Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Open Posting of Sources

Open Posting of Sources

PrimoPyro - 6-11-2003 at 13:10

Hello. After reading a post by jubrail rquesting that the rules regarding posting of sources be changed, I almost posted a direct reply, saying that I highly agree. I decided to hold off and speak with some in private first, and I was urged to post my opinions. I have read one other thread here on a similar subject.

Everyone here should be made to realize the seriousness of this issue, because it applies to everyone, and has potential consequences for everyone.

I often hear funny little statements like, "Surely this board is being watched by them." and "Who knows what kind of lists they have this board on." etc. Of course all this is my opinion, not actual fact, because I cannot provide evidence here and now to prove my opinions correct. It is just my 100% belief that they are true. Your opinions may differ, I realize this.

I find statements like these to seem like large ego-boosters, deriving from one's desire to be "important" or "dangerous." Sounds dumb? Well, that's what it really looks like from this side of the monitor; sorry. I don't think people really consider the important factors involved in anyone choosing to 'watch' someone. They think that because of the garage/kitchen nature of this site, it is automatically profiled as a "needing to be watched" entity. Personally, I strongly disagree.

But let's consider what would benefit our 'watchers' if we are indeed under a microscope. Would they watch, looking for suspicious persons to watch individually? In my opinion, not likely. This sort of tactic is very unlikely to yield what they are looking for: a lead to a case for a bust. Even on forums such as the Hive, where the topics discussed are entirely 'taboo' I personally doubt this is the kind of 'watching' that goes on.

Would they watch for procedural information; perhaps writeups of using new chemicals to get around barriers? Haha, hell no. Listing of chemicals is rather illogical and unintelligent, at least in the USA. Chemicals at the lowest level of control, the so-called 'watched' chemicals, get there because they are the ones found in busted labs and on people busted with products. They are not added to a list from intelligence sources such as watching online forums.

However, there is one category of intelligence easily gathered open source on forums like these; or if not open source, through human intelligence. This category could easily be added to a list and yield real world results for our 'watchers': Sources of chemicals and equipment.

Everyone knows what a sting is. A sting is a special set-up operation involving deception, leading to a bust. Stings have the peculiar property of yielding much more valuable intelligence than a straight out bust, where the offending party is confronted and arrested, and end of story.

No, a sting involves extraction and even extortion of information, leading to more busts and stings, which continue to branch out like a tree. By far the most high yielding sting is on a chemical house. Not the purchaser, but the seller. Laws in effect in the USA require at the bare minimum, a certain amount of records to be kept. Suppliers almost always keep additional records to safeguard themselves when shit like this happens.

One offender gets busted, and he has some NaBH3CN from company A, and some PdCl2 from company B. Now both of these companies are on profile if not already, and records are confiscated for intelligence. Similar orders at the companies are investigated, almost always leading to more busts at that company, since "sources" are used untilbled dry, because sources are rare and once one finds one, they are hard pressed to let it go.

This is the most common way to proceed through a sting tree. But the DEA does not need a warrant to search through records in the USA. They can come in any time and confiscate records (or copies of them), in fact they are required to do so periodically. It is potentially very high yielding to keep a list of common sources and station one or two persons to monitor online forums oncea day for posts regarding sources. Compares of the posted sources to the list would identify new places to confiscate records and search for suspicious orders to start a new tree.

Very very bad situation for everyone here. You can say that you could always protect yourself and split up your orders to maintain anonymity. But how easy would it be, if records can be totally confiscated for review, and a list be maintained, for the DEA to simply put all data, names, purchases, companies, methods of purchase, etc. into a huge matrix encoded with a search algorithm to identify "suspicious activity"? NOT HARD AT ALL.

This is the worst case scenario I suppose, but it is more than just plausible. I find it likely. Maybe this will make it hit home harder: what do you think happens to a source when it gets associated with busts? They get harassed, and they usually change their policies, if not disappear entirely. In other words, the attributes of that source that made it a "good source" are gone, and thus so is the 'source'.

Sharing sources openly makes them disappear, possibly along with some of the source users. Open posting of sources is an extremely detrimental action that will only inhibit research and fun here, for everyone.

No doubt, there are several agencies trying hard to screw you out of your fun. Don't help them.

PrimoPyro

vulture - 6-11-2003 at 13:16

I agree. Add to that the fact that most people who have trouble finding the most common chemicals also usually don't possess the knowledge to work with them.

That way, identifying sources is a healthy darwinistic process to weed out the kewls.

Polverone - 6-11-2003 at 18:19

Quote:

Add to that the fact that most people who have trouble finding the most common chemicals also usually don't possess the knowledge to work with them.

Sort of. This is true of people who've never had any formal chemistry experience. But I know people with undergraduate or even advanced degrees in chemistry who would be helpless if they had to work in a home lab. The only way they know of getting chemicals is "go to the stockroom" or "order from Sigma-Aldrich." The typical chemistry course doesn't include much information on relatively pure sources of chemicals from consumer products. I find that lists like I am a Fish has made are very helpful for getting such people up to speed. However, the point is taken, regarding specific suppliers of chemicals.

My experiences

chloric1 - 6-11-2003 at 20:06

Well, hello all.

