YT2095 Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 OK, what happened to the rocket fuel thread??? and WHY??? there were GOOD answers given in that, why has it been moved??? Yours Truly 2095 (VERY ANNOYED!).
Dudde Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 the information in that thread was deemed questionable to be given on such a public place, especially since you know what you're talking about please don't post things like that in here, you have to remember that anyone and everyone has access to the information posted here EDIT: which reminds me, as sayonara said, you have to think of why somebody might want that information before you go blurting it all over the internet
YT2095 Posted October 31, 2003 Author Posted October 31, 2003 but isn`t that the whole idea behind a "science Forum"? you`re asked a question... you give the answer! and so I did. wherein lies the problem with that? it WAS a Scientific question, he HAD a Scientific answer. I was the only one to reply, so I assume I did something wrong in answering his question even though it had 15 veiws before I answered (been busy 2day). why wasn`t the question removed then if no one was allowed to answer it?
Dudde Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 not sure. Maybe the mods didn't see it, maybe they figured nobody was going to answer it. which reminds me, as sayonara said, you have to think of why somebody might want that information before you go blurting it all over the internet that too good answer though
Sayonara Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 How do you know it was a scientific question? This question is coming from a 14-yr old schoolboy with absolutely no explanation as to why he wants to make rocket fuel, a highly explosive and dangerous agent. His only other contribution so far on this forum has been to recommend terrorist documentation, but I'm starting to wonder if you wouldn't find that 'clever'. The thread is in the holding area for blike or faf to make a decision on it, but more discretion about what you publish on this site is advised. Think about it YT, it's not rocket science. (boom boom)
YT2095 Posted October 31, 2003 Author Posted October 31, 2003 LOL @ Saya yeah, ok, I kinda understand ya, fair enuff point I guess, but his question DID have merit, and so I answered. I just felt a little hurt/pi$$ed 0ff that it was removed, without a PM (at 1`st), and as it was probably my BIGGEST post ever but yeah, as dudde said in his PM, my kinda info COULD be potentialy dangerous, warnings given by me or not. hope we`re all cool now
Dudde Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 no probs dude. discretion is a most lovely word, and a beautiful verb
YT2095 Posted October 31, 2003 Author Posted October 31, 2003 ""His only other contribution so far on this forum has been to recommend terrorist documentation, but I'm starting to wonder if you wouldn't find that 'clever'."" aha!, well having been away from ma puter, for several day, I`m totaly UNAWARE of previous posts! as for you assuming I`de think this is "clever" as you say... you have NO idea of my background, if you did, you`de feel SOOOOO BAAAD! making that remark! I suggest for the sake of peace, you avoid make prejudgemnets like that until you KNOW the WHOLE picture! as I said before, it seemed to be a normal question, and I gave a normal reply, PLEASE don`t read any more into that just that!
fafalone Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Sayonara, in the future do not make calls like that. The thread was not specifically against policy, and restricting freedom of certain scientific information when not against the law is an administrator call. The restriction of access to scientific information out of fear it may fall into the wrong hands is morally abhorrent. Information relating to dangerous compounds may be freely discussed on this site so long as it does not violate United States law. This means it's perfectly legal (and morally correct) to discuss the synthesis of dangerous chemicals with only a few restrictions. For example, it's legal to post detailed instructions for building a nuclear bomb, but it's illegal to post information on where to obtain enriched uranium.
Sayonara Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Oh please. Originally posted by YT2095[insert "chemicals are dangerous"-type warning here] now having gotten that out of the way, lets play When you present such a blasé attitude towards extremely dangerous substances while talking to what is essentially a child you have to expect to be called on it. I probably should have PM'ed you though, out of courtesy. I was horribly busy at the time though and had a complete tard bothering me on the phone if that's any consolation.
JaKiri Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Dudde said in post #6 :you and your boom boom My boom boom [edit] And faf, you speak about restricting information flow being morally abhorant; where is the morality in instructing someone in the performance of an act that, without proper care, could very well kill or severly injure? If your morality is all about information flow, then that's all very well, but I personally have no grievences about restricting information that will, likely enough, cause only harm to the person who receives it.
iglak Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 often times, when a kid askes a question about science on a science forum, it is for a science report or a science project. i did not read the post, but it sounds like it was too dangerous for an average 14 year old's science project. and if i knew the answer, i probably would have given it, thinking it was for a report or something. then again, i might giving humans too much credit... i just glanced at it... and his profile and other posts. he did post about the anarchist cookbook, but that does not mean he is promoting terrorism. i have a lot of friends that love to play with and make rocket fuel and small, relatively harmless bombs and things like that. judjing by the glance at that thread, i see no reason to be paranoid. P.S. i noticed it was put back...
fafalone Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 In this case it's the parents job to make sure their kid isn't playing with things he can't handle. Parenting is not the purpose of this site, and our target audience is mature enough to deal with content in a mature way. Furthermore, obtaining the required chemicals is not exactly easy for kids... and if you're able to get ahold of the chemicals, odds are you know basic safety procedures. Another thing, maybe he's asking simply out of interest. A while ago, I asked for information regarding organophosphate weapons, that doesn't mean I actually have the intention of trying to make them. We will not restrict information from the public. It is not our place to dictate what information is safe for particular people.
Sayonara Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 Seeing as reply #10 makes me look like I was in the wrong, which flatly contradicts what the site owner had to say about it, I'd appreciate it faf if you could edit or remove those comments.
fafalone Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 No. The site owners final decision was that such material is permissable, therefore my request that you do not remove such material in the future stands.
Sayonara Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 I refer to "Sayonara, in the future do not make calls like that". That directly opposes what Blike said, IE that I was right to move the thread. A decision about policy made ex post facto can hardly be considered a contributing factor, now can it?
fafalone Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 You were right to move the thread back then, but if you do it in the future you would be wrong, therefore since my comment applies to the future, and it was made in the past, and does not apply to the past, it stands.
Sayonara Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 I see. Very clever, bringing temporal mechanics into it. If you can edit it to remove the inference that I was wrong to do my job in the first place, that would be quite lovely.
fafalone Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 Ah but because of the temporal mechanics it doesn't say that you were wrong in the first place, it just says don't do it again.
Sayonara Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 Hence my cunning use of the term "inference". AH HAH!
Charles Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 Here by I swear that I was asking for a good rocket fuel becouse I was thingking of making a small rocket, but I fought that it would be smart first to ask a little about it. And if I would have been wanting to build a bomb I would have used a formula from the Anarchist cookbook, but i didn't think that a formula for the Anarchist cookbook would be usefull for a small rocket. charles ps. I do not promote terrorism, but my dad has it in the house for when the germans(or something like that) come back(ok, i agree he's a leittle bit mad ) just to set things straight..
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now