What do you think about the "Post No Sources" Issu

loki · guinea pig

it definitely should not be changed. there is nothing stopping people from advertising the fact they have a source, and divulging the information via pm or email. if it is publicly viewable, then that opens up the option for drug enforcement or the companies themselves tightening up access, and that's no good for anyone here now is it.

thenewrunne · Chemically Balanced

malatesta · Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:31 am

thenewrunne, I agree with you wholeheartedly, companies will face the pressure if highlighted in a public forum. There are lots of reasons why it's a bad thing to do, but the point I'm really driving at is that sources already have been posted and by a moderator.
This isn't someone who mischieviously posted a source in defiance of the rules, the sort of thing that happened at the hive and which would have been ripped down as soon as one of the mods saw it (Exactly the sort of person a disclaimer is designed to protect you against AND also the mode of action required to remain legally protected by that disclaimer as a site mod...I would have thought)
If the site admin say theoretical discussions only as in the "Our expections on Acceptable Discussion" thread, what judgement is to be made of a source posting by a mod?[/b]

Davidus · Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:58 am

At the end of the day one rule stands- "If in doubt, don't spit it out!" I like to keep things simple in life and chemistry; there's less to worry about. Here in Oz, we used to have it really easy, Wink

but as usual a small number of idiots irresponsibly blabbed and put the best, latest "little secrets" out on the street; where they're accessible to informants and the like. Cops would be majorly in the dark without informants, so lets dry up their sources for a change by thinking long and hard about what we write and say-Give them nothing and that's what they'll have on you. Come on, we all know who the more intelligent side is in all of this! Very Happy

Let's prove it by putting an equal amount of thought into everything we apply ourselves to.

geezmeister · Busy Bee

Posting a source of supply may put the supplier under the scrutiny of authorities. It may also serve to make that source cease being a source. I have watched it happen over and over in my community. Sharing a souce by pm is not a problem. Posting that source in a publicly observable forum is another matter.

Exhanging sources is not the issue, publicizing them is.

PolyAlchemia · Wed May 11, 2005 11:42 pm

Information will always just be information but is dangious to post sources. It also is neglectful of the premise of the community; being about simple exchange of information. The arguement that a posted source is just information is incorrect because there is clearly an inherent difference in a community, that while posting theoretical, timeless and impersonal information on chemical processes also dosn't condone illeagal activy, and a community that does all that, and tells you what place to call to get the stuff'.

Come on guys, what SWIM (someone who isn't me) who may have a casual or first time relationship with a supplier, would want to unknowingly place a purchase somewhere that just got the shake down by the DEA for being circulated as a supplier on such a forum?

I'd extend this arguement with a statement of caution on exchanging names of suppliers on this forum or privatly between ANY user because it can clearly be just as dangerious. This also goes into discussion about DESTROYING shipping packages, invoices, shipping lables and package lables. There is a relative non-issue about posting names of a huge juggernaut manufacturer but consider the date, batch, lot, and serial numbers that are often on the package lables - these should be removed immediatly.

No one should have any illusions around here about this place not being observed by the powers that be. What therefor could possibly stand to be the gain from posting a source in the context of this forum??? Especially when one considers that the most useful talent one can hope to have here is the ability to search and find unique or esoteric information on your own. I mean, after all, we all found this site some how.

This issue of whether to post sources or not is rightly discussed but I think it should be clearly stated for all and adobted at as basic community principal. Idea

stratosphere · Mon May 23, 2005 4:44 pm

now does anyone really have a doubt that if the name of some laboratory or chemical supplier appeared here eneough times for any lawman to notice it, and their annual profit was small compared to the DEAs budget, can there really be any doubt in your mind that they would thouroughly get off on going in there raiding there records etc? even if the end result was that company had to be more restrictive with its sales, thats still making our life more of a pain in the ass then it already is.

nubee · Master Archiver

in general too much paranoia for paranoi's sake which just leads to more covert means of paranoia, either way being carried through and restricting much more integrated ways of being...

2spun · The Resistor

So,
many good points and bad.
I can only say Na.
Much thanks

swiy never met anyone with a good aka(source) that was so freely to just give it up.
but the ones that did give it up cause'd the aka(source) much greef.
either putting them out of business or collaborating with LE (not just dea but local LE and even the fbi)

nubee · Master Archiver

i would have to agree that specific business names is to explicit, but i dont think there's any prob with saying generic things like , you can get xxx from a hardware store or photographic store.... and even saying that it is sold under this generic product name/brand...

2spun · The Resistor

pikkolo_z · Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:01 am

this is kinda a no brainer. post a source lose a source..

blondie · Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:09 pm

Goodtimes · Sat Oct 01, 2005 5:40 pm

Any source posted will no longer be a source.