Polverone you made some sound points in your post and I full heartedly agree. I started my chemical quest during the LAST Bush administration when the war on drugs was a HOT topic. I was young and naive and I had close calls. I learned how to be resourceful and look for sources. It is amazing with the Patriot act and Homeland security there are still new sources sporadically poppomg up. Perhaps to fill the niche of others that have gone by the wayside. I do not Europe and Australia or other countries, but things are still fairly simple to aquire in this country. As long as we tread cautiously and use sound judgement, we have a chance to preserve our rights to bear reagents. But I think I will go for a Bachelors degree in synthetic chemistry just in case the restrictions increase.

Rhadon - 6-11-2003 at 22:44

I totally have to agree with you PrimoPyro, that post was a good read. I'm a bit in a hurry, so here's just what I wrote to someone else on that topic some time ago:

Quote:

In my opinion posting sources explicitly should not be allowed because if every newbie knows about the source sooner or later one will do something stupid, therefore forcing the source to stop selling a particular substance to private persons. Exchanging sources can still be done by email, but that way it's acceptable because newbies will have to establish themselves at first or simply work the sources out for themselves like others do. There's nothing worse than seeing that someone just published a source to for which you spent hours to find.

sources

Organikum - 23-11-2003 at 09:55

I am a quite big believer.
In humans.
I dont know what sources are talked of here but I havent seen one posted which was prone to be taken down because of this posting.
I believe the PM dealing of sources being worse than anything else.
But thats only me.

There are more important things to look after for to keep the board low profile. The way things are named for example is one.
I say: If someone is able to formulate the question correctly he deserves a correct answer on anything he asks for - and he may be able to localize whats needed for his purposes by posts made here - sources.
Censorship starts in your own head - never forget about this.
Treating humans like idiots makes the¨m act like idiots, thats another point.
And last not least - what makes some of the posters here feel so superior to the rest of mankind? Are we sure it is safe to give sources to PP, Rhadon or even me? Why?
No, this doesnt work this way - you are demanding restrictions for all and I refuse this. This is directly against the idea of freedom of information - this is how it starts, the scissors in your own head.....

Sad to see the thinking already poisoned this way.
Very sad.

vulture - 23-11-2003 at 11:37

Since I became a moderator here, I get countless posts of people who want me to tell them how to make the biggest possible explosion with easy to find chems.

They often show absolutely zero respect for chemistry and lack the most fundamental understanding.

If they could find the info within 2s because it's posted here out in the open, we would be in for some though shit.

And last not least - what makes some of the posters here feel so superior to the rest of mankind? Are we sure it is safe to give sources to PP, Rhadon or even me? Why?

Why do people only share certain information with people they trust?
This is a phenomenon found in every human aspect of society. You only share certain things with people you trust, because you know they won't abuse them.

Furthermore, you learn the most things when searching for chemicals. If you can find them without effort, you'd rather start experimenting right away and would not be so inclined to read up on the chemicals and their properties.

Rhadon - 23-11-2003 at 13:09

Quote:

And last not least - what makes some of the posters here feel so superior to the rest of mankind? Are we sure it is safe to give sources to PP, Rhadon or even me? Why?

I have to agree with what Vulture said. The more people that know of a certain source, the higher the likelihood that someone will do something stupid with it. This applies especially to newbies. Who knows what they will do with it, and who knows how they will place their orders. An experienced home chemist will never order certain combinations of chemicals at once, but who can guarantee that every newbie will be intelligent enough not to do that? Additionally, open posting of sources in forums could attract the feds and force the supplier to take certain chemicals out of his range. Perhaps they could even force them to hand out their records which tell them who else ordered these certain chemicals resulting in a threat for many others. Giving the information only to a selected few decreases the number of irresponsible members who get it and at the same time increases the sense of responsibility of each person who has it because he either knows that the one who gave it to him relies on his common sense or, if he found the source by himself, he knows that it would be a pity to loose it.

I get your point and totally agree with you that information should be free for all, but since the government restricts the access to chemicals we have to find the best way to get them. That may imply making sacrifices, as sad as it is. But you know the feds and you know the media. I can get in a rage when I hear things like "without any problems he ordered all ingredients to make his bomb / drug / whatever". And you know how politicians are likely to react: "We must do something" they say. That does usually result in restrictions and regulations. If these do something good is not of interest. It's even not of interest whether or not they serve the purpose for which they were enacted.

unionised - 23-11-2003 at 15:18

Just a thought, if the "powers that be" wanted to find out where the new "user friendly" sources were they would sign up to sites like this one, post accurate and helpful replies untill they were trusted. Then they could ask for the sources and sting them.
How do you know who to trust?

(Yes, I realise that, as a newish poster I might be a spy. I would hardly have drawn attention to myself like this if I were. Or is it a double bluff?)

Come to think of it, how do I know this whole site is not a dummy set up by the dea or whoever to trap the unwary?

Organikum - 24-11-2003 at 13:21

There is no such thing as a free lunch - and there is no such thing as a spy on a open board like this.

And Rhadon you didnt go for my arguments.

First: What makes you sure I or Madscientist (the name!) or Polverone (name!) or you yourself will not blow up a shopping mall next week?
Dont trust me, I am mental ill.... (ok depressions make only seldom one to blow up a mall but mental ill is mental ill...)

And WHAT sources for example are you talking of, name me one please - here or in a PM!

The propaganda machine is in your head already:
All serious drug manufacturers use industrial sources, All serious terrorists use military explosives, SEMPTEX or else.

