looks like an obvious sting.
|
I should have been more clear - I believe that buying drug making chemicals to make drugs from TCC is only going to get the buyer what he/she
deserves. I didn't mean buying a list 1 chemical for non-drug making activities.
Sorry.
Joe
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Uhhhh... because pseudoephedrine is the most effective OTC nasal decongestant that I know of. Regular people buy pseudoephedrine as well. I just
bought some medicine 2 days ago specifically because it had pseudoephedrine because the drug they tried to replace it with (phenylephrine) doesn't do
shit. Not to mention it (psudafed) "speeds you up" about 3 times as much as caffeine (at least it does me) so I assume their are some people that
take it as a pick-me-up (milder than ephedrine but same principle).
The Vics inhalers have nothing to do with pseudoephedrine or meth for that matter. They contain l-methamphetamine (d-meth is the psychoactive isomer)
which is an extremely MILD nasal decongestant and they only contain 50mg per inhaler.
Obviously, prohibition is not the way to address anything that needs to be solved.
Did you know that in the US if you buy too much pseudoephedrine containing products in a certain period of time you are guilty of a crime regardless
of whether or not you plan on making meth or have any of the equipment or other precursors? That's justice for you!
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
| Quote: |
and surely they can`t ban all of those (can they?)
|
Sure they could and, if things keep on their present course, I consider this possibility quite
likely. Remember that drugs are not the only reason for banning chemicals ---- there is
also this war on terror. In particular, note that the restrictions on ephedrine come
from the so-called Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, which is actually
an ammendment to the PATRIOT act, which is ostensibly about fighting terrorism.
Given current trends, I expect that there will not be much more in the way of banning drug
precursors, but that chemicals will be banned for reasons having to do with terror, which
means that amateur scientists in the U.S,. are going from the frying pan straight into the
fire --- if you think drug laws are lopsided, enforcement is severe, and sentences are harsh,
compare with military tribunals and what is going down at Guantanamo.
In particular, they have already taken the first step towards banning Cl2 with Operation
Green Cloud where the police made a big halogenous stink about how easy it would be
for a terrorist to obtain a cylinder or two of Cl2 and wreak havoc and called for tighter
controls on dangerous chemicals. Already, Homeland Security has its list of watched
chemicals, which happens to include Cl2. To be sure, the current thresholds are in the
tanker car size, but the DHS has the authority to change them and a recommendation
by the NYPD is exactly the sort of thing which would get a threshold lowered.
As for Br2, we all know that it is easy enough to prepare it by the jugful from pool
brominators. If the cops are all in a tizzy about what a terrorist could do with a
cylinder of Cl2,. I am quite sure the prospect of a suicidal fanatic busting open a
bottle of Br2 in a crowded room would send equal shivers down their spines with
the expected result.
Therefore, if things stay on their current course, I think a ban on all halogens
in the U.S. is quite plausible. Should it happen, I assume that it will look like the current I2
ban with a few exceptions carved out for what are considered the legitimate uses.
Needless to say, home experimentation will not be one of those exceptions.
| Quote: |
Haven't you noticed how pseudoephedrine containing products are being advertised in EU lately?
Haven't you noticed anything unusual?
|
I haven't for the simple reason that I happen to be located on the other side of the Atlantic. Could
you tell us more?
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8027
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
I'm in NL and also here, I did not notice anything unusual about ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. As far as I know, these compounds cannot be purchased
over here. It is illegal to sell these chemicals without a written prescription, which clearly explains that there is a medical reason for buying the
material. I am quite happy with that. The same is true for sassafras oil and saffrole. You cannot buy these legally over here. I really hope it will
remain this way. As long as these are hard to obtain, I am quite sure that stuff like red P, iodine and common acids remain available (at least as far
as drugs is concerned).
|
|
|
niggaknow
Harmless
Posts: 6
Registered: 3-2-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Iodine is listed here
http://www.elementalscientific.net/pdf/2007%20Chemicals.pdf
I've gotten a lot of things from this company over the years.
http://www.elementalscientific.net
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 590
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by evil_lurker
the registration costs which to my knowledge is required for purchase... IIRC the fees alone run over $2K USD. |
What are the legal requirements for having List 1 chemicals? All I know about is requirements that sellers keep good records (and that you stand out
as suspicious). I don't know of any legal reason why you can't have them if you can get them, but many here seem to think otherwise.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Yes, many people are under the impression that it is illegal to obtain list 1 chemicals. Especially, the WetDreamers (don't get me started on those
guys, argggg...). Well, it's not. (Pseudo)ephedrine can be purchased OTC from any pharmacy in the US and it's list 1. Safrole and
gamma-butryolactone can be purchased legally as well. It's just, if you do, you're asking for trouble.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8027
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
That's exactly the problem in the USA. These things should become illegal without prescription or licenses and then they can release stuff like I2,
red P and many others.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I completely disagree. Nothing more should become regulated. I can't afford to go to the doctor right now so I shouldn't be allowed to buy my sinus
medicine?
The solution to regulation isn't more regulation. That's just absurd. They wouldn't unlist I2 and RP anyway, this is the US, not Europe.
Phenylacetone is a controlled substance yet methylamine is still schedule 1.
Honestly, I think making it a prescription would make it easier to get than it is (at least for people with money). That way, a doctor on the
"inside" could write a script for much larger amounts than what is currently allowed, especially if it were not scheduled or in any schedule other
than II.
Making things less available to the poor and disenfranchised is crap.
Unfortunately for people in Europe, TCC (if it is a real business) is only making things worse. I have a feeling that if businesses like that
continue to operate then regulation is imminent. Unless, of course, people stop using amphetamines.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
YT2095
International Hazard
Posts: 1091
Registered: 31-5-2003
Location: Just left of Europe and down a bit.
Member Is Offline
Mood: within Nominal Parameters
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Honestly, I think making it a prescription would make it easier to get than it is (at least for people with money). That way, a doctor on the
"inside" could write a script for much larger amounts than what is currently allowed, especially if it were not scheduled or in any schedule other
than II.
|
and what Exactly stops that happening now?
sorry, but that`s a piss poor reason/excuse.
\"In a world full of wonders mankind has managed to invent boredom\" - Death
Twinkies don\'t have a shelf life. They have a half-life! -Caine (a friend of mine)
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Because people aren't forced to do it that way. Excuse? How about there doesn't need to be an excuse. I will NEVER support increased regulation
even if people think home chemistry will benefit. That stance is just as flawed as regulating chemicals like Cl2 to stop terrorism. "Well if we stop
terrorism by regulating more chemicals then more chemicals will be unregulated because there won't be terrorism!" WTF mates!?
Piss poor excuse. Heh. Like I ever said it was an excuse. I am happy with the fact that if a poor person not eligable for medicaid needs effective
sinus medication, they can still get it from the pharmacy. Even if that means that meth cooks can get it as well.
Meth hysteria has blinded people. It is hypocritical to support the regulation of pseudoephedrine to help home chemistry which thrives on lack of
regulation. Do you not see that?
[Edited on 16-3-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
YT2095
International Hazard
Posts: 1091
Registered: 31-5-2003
Location: Just left of Europe and down a bit.
Member Is Offline
Mood: within Nominal Parameters
|
|
you tell me then, what Other use is this compound for in the home Lab other than Drug making?
now offset that against RP and I2 !
\"In a world full of wonders mankind has managed to invent boredom\" - Death
Twinkies don\'t have a shelf life. They have a half-life! -Caine (a friend of mine)
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
9 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
