Author Topic: naming sources....  (Read 4939 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Country_Fuck

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2001, 08:58:00 AM »
Os-Your post seems a little bit problematic to me. Why are you here if you have no desire to pass along knowledge to those who don't know i.e. the ignorant? Perhaps to siphon off somebody else's knowledge for your own personal benefit? You refer to "our knowledge," ahh, would that be the knowledge you possessed as you exited the womb? Perhaps you refer to the knowledge that you acquired through the good graces of some other who came before you. Oh, you say that you did all the relevent research yourself! Interesting, from what source did you derive your research? I bet somebody wrote a book or a paper before you read one fucking word. Maybe you gleaned all your information from the classroom. I'll wager that classroom was equipped with a professor. Whether a teacher or an author there was a specific intent to pass knowledge to those who did not yet know i.e. the ignorant. If the classrooms of the world were to reject all but those who are willing and able to devote their entire live's to the tireless and diligent pursuit of of some field of endeavor there wouldn't be many institutions of higher learning left. In the US there might be about a thousand students not immediately culled. Most people would characterize those particular students as dwebs, geeks and egg heads. To get any job accomplished one must work with those who are less than ideal.

"Selfish financial gain!" Who the fuck are you kidding? Nothing in this world happens without that essential principal. Show me someone who isn't at least somewhat interested in their own selfish gain and I'll show you a completly useless sack of shit who's doing nothing but pissing in the wind and getting in the way of productive enterprise.

Likewise, "Once I get to know them, either via e-mail, pm or on this board. . ." Give me a fucking break, you ain't gonna "get to know" any fucking body by any of those means. You could communicate with any number of persons in such fashion for years and never once get even close to "knowing them." Were I come from one doesn't consider one's self to know someone unless one was raised from infancy with them. Lifelong familiarity doesn't even really offer the option of anything other than narrowing the odds. The people one "meets" at the Hive are and always will be strangers absent introduction through some other avenue.

In closing I would suggest that if a person is ignorant and lazy no amount of information that one might pass along to them is going to put to effective use so there's really no reason to feel much resentment. It seems your real complaint is that somebody might acquire the knowledge they seek without working as hard for it as did yourself. Now where does that leave you relative to selfishness?

Don't get me wrong, I do see a certain merit in your complaint but your position relative to the issue at hand  doesn't seem to be blemish free to this observer.

Son of a bitch, will ya look at that!

Osmium

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2001, 09:16:00 AM »
> Os-Your post seems a little bit problematic to me.

Oh really. Well, too bad.

> Why are you here if you have no desire to pass along knowledge to those who
> don't know i.e. the ignorant?

To pass some of my limited knowledge to those who showed their willingness to learn. And to weed out trolls like you.

> lots of bullshit

Yawn.

> Don't get me wrong, I do see a certain merit in your complaint but your
> position relative to the issue at hand  doesn't seem to be blemish free to this observer.

I don´t care what you wanna see it as, as long as the rest of the bees (and even Unobtainium) pretty much understood what I wanted to say with that post, which apparently they did.

Rhodium

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2001, 11:34:00 AM »
I think you cannot see what the problem is here.

Knowledge about how to perform different syntheses is something that we all like to be spread to everybody, and those who possess the knowledge likes to share it, and those who want to know likes to recieve the information. Go on with this everybody!

Telling everybody about sources is a different story, as among the readers at this board, there are some decidedly stupid people. Stupid people will always do stupid things, and in this case that not only can, but will lead to the source being closed or even worse, that others dealing with the same source will come under investigation.

Synthetic organic knowledge cannot be taken away (hence it is allowed to be discussed freely at this board), but sources can (hence it is not allowed to discuss it here).

It is very simple.

https://www.rhodium.ws


Country_Fuck

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2001, 04:51:00 PM »
> Oh really. Well, too bad.

Well no, not too bad at all. This is a public forum and I'll form an opinion about anything or anybody I damn well please. Most assuredly I will engage in critical thinking without regard to your willingness "to sound a bit like an asshole."

> To pass some of my limited knowledge. . .

Suddenly your knowledge becomes "limited." How modest.

> . . .to those who showed their willingness to learn.

Frankly, I believe the asking of a question is prima facie evidence of a willingness, yes even a desire, to learn. Perhaps not to learn that which you personally care to pass along nor in a manner meeting with your approval.

> And to weed out trolls like you.

Well, perhaps I am "a supernatural being" (Webster's New World Dictionary) and to be honest I do find caves ideal locations for the private practice of chemistry. Given that I  nevertheless somehow doubt you've ever done much weeding over the course of your life.

> Yawn.

Yes, your diatribe does seem a bit sleepy.

> I don´t care what you wanna see it as. . .

And thus the vituperation of your response.

Have a nice day Osmium and keep this in mind, I've never asked you for a fucking thing. Never needed to, I got better resources.