Only the propaganda machine uses other examples and I promise you one thing: If they dont realy happen, they will make them up.

READ!

There is only one freedom of information - get it in whole with some inherent drawbacks or dont get it at all. There is not such a thing as a free lunch and there is not such a thing as "a little bit pregnant" and there is not such a thing like "a little bit of censorship".

And however you name it - it is censorship. Get your antidote immediately - go to eff.org or any other freedom of information organisation on the net and read.
How it starts.
And how it ends.

I stay to my word:
who is able to formulate the question in a proper way, will almost always get the answer so I can provide it. Including sources so I feel its appropriate to include them.

But see:
"The question asked in a proper way"
Thats the main point here. As all information on what vulture is asked is already on the board. No new rules - fighting for and keeping up the style is it. Lets stay a littly geeky - this keeps the nutcases away.
Most at least.
LOL.....

Anyways, we are not talking about explosives - we just train our abilities in scientific verbalisation.....

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Organikum]

Organikum - 24-11-2003 at 13:51

and we are in favorable situation to unload all those who dont fit in here to the appropriate other board. From rouguesci to TOTSE and more....
Just going on like now - showing them the link and closing the thread. Thats all whats needed.

And those vulture talks of dont know what MEKP is. So I can post any source I like to.

Rhadon - 24-11-2003 at 16:16

Quote:

First: What makes you sure I or Madscientist (the name!) or Polverone (name!) or you yourself will not blow up a shopping mall next week?

Nothing. But it's a question of trust and probability. I think that I do at least know Polverone [Edit: and you

] good enough to say that I can call it improbable that he'll get a suicide bomber. And of course myself. You will have to admit that it's easier to judge persons you know a bit than persons you don't know at all, and the latter will be it who will get the information if you post it to a public forum. Conclusion: You can positively affect the probability that someone does something stupid with certain information by only giving it to those who you think are intelligent enough to use it wisely. I wouldn't apply this system to all kind of information, but if the results could affect me I would. That doesn't mean that I don't care what happens to people when they get the information I give them, but everybody has his destiny in his own hand and it's everyone's duty to use the information wisely. Some may not do, but then it should at least not affect other people.

Quote:

The propaganda machine is in your head already:
All serious drug manufacturers use industrial sources, All serious terrorists use military explosives, SEMPTEX or else.

Only the propaganda machine uses other examples and I promise you one thing: If they dont realy happen, they will make them up.

But the point is not where e.g. a serious terrorist gets his chemicals from. The point is that you can get fucked by the pigs because they accuse you of being a threat just because you're in the possession of, say, explosives. They cannot bust the serious terrorists you're talking about, but they have to do something (like I already said in my last post), so they do the next best thing and arrest the next best person whose activity has similarities with that of a terrorist.

Quote:

There is only one freedom of information - get it in whole with some inherent drawbacks or dont get it at all.

Sure, but if we take this to the extreme everybody has the information but no-one can make use of it anymore because the sources have seized to exist. It is indeed somewhat unfair to restrict the information to only a few, but isn't it unfair too that we don't have free access to chemicals at all?

Quote:

and there is not such a thing like "a little bit of censorship"

I don't get you on this one. Since it is clear what is censored, I do really see the policy not to pulicly post sources as a little censorship.

Quote:

And however you name it - it is censorship.

Indeed it is, and I wouldn't give it another name.

Quote:

Get your antidote immediately - go to eff.org or any other freedom of information organisation on the net and read.

I'm sorry, but my time doesn't allow me to read a lot. But I'll be sure to take a look at it when I have time again, although I'm afraid that this will be far away from now.

Sorry that I couldn't go into as much details as I've like to, but time is always a factor for me these days.

[Edited on 25-11-2003 by Rhadon]

Iv4 - 25-11-2003 at 00:02

All open boards are monitered,maybe not regulerly but atleast perdiocdically.Think about you runa search for terrorism bombs guirlla warfare and the 'projects' I started on BS's Uw(used to beCW bu anyways)come up.They were made as a 'terrorist guide' to get some usage into tjose boards and are well within most countrys juristiction to do something.If they wanted they could force the hosts t give access to the memeber DB get an admin's password track Ip's etc.But its not hapening.

Organikum - 25-11-2003 at 07:51

If you start accepting censorship in any form youre are done - thats one point.

All boards are monitored - yes. But not in the way it is suggested here. The NSA runs echelon on it - a highly sophisticated pattern-analysis program. No word recognition based nonsense - no realy not.

Terror says: fears and traumatizing the population.
This is done by goverment and media - never by terrorists.

I fear the day when those realy in the say whats done in the USA decide to wake up the monster of the WTC trauma they implanted in the US-population lately for to - probably - set the world on fire.

Rhadon - 26-11-2003 at 04:41

Quote:

If you start accepting censorship in any form youre are done - thats one point.

Your point, but objectively seen that's not necessarily true. I don't call it wrong, but it's only your point of view and mine is something else.

but thats proofen in history over and over...?

Organikum - 26-11-2003 at 07:59

And that was already regarded proofen in the days of the french revolution and the US-constitution. It was so well known that it was seen necessary to be taken on place ONE in the US-amendments.

You propose a cutback in civil rights of a few hundred years. You are historically seen nearer to the spanish inquisition than to the 21th century, to nowadays. Do you realize this?

Also you claim objectivity for yourself - next you will claim owning the better morals I fear.

Look: I have arguments. You dont. So you start claiming to be "right" aka "objective" without any backing up of this claim. This is - a wellknown cheapo rhetoric trick. Tz tz. Rhadon, please. You may be assured I know some EXPENSIVE rhetoric tricks....LOL

peace
ORG

[Edited on 26-11-2003 by Organikum]

Rhadon - 26-11-2003 at 09:23

Quote:

It was so well known that it was seen necessary to be taken on place ONE in the US-amendments.

So I'm at least honest, they are not because they promise you something that you never get. I'm sure that nobody will claim that there is no censorship in the US, right? Yes, the censorship is only there for our best they will say...

Quote:

You propose a cutback in civil rights of a few hundred years.

I only speak out loudly what others hide, see above.

Quote:

You are historically seen nearer to the spanish inquisition than to the 21th century, to nowadays. Do you realize this?

Not at all, really.

Quote:

Also you claim objectivity for yourself

I cannot remember where, but if I did I have to revoke that because I do of course know that my point of view is in no way unbiased, I'm not an exception here.

Quote:

So you start claiming to be "right" aka "objective" without any backing up of this claim.

Never did I claim to be right at all, I was just stating my opinion

which everybody's free to believe, not believe, like or dislike.

Quote:

Look: I have arguments. You dont.

I don't see how you get to the conclusion that I don't have arguments.

Quote:

next you will claim owning the better morals I fear

In comparison to? My moral isn't bad as far as I can say, at least I'm honest and don't lead someone to believe that he has rights which he actually hasn't. Claiming something for yourself which you created or found out by yourself, whether it is knowledge, the harvest from the field you cultivated or whatever, has seldom been considered bad moral and those who said it is were usually those who did it most (I'm thinking of the church here).

Quote:

You may be assured I know some EXPENSIVE rhetoric tricks....LOL

No doubt

.

I do now consider it a waste of mental energy and time to continue the discussion since nobody will profit from it anymore. It can only become a verbal mud-slinging which I don't want to participate in. That doesn't mean that I want to have the last word, though. I don't want to silence you with that, but I will discontinue to participate in this discussion.

Peace to you either!
Rhadon

[Edited on 27-11-2003 by Rhadon]

Rhadon

Organikum - 27-11-2003 at 08:43

actually you havent answered to one of my arguments with an argument but solely with statements.
Whats not the same.

The freedom of speech aka the freedom of information.
You cannot break out a single piece of it without loosing it in complete.
Thats what I have to say and what I backed up well as I believe.

peace
ORG
out

It doesnt exist

Iv4 - 29-11-2003 at 22:46

Theres no such thing as truly free speach and there never has been IMHO.Back in the 50,60's you didnt even know about anyone saying something the state doesnt want you to hear.Sure you have your hipie networks and now underground forums.They know but dont care about this site or BS or whatevr untill opra winfrey says its important.

[Edited on 30-11-2003 by Iv4]

Hermes_Trismegistus - 8-12-2003 at 13:56

I am so glad I finally read this thread, I was totally choked when I read "Iama Fish"'s post advocating censorship and heard no dissenting voices.

I posted the following in an angry(and probably a little self-righteous) response

(I've eliminated alot of line breaks in an effort to shorten it up a little bit cuz one guy keeps bitchin.)

NO!
I have just read a post advoacating removing specific sources for chemicals in our forum.
and as justification, one member mentioned not being willing to post information about sources in Germany.
as if supporting oppression was anything to brag about.
Geez, you would think a German would be the last to support a totalitarian government but I guess some people just never learn!
as for me...
I will not live in fear, I AM an amateur scientist, I commit no crimes and I am a risk only to ignorance.
I am certain that our open postings of good chemical suppliers that are sometimes frequented by illicit drug cookers, have made those crooks a little nervous.
I don't care if those "bees" want to skulk in the shadows. It does not matter to me one whit. I am a scientist without union papers. I am not afraid of persecution the way that they are afraid of prosecution.
It is not the fear of being caught that makes them so nervous, it is their own guilty conscience. If they truly beleived that their desire to use/make and have access to inebriants of thier choosing was morally right than they would not be whispering in the shadows, they would be shouting in the streets even as the jack-booted thugs dragged them away.
I don't use drugs, and I am not interested in those who do. But neither do I judge them.
I am not an American, I am Canadian, and in our country people who beleived in their freedom to use recreational drugs gathered every year on the same day on the front lawn of our Parliment buildings to use drugs openly and get dragged away to jail for it.
Many of them were given prison time, but more and more of them came every year and refused to leave until the Government agreed to hear their cause.
Marijuana was recently decriminalized.
I am not a druggie so I am not inspired by their struggle, but I respect it.
I am inspired by all the scientists who were willing to face being burned alive, not because of their beleifs, but because they were not willing to stop speaking of their beleifs.
Those brave men of science who died so that we might have truth in our lives would be rolling over in their graves if they knew how we "AMATEUR SCIENTISTS" cower at the thought of censure.
Remember that this is not the first time that governments have decided to try and restrict easy access to the information about how to make various substances that were considered dangerous to the public.
The last major effort to restrict information about common explosives and poisons happened in Europe during the last century. It was then that the term "anarchist" was coined and several bombs were set off in public places to protest political inequalities of the day.
It was found to be impossible to get scientists to comply with the European governments' orders to stop publishing papers and books openly about explosives and toxic substances. Those brave men (quite correctly) divined that it was not the chemicals/explosives/poisons or even crazy people that were responsible for the acts of "terrorism/revolution"
The problems weren't a few Crazies getting their hands on things they weren't supposed to.....the problems were real social and political problems and until they were solved, the violence would continue.