Son of a bitch, will ya look at that!

Country_Fuck

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2001, 05:21:00 PM »
Rhodium-I do understand the problem we discuss. I have reread Os's post several times now and I nowhere find the objection you allude to i.e. the closing of a source. The complaints my respone addressed were that "no research was done," they are "strangers," and their motivation was "selfish financial reasons." The closing of a source is seldom if ever attributable to those that ask, but rather to those that tell. My intention was not to flame but to hash through the logical inconsistencies of a particular post. I would ad that I've never revealed a source much less posted one.

It's a lot easier to bitch about the gropings of a Newbee than to actually sift through the reams of information that usually is, but frequently is not available through TFSE. Many Newbees must rely upon resources that are not always to be had in abundance e.g. computer access, time or the privacy to do their research. A fair minded individual cannot really berate them overmuch for being impatient or desirous of speeding the process. The vehemence of those in the know should more appropriately be directed at those who have every reason to understand the need to protect sources yet post or reveal them anyway.

Son of a bitch, will ya look at that!

ChemGrrl

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2001, 05:59:00 PM »
CF, I agree that a lot of information is not findable using TFSE.  However, an intelligent question from a new-bee can lead to pointers on what to look for to better utilize it and ultimately find what you want to know.

That said, rereading Os's post it really reads as though he is fundamentally talking about source type questions.  Beyond the issue of a source closing down is the fact that good sources can and are tightly regulated in the US (and many other places around the world.)  Such regulation means that they have less privacy in their records than you do in your own house in the midst of a Child Protective Services investigation -- less than none.  Unless you are planning on getting out of the experimental chemistry field altogether, naming sources on an open, public forum, is not in your own best interests.  Forget about everyone else...  I can easily see why Os would have such a strong personal reaction to people expecting to be given such information for absolutely no investment.  It isn't even about money, it is about self-preservation. 

In some places in the US, pool supply places DO NOT carry Muriatic Acid.  A large retail brand of matches has changed it's strike pads.  Pseudoephedrine purchases are limited.  Red Phosphorus is closely watched.  Iodine is becoming scare.  Anhydrous ammonia is closely watched.  Sassafrass essential oil is becoming scarce.  The FDA (and the bottom-feeding lawyer scum) have made PPA a difficult thing to come by.  Every synthetic route that is discussed here either is, or will be soon used as a shopping list for federal agents to restrict access to decent quality chemicals thus ensuring that when a small lab is busted they can make a myriad of claims on how "dangerous" to the __________ (environment, neighbors, children...) the lab they busted was.  It is not responsible to make legitimate specialty supply sources the focus of government attention just because someone is not willing to take the time to prove that they have at least a small handle on serious nature of the reactions they want to attempt. 

The Internet already takes a tremendous amount of bashing on making kids think it is "easy" to make meth in their kitchen.  Lets not give the prosecutors more ammunition.



ChemGrrl

Six legs good, four legs food.  (pigs 4, sheep 4, bees 6)

Lem2

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2001, 06:11:00 PM »
Yo, CF, what you don't seem to understand is that there is a big difference between a newbee that asks, "Hey, I'm having some trouble understanding the HI-Ephedrine reaction", vs. "HEY YOU GUYS! DOES ANY ONE HAVE A GOOD SUORCE FOR RP??!?!?!?!?", or maybe "I'm having some trouble w/ an A/B extraction", vs. "YO! HOW DO YOU EXTRACT DMX???".  I think helpful hints in the right direction to a source is the way to go, just GIVING a newbee a source can lead them into a lot more trouble than they are ready for. IE. they don't understand how much trouble you can really get into if the DEA knocks on your door when 2lbs of RP is sitting on your table.

Osmium

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2001, 06:38:00 PM »
Well I'm so sorry if my posts don't quite measure up to your standards both in content and also expression (I'm not a native english speaker, as you've probably figured out long ago). If you don't mind I will gladly send all my planned posts to you from now on for approval, and try my hardest to answer each and every question exhaustively. Maybe.

> Suddenly your knowledge becomes "limited." How modest.

Did I ever claim otherwise?

> I have reread Os's post several times now and I nowhere
> find the objection you allude to i.e. the closing of a
> source.

First of all that is obvious, secondly it was said before countless times, thirdly does each post have to be a exhaustive collection of carefully ballanced arguments in your opinion or what?

> Have a nice day Osmium and keep this in mind, I've never
> asked you for a fucking thing. Never needed to, I got
> better resources.

Yeah, but don't share them, Osmium might try to "siphon off somebody else's knowledge for his own personal benefit"!

> It's a lot easier to bitch about the gropings of a Newbee
> than to actually sift through the information that
> usually is ... available through TFSE [...]
> A fair minded individual cannot really berate them
> overmuch for being impatient or desirous of speeding the
> process.