When the American government tried to maintain a monopoly on Nuclear power the scientists working on it gave the "secrets" to the Russians. They did it because they knew that only evil could come if military power, and the ability to make war was concentrated in the hands of a few dangerous men.

In case any of you are wondering at the nature of my diatribe, I will try to make my point plain.

We cannot call ourselves scientists(amateur or otherwise) if we are willing to let fear determine the course of research and questioning.
Too many "legitimate" scientists have bowed down to the edicts of an ignorant public, especially in the area of genetic engineering and biotechnology.
They have caved in because of the fear of losing grant monies or tenure at universities.
If the spirit of the true scientists that built this world is to remain alive, it must remain alive in us.
The fringe minority.
I, personally am not going to make explosives/poisons/drugs because they don't really interest me.
I am going to figure out how to recycle a lot of the industrial/chemical wastes that are produced by industry.
But I have learned alot about how to set up a private lab in these forums, from alot of people who exercise their freedoms despite laws prohibiting them.
I have listened to suggestions about hiding sources from public eyes on the open posts.
It seems stupid to me to try and pretend at anonymity. if anyone has access to find out who we are despite the "anonymity" of our psuedonyms. Then any U2U messages or others that we post are also accessible to "THEM"
I think that if THEY wanted to look into whose chemical supplier sites we are browsing, that probably wouldn't be any harder either.
I won't bother being nervous or looking over my shoulder.
I will openly post my sources as a service to those coming up behind me, so they can build on my work, instead of wasting time searching high and low for reagents/equipment.

And I ask that anyone who has any courage join me, this time of fear and ignorance caused by world politics is not the time for common sense! This is the time to stand on principles.

Anthropologists call this age "the age of anxiety".

Will we too....be afraid?
or are we men(and Magpie) of reason and action?
I will not perform any experiments that I cannot justify in any court of law in my country.....even if I can only say that I did it because I was curious.
and if someone kicks down my door and ties my hands behind my back and drags me off to some stone building filled with murderers and rapists and theives.

So be it.

I will not think of myself as a fool, because other scholars greater than me stood in the same place, and fed themselves with the knowledge that they had done nothing ethically wrong.
It may seem stupid to some people, but I know that men who were willing to go to jail or be ridiculed or killed for what they believed in are responsible for the freedoms we enjoy today.
and the freedoms our children enjoy will be won or lost by us.

Right now there is a group out there defying international law by trying to clone a human being.

I think cloning is a dead-end, technologically speaking, but I am very grateful that there are scientists who are willing to break international law to fight the right-wing religious nutbars and the sheeple that support them.

I don't think we should take our sources off of the websites. I think we should post them all.

I beleive that we must not worry about what might happen if we are overheard saying something "shady"....

I beleive that the only reason we have the freedom of speech, it that there have always been people who refused to shut up, and I hope that there will always be people who won't shut up.....average people like me and you.

Thank you for listening,
My real name is Bob Tinsley, and I cannot justify saying all those things and then hiding behind a psuedonym.

I will now quote men who have said things that inspired me to make an effort to be better than I am. Because they say it better than I ever could.

(sorry "chemoleo" but I gotta!)

---------
Henry David Thoreau....
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison ... the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.
---------
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
An individual who breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
------------

I am extrememly grateful to Organikum for addressing the issue of self cesorship.

there are a lot of people out there who only visit this forum and read without registering. I think it may be related to a fear of getting caught doing something illegal that they keep silent. So if we want all those meek souls out there to learn anything we must be a little more forthcoming with the 411 huh?

I have seen something lately that makes me proud. I have seen the start-up of companies that sell certain "interesting" chemicals on-line while only meeting the bare minimum of the mandatory record keeping. the other thing I have noticed about those certain companies is that they sell their chems at pretty damn low prices.

Obviously those guys are selling those chems to the public for other reasons than runaway profit margins. Some people have suggested that they must be a "sting operation" I suggest that maybe they are the opposite.
I suggest that maybe some of those guys selling on-line chems are simply the "freedom-fighters" of our day and are willing to risk the irritation of constant surveillance and invasion of privacy to get what we need to us, in an act of civil defiance.

one such source I think might be just that is Expedited chemicals.com

I am pretty sure those guys are probably legit, because our Quebecois are some pretty defiant franco's.

P.S.

to cap this epic off

...I totally agree with the spirit of Organikum's posts.

"They" cannot control a people that refuse to be controlled.

ziqquratu - 9-12-2003 at 03:37

You're not looking at the entire picture, are ya? Lets have a look at a few points.

Let us assume someone comes to this board and, like many here, wants to experiment with explosives. This person finds a whole bunch of suppliers here, and goes out and buys all his stuff, and goes to the back yard to play. Then, stupidity, he manages to blow himself up. They have to bury him in a matchbox. The parents didn't know about his experiments, and they find out and make a big stink, wanting the government to do something to stop other kids from blowing themselves up. The government responds by tightly regulating the kid's supplier and everyone else selling similar stuff. Now, tell me, how does this help amatuer science? If you can't GET the chemicals, then this board becomes worse than redundant...

In addition to this, think about the benefits of not openly shraing sources. The search for a supplier is likely to make the person better understand his stuff. He rocks up here, and asks "where can I get X?". We reply "it's used for A, B and C, now go find it yourself". This serves several purposes. First - gets them used to research, and may result in them actually contributing some interesting information somewhere down the line. Second, while searching for chemicals, they may well come across some other information about the chemical, outlining dangers or precautions. This helps them use the stuff safely. Or, third, they begin making useful contributions around here in order to get in with everyone and to ask people for sources quietly.

Now, on to a real critique of the above post. Irrespective of whether or not you commit a crime, amatuer science will, thanks to the powers that be, always have the stigma attached that you're "cooking drugs" or making bombs. Sorry, it's the way it is - any other outlook is way too idealistic for this world... and yes, I AM a cynic.

Second, you equate "illegal" with "immoral" (in that drug chemists "know" that what they are doing is wrong, so they hide in the shadows). Not true. They hide because they dont want to be arrested. No, I don't use drugs, never have, probably never will, and will certainly never make them (lol - unless I get a job for NIDA or something, of course

). But that doesn't mean I don't understand what these people are doing. In one way, it's another form of "anti-censorship". In some cases, at least, there is no real reason to outlaw a given drug. Yet it is illegal to use, sell or make... seems silly to me.

I can't be bothered with some of the next few points (and besides, some of them are good

), so allow me to skip ahead. You use an analogy based on the ban on human cloning. Now, Biotechnology is one area in which I study, and some time during my career human cloning is going to come up. I'm not religious (in fact, religion bashing is one of my favourite pastimes

). I support genetic engineering, and will never understand why people are so scared of eating genetically modified foods (except for lack of understanding, of course). However I have other reasons to be against human cloning. Mainly, the technology isn't advanced enough yet - look at all the cloned animals that have shown defects. Plus there is always the question of who controls the technology... and how people will use something so powerful if they dont understand it. The law isn't yet ready to deal with clones, and there is too much room for twisting the law to screw people. What about the economic and environmental issues - we have enough people screwing up the planet without a need for making more. Cloning also leads to the potential for DNA screening and thus discrimination based on that. Not pleasant. It's not a good analogy, I'm afraid. The human cloning debate goes well beyond the realms of religion.

You're also offering potentially dangerous advice here, too. You suggest that many of these places selling extremely interesting and useful chemicals while barely keeping within the law are not sting operations but rather our best friends. Yes, sure, they may be, as you suggest, the best things going around. But they may, in fact, be sting operations. Sure, people can look into them. But they shouldnt be blase` about it. Care should be taken, and you should never go out of your way to arouse any suspiscion. Even if these companies are legit, they still keep some records, and these records will, almost certainly, be checked at some point. We live in nervous, paranoid times, whether we like it or not.

One last comment about naivety. You make sweeping comments about freedom of speech - we shouldn'tworry about what might happen if we say something shady. Well, that's just stupid. We should care what happens to us, and besides, how does getting arrested help our cause? This isn't your marijuana protest scenario, this is people talking about making explosives in a time where explosives make people think of September 11th (thanks to government propaganda). You end with ""they" cannot control a people that refuse to be controlled". Hate to tell you this, but those "sheeple" you so readily dismissed earlier on? Yeah, they make up the majority of the populace, and as long as they go along with it, our governments can do what they like. Essentially, all that needs to happen is the following: "if you vote for me, we're gonna make a law that says you can't do XYZ...but we're gonna give you a $5 a week tax cut". That's all it will take to win the election. Sorry to burst your idealistic bubble, but that's the real world.

Let me quickly step back to your comment that German'sof all people should know better than to lean towards a totalitarian regime. Let me take a related tangent - in part, people survied not be blatantly going forth and announcing that they hated the Nazi's and were rebelling against them. They did it by working quietly in the background, remaining anonymous, and doing their work in secret. There is a time and a place for self censorship - one needs to consider the balance between our right to speak out and also when it's better to keep quiet.

Final comment: this is all about sharing sources over the internet. Many sources are not going to be relevant to the country you're in. And not every source is going to be posted. A little time spent with a country-specific search engine, or your local phone book, is going to be more efficient than asking on this (or any) board "where do I get...".

I apologise for the length of this, and it is not intended as a personal attack (sorry if it appears that way).

Organikum - 9-12-2003 at 04:39

The person posting is the one who has to answer the question - post it or dont post it? Much more on procedures than on sources as to enable somebody to make him fit in a matchbox you dont need more than a usual supermarket offers.
And some knowledge.
Or a receipt.

I dont propagate the posting of receipts as it seems to me against the idea of this board which is "amateur experimentalism" without limits but with knowledge. I propagate a certain way, a certain style for this board. This is the only protection we need.

Bombreceipts should be wiped - not for censorship but for not belonging on this board - being off-topic and misleading as we have a board where people discuss and present own experiments and this includes so somebody wants also the sources he got his materials from. These experiments have been done or are planned or also just a fictive idea.
And this is not a board to enable somebody without any clue of nuthing to build a bomb, to make drugs or an EMP weapon.