Are you trying to present me as a newbee basher? Could you please prove that claim by providing a few links where I engaged in that activity?
Besides, I can't help 90% of the newbees anyway, since I'm located in Europe, so I usually don't engage in those conversations.

I don't think that Rhodium made this thread sticky for you to engage in stupid trolling and flaming. If your point is that those who post sources are to blame and not those who ask for them, then why not simply say so? If you disagree with me feel free to contact me via PM. There is no need to ruin a useful thread with flaming.
And that's my last word on that matter.

ragga

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2001, 11:43:00 AM »
dude i wouldn't think about it too hard. i think the best rule is...
"don't mention any at all names of any source for any reason good or bad. period."
there should be enough bees around that know eachother well enough to discuss such topics off thread in private email etc...

jimwig

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2001, 10:39:00 AM »
I asked Rhodium this question but I know the girl is busy so I will ask la groupe.

Suppose SWIM had glassware and lab stuff for sale. Just common everyday useful items.  Could he post such here. I have posted in the distant past and there might bee someone here still who knows/remembers such.

The only source named would be myself. So I mean since nothing illegal is transpiring why not?

Let me know what you think. JW

ChemReack

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2001, 01:39:00 PM »
Wrong wrong wrong, don't even attempt this. Go to labx or ebay to sell your wares.

"I always tell the truth, even when I lie"
                                         Tony Montana

Rhodium

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2001, 03:43:00 PM »
Don't ever try to sell anything on this board.

Buster_Hymen

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2001, 12:21:00 PM »

Wrong wrong wrong, don't even attempt this. Go to labx or ebay to sell your wares.




Congratulations! You are one sniff and/or lick closer to becoming a Moderator! But until then, it's really not your place to be telling people what they can or can't do.


I have posted in the distant past and there might bee someone here still who knows/remembers such.




Yes, I remember you jimwig. You were always straight up -- offering perfectly legal items at decent prices. No one EVER cried "Rip Off!" (including me, under another name). If I were so inclined I would probably contact you on the BatPhone, or via HushMail, or we could meet again under the Cone of Silence, and I would ask to see your price list...


  \\\///
   ô¿ô    Signatures are for weenies. I don't believe in them.
   \O/
    ''''

Country_Fuck

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2001, 01:59:00 PM »
BH-Are you fucking nuts???????

Son of a bitch, will ya look at that!

Buster_Hymen

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2001, 02:44:00 PM »
Could be. But I've always been an excellent judge of character, too. Good spidey-sense, if you will. Luckily this seems to matter A LOT more in the overall scheme of things than societal opinions re: one's mental health...
  \\\///
   ô¿ô    Signatures are for weenies. I don't believe in them.
   \O/
    ''''

go_fast

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2002, 09:51:00 PM »
Sorry if I may sound a bit like an asshole, but why answer many of the questions at all. They often show the ignorance of the person asking for stuff, and that no research was done. Why would you give a stranger, a complete unknown person hints where to find stuff, when you have no idea what and who he/she is. Why help ignorant newbees cook a batch of honey so they can sell it for a big profit? I have no satisfaction in that, someone making big money with our knowledge. What we want is valuable members for this board, people who are willing to learn, research, contribute and show some commitment. Who will stand up on their own after they stumbled for the fifth time in a row, and still have the desire to fight this war with us. Not for selfish financial reasons, but because it is the right thing to do. Once people become true contributors, ask halfway intelligent questions and try their best to further our cause they will be known by their name and then they can ask such questions in PMs. I doubt I would pointt someone I don't really know to a good source, even if it was only for reagent grade NaCl. Once I get to know them, either via email, PM or on this board I'm more willing to share some helpful hints.   
 
I agree Osmium! I've been these hear woods some time now doing what we're suppose to to find out. and it just chaps my hide to see what i've been reading (even tho to long)for ever just given on silver plater.  then loose a source too!!

DiMethyl

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2002, 04:55:00 PM »
I notice that some people sell photo chems on ebay.
Not to mention any names ( and I don't consider ebay a source) I did notice some photo chem suppliers in
Canada.
I would think that buying photo chems from well-established
sellers on auction sites would be relatively safe, but
there are no guarantees.
I would suspect that Canadian suppliers would not be under
the close scrutiny of the dea dogs as would US suppliers.
Just a thought.

PoohBear4Ever

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2002, 07:34:00 PM »
Who's to say the alleged Canadian supplier is not in the DEA's back pocket???

PB

William_Omblome

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2002, 12:55:00 AM »
lemme guess: because they're in Canada????

how can the US government monitor the sales of a Canadian business? they can't!

If A equals success then the formula is A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut.

Unobtainium

  • Guest
Re: naming sources....
« Reply #39 on: January 30, 2002, 01:24:00 AM »
haha, sure they can.