So if I describe a reaction which is usable to produce phenyl-2-propanone this will not harm me or the board in any way as such reactions are to be found in any basic chemistry book. If there is a post "Meth for Idiots - easy done in the bedroom" I hope this will get deleted as it obviously has nothing to with this board.

Gladly there is absolute no need for us to act in another way as there are enough boards addressing exactly this clientel - a link is all whats needed.

In short:
- experiments based on knowledge for gaining more knowledge and sharing this knowledge.
YES.

- receipts.
NO.

Result:
- no problems.
(as long as the first amendement is up)

Rhadon - 9-12-2003 at 07:53

Since Hermes_Trismegistus did now post what he wrote in his thread "No!" in this topic, I feel that I should also include my answer to it. It shall not look like I put up with someone writing out of his ass...

Quote:

I have just read a post advoacating removing specific sources for chemicals in our forum.

The discussion was mainly about stopping to post sources publicly, not about removing them from existing posts...

Quote:

one member mentioned not being willing to post information about sources in Germany.

as if supporting oppression was anything to brag about.

Who bragged in that topic??? And obviously you want to tell us that people with opinions you don't like should be oppressed. Please don't twist my words, take them the way they are.

Quote:

Geez, you would think a German would be the last to support a totalitarian government but I guess some people just never learn!

Man, you're the one who still has to learn. Just because I'm coming from Germany I don't have to do what everybody would like me to do (apart from the fact that this wouldn't be possible at all because people's opinions differ widely like you may notive in a few years). BTW, what has it to do with a totalitarian government that I don't want to post sources? If it has we've got a little problem because there are millions of people who don't post sources to message boards...

I stopped reading your crap at this point, I've got better things to do. Yes, I wanted to stop the discussion but I don't have to put up with these idiotic statements (if we don't want to call them insults).

Brouhaha!

Hermes_Trismegistus - 9-12-2003 at 15:33

Wow! I am so glad my opinion raised some eyebrows...

I am fully aware of the possibility that my opinions are just so much tripe and being forced to defend my ideas will either force me to abandon them, or more firmly entrench me in my personal beliefs.

guess I will start at the end and move backwards (archaeologists joke!),

Rhadon, I am truly sorry that you regard my comments about the state of affairs in your great nation as a personal attack on that nation. I, like every other student of chemistry, am certainly aware of the role of the Teutonic people (Germans and Germanic speaking peoples of other countries like the Hessians) have played in chemistry.

It is a definite fact that the vast majority of discoveries in the field of chemistry for almost two centuries came out of Deutschland.

AND most of those discoveries happened in PRIVATE laboratories!

I looked for chemical suppliers that sold to individuals in Germany, NOTHING! NOBODY. And my logical assumption was government regulations prohibiting the sale (I think it might have been you-Rhadon-that gave me that idea)

It seems to me if that a government that represses the very spirit of discovery that brought it to the fore in industry, it would qualify as Totalitarian.

And any private citizen that would support such repression........even only by silence...is indeed supporting it.

If you see this as a criticism of your choices as a person…..maybe it is, but only you know if what you do is right, I am not there.

I don't believe that anything can be supported by a single example, so I offer another. Germany took up the experiments of Goddard with great gusto even while he was being ignored and ridiculed in his own home country. All over Germany, rocket clubs sprang up and brought the science to the next level. They were banned under an edict from Hitler, but even after the war was over, those laws were never rescinded.....another shame.

Rhadon....I don't want you to do anything that you believe is wrong, but I do want everybody to do what they know to be right.

If you honestly think that keeping quiet, about your sources will advance the cause of amateur science in your locale, I support you.
If however you are being silent, just to protect your own ass. I criticize you.

Organikum....I am not sure what you mean by receipts, if you mean a small slip of paper given as proof of payment for a product or service.....then I am still confused as to the point of posting receipts on a site about how to... and where to get..

perhaps you might clarify?

ziqquratu

I am looking at this from a slightly different position. I know that there is the possibility that a child may be very interested in science, and a possibility that the child may turn towards chemistry and the possibility that the type of chemistry he turns to is energetic materials, and a possibility that he will find the funds to make this interest a reality and a possibility that he will locate a place to carry out the synth and a possibility that he will find the apparatus to carry out a synth and a slight possibility that he will find the information to guide him in his synth, and a slight possibility that he will be able to understand the information and a slight possibility that he will be successful in making the explosive and a slight possibility that he will hurt himself or someone else very,very,very slight possibility that it will all be traced back to a single supplier or a forum on which he found the information and another slight possibility that when the authorities make a investigation, that the guy who posted the link to where he got his chemicals is to blame for the actions of aforesaid youngster!

But we know that a small percentage times a small percentage times a small percentage times a small percentage times a small percentage times a small percentage times a small percentage times a small percentage times a small percentage times…….etc etc equals a VERY MINUTE POSSIBILITY.

And I hold that such a minute possibility of injury to a child does not justify the censorship that is involved in removing the postings of sources from a forum.

I hold that the incalculable benefit of free and open posting of sources outweigh any possibility of the information getting into the “wrong” hands. I also hold that it is not any information we might post that represents a danger that any unruly children might represent to themselves. It is the lack of supervision by parents. Who are beginning to think that it is the responsibility of society to protect their children.

For instance, in a forum on racing I might post something I did to my car to make it go faster and tell people openly where I got it. I (as an adult) am not responsible if a child goes out and similarly goes out and soups up his go-kart and kills himself or someone else. Society understands motor-racing to be an adult sport and that if a child participates in it they could get hurt.

NOW to a real critique of the above, real critique….

When a child does get hurt, and when accusations get thrown our way, amateur (and professional) scientists need to stand up for the truth, and speak out. This hasn’t been the case in the past and I suggest it may be as a result of that attitude we have become a favorite whipping boy. It is our own fault, in some respects that we get no respect. Other amateur scientists, like rocketeers for instance, have gone on from humble backyard beginnings to form clubs and associations. They invite press and the public to demonstrations and donate time to local charities. When we follow this simple formula, we too will earn the respect of the public. Then we will no longer be associated with drug lords and terrorists.

NOW

I don’t equate illegal with immoral, I do however recognize that some of the people cooking dope do so because they themselves think they are doing something wrong, and that those people who use and make drugs believing themselves to be in the moral right DO NOT HIDE IN SHADOWS….I believe I made a very clear distinction between the two groups.
If those people who make illegal inebriants want things to change, they need to begin to speak out. Or they will never be free.

About my supposed naiveté, I absolutely categorically disagree with the thought that you cannot fight city hall. That the majority makes any decisions about the future of our culture. The fact is, my young friend, that it is, and always has been, the MOTIVATED MINORITY that has, and always will determine the direction we, as a people, take. 4 out of 5 sheeple don’t vote, 19 out of 20 don’t think, and 99 out of 100 don’t care.

I don’t mean to be too hard on those sheeple, we all have tough lives and most of us are content to let others do the work and make the decisions for us. Usually those decisions are good and come from a sincere desire to make things better for all of us. Sometimes not. And for those of us who are politically involved, you can only have a certain amount of irons in the fire before you have to start compromising. For most people the limit is one. For exceptionally gifted and hard-working people, the number might be two or three.

Finally, and most importantly, to use the German analogy….

The best sociologists of our day estimate that, at the height of the Nazi movement, about five percent of the German people supported Hitler. The rest were ambivalent at best, and often a little disturbed by what they saw but were far too willing to stick their heads in the sand.

Even the Jews were far to willing to just not speak out if injustice wasn’t affecting them personally.

This, “prudence” sent millions of innocent men women and children into dry showers, hot ovens and slave factories.

This…Don’t speak out, don’t make a scene, cover your own ass attitude makes me want to vomit in my shoes and throw my monitor out the damn window!!!

It happened because no one spoke out.

I don’t have a “don’t worry what you say, it’ll all be OK” naive attitude. I have a “sometimes (often) we must speak out and act out even if the consequences to us personally, as individuals, might be negative) because if we don’t…….others will pay.

A stitch in time saves nine.

I believe in what I am saying and right after my last exam is done, (before Christmas) I am going to attempt to begin an offline chapter of ION (if I can get permission from the originators).

Somebody should!…… why not me?………why not you?

Finally, to cap this off, it seems that most am-scientists hold similar views to mine own, The main madscientists website, ION’s site and Roguesci’s site and a whole lot of others encourage open posting of suppliers. Thus, before I opened my mouth I was vindicated.

vulture - 10-12-2003 at 08:23

I looked for chemical suppliers that sold to individuals in Germany, NOTHING! NOBODY.

Not true. There's one on the web allright and there are several private to private sellers on the web too. It's very easy to get pyrotechnic chemicals in germany without leaving much of a trail.

chemistry he turns to is energetic materials, and a possibility that he will find the funds to make this interest a reality and a possibility that he will locate a place to carry out the synth and a possibility that he will find the apparatus to carry out a synth and a slight possibility that he will find the information to guide him in his synth, and a slight possibility that he will be able to understand the information and a slight possibility that he will be successful in making the explosive and a slight possibility that he will hurt himself or someone else

Right. Ever looked at bombshock or totse? Those people have never learned, will never learn or obey the usual scientific process that comes along with a synth. They go straight from precursor to explosive, with the help of recipe. They manage to synthesize lot's of explosives, but don't know shit about it. That's a recipe for disaster.

Finally, to cap this off, it seems that most am-scientists hold similar views to mine own, The main madscientists website, ION’s site and Roguesci’s site and a whole lot of others encourage open posting of suppliers. Thus, before I opened my mouth I was vindicated.

I don't know where you got this, but Roguesci HIGHLY DISCOURAGES open posting of sources. They don't because they know it'll dry up once they post it, because kewls will buy the entire stock and cause mayhem and disaster with it.
Post have been edited by the mods to prevent sources coming out into the open.

And frankly, that's a good thing. If you can't find simple chemicals which other people who are somewhat versed in chemistry can find, than you're simply not ready to play with them.

The problem is that you assume everybody will approach the subject of finding/handling/using chemicals the same way as you do. That's not the case unfortunately. Look at how many members we and roguesci have, then look at totse, bombshock and xinventions and the like. They vastly outnumber us.

[Edited on 10-12-2003 by vulture]

"They vastly outnumber us"

Organikum - 10-12-2003 at 10:43

YES YES YES.
Because we are geeks (and some nutcases - agreed).
Lets stay this way and we stay save.

Iv4 - 11-12-2003 at 23:52

Nah we got like 20 members or so active(inclduing mods!).

Not to insult you or so bt I have to disagree about your IMHO extreme exageration fo chemistry.But thats a diferent topic alltogether....