|
Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links | |
||
|
|
|||
|
||||
| 1 Online, 0 Active | You are not logged in | |||
|
|
Chemicals & Equipment | Thread: Previous Forum index Next | |
|
|
|
All 45 posts | Subject: naming sources.... | Please login to post | Down | |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
elfchemist (Hive Bee) 07-20-01 06:40 No 192059 |
|
naming sources.... | ||||||
|
Swim was wondering were exactly does everybee draw the line at naming a source, here's what swim means; Example 1 Is saying "get mini thins from wally world" naming a source? Yes it is, but due to the wide knowledge of this does that make it acceptable? Swim says yes on this one. Example 2 Is telling the story that can be used to get the desired chemical/equipment naming a source. e.g. see this post for an example only, no one is pointing fingers here, Post 191972 (hookedonhydro: "approaching the cashier", Chemicals & Equipment). By telling the story used the police know the industries that people approach to get their chemicals from, this is more relevant for solvent sources like toluene and ether and reducing agents (NaBH4, LAH). Swim thinks this contributes to sources evaporating away...... Example 3 Is naming websites where glassware can be obtained naming a source. These websites are in various search engine's databases anyway. So swim thinks that this is alright. Example 4 an extension of example 3..... Is saying that; sassafrass can be obtained by mail order over the net and to just search for essential oil dealers and hit them up for a few bottles each. While not relevant to swim, swim thinks that this doesn't help the established recreational chemist's cause. Swim thinks that there is a grey area in naming sources and each case is individual. Just use your heads bees. Swim keeps any stories that it uses to itself other than PM's to selected bees, Swim doesn't think there is a "Hive code" to tell these things to everyone, if a bee does give you something like that in a PM count yourself lucky and don't abuse this knowledge. Every bee is going to have a subjective judgement on the 4 examples and any other source situation. When looking for something research everything about it and you will know where to look for it and what to say to get it, persistence pays off................ -eLF |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
ChemReack (Hive Bee) 07-20-01 07:09 No 192069 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
I totally agree with you. There is a very fine line to trot when talking sources. It could also quite possibly bee spoken in posts deceivingly(sp). "I always tell the truth, even when I lie" Tony Montana |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Rhodium (Chief Bee) 07-20-01 11:32 No 192104 
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
To say what stuff are available at nationwide chain stores I do not consider giving up sources (as that is easily found by visiting any such store), but don't say that in city X on street Y, there is an aromatherapy store that asks no questions when you order oils by the gallon. Neither do I consider it prohibited to suggest somebody to search for "sassafras oil" on the net. What I think should be prohibited is "at www.diddledoo.com you can buy sassafras with a 91% safrole content", as well as naming online chem/labware suppliers. https://www.rhodium.ws |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
zooligan (Hive Addict) 07-20-01 11:59 No 192108 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
What about saying something like "reagent blappity-blah is available from online stores supplying the blakety-blank hobby/business/industry"?? You're not specifically mentioning the site, but if there are only a handful of online stores supplying those hobbyists or businesspeople, then that source (or few sources) are pretty much burned, no? z "And if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, then we'll just be bogus too!" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Rhodium (Chief Bee) 07-20-01 12:06 No 192110
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
I think it is pretty okay to say that RP can be had from pyrotechnics suppliers, and that PdCl2 can be had from hobby photography suppliers. As long as no source is named specifically (or to say that the source can be found by typing in "xxx yy zzzz" into google and to take the second hit from the top. That is also being too specific (imho). https://www.rhodium.ws |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Osmium (Stoni's sexual toy) 07-20-01 12:55 No 192119 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
ChemReack (Hive Bee) 07-20-01 13:34 No 192125 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
I full heartedly agree with pm's amongt's the respected ones. But you could also look at it like this. The more idiot backyard scetchball wannabee chemist there are out there, the less the odds of the true chemist who covers his/her trail will ever be found. The cops will be to preoccupied catching kids popping up in mom and pops basements everywhere. Now please don't misconstrue my comments as being the ideal hobby for youngons. But we gotta face the facts that it can, will and is happening. Swim would rather see the cops follow a lead from a chem supply about a liscence plate from a young kid who bought rp then look in swims direction. Does anyone kinda catch my drift. You need the bottom feeders so the fish up top can get big and juicy. Maybe I just have a fucked up way of looking at things. "I always tell the truth, even when I lie" Tony Montana |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
reflux (Newbee) 07-20-01 15:33 No 192151 
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
to win a war you have to get your views acepted by the majority. thats how prohabition was won. more people making honey more people using honey more aceptance of honey. more honey price goes down. 
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Quicksilver (Newbee) 07-20-01 16:24 No 192160 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
The more idiot backyard scetchball wannabee chemist there are out there, the less the odds of the true chemist who covers his/her trail will ever be found. Unless they shared sources. Then Careful-chemist will fall under scrutiny once Bozo-bee is busted and the DEA investigates their vendor. (better hope that Careful-chemist was reeeally careful) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
ChemReack (Hive Bee) 07-20-01 16:40 No 192163 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
"I always tell the truth, even when I lie" Tony Montana |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Semtexium (Hive Elder) 07-20-01 18:53 No 192196 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
Actually in my opinion, the more idiot backyard scetchball wannabee chemist there are out there the more busts are made. The more busts are made the more money the cops get to fight the war on the chemists. The more money they get to fuck with the chemists the more likely it is that YOU will go down for what ever it is that your dreaming of. PERiOD... 
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Osmium (Stoni's sexual toy) 07-20-01 23:03 No 192262 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
You are unethical. It's not nice to sacrifice teens for tis purpose, and ruin their lifes forever. There is nothing to be gained from wannabees being busted left and right. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Unobtainium (Object of Desire) 07-20-01 23:33 No 192273 
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
In a rare moment of clarity, Osmium hit the nail on the head. If someone can't source their own shit without asking a complete stranger for help, then they need to find another hobby. And anyone who craves the praise they'll receive for offering up their sources to any newbee that asks for it is just fucking themself. Why do you even care if the dumbass at the IP address across the country can find a large quantity of methylamine? More on topic, with the exception of brand names that have become generic descriptions due to their market dominance, brand names are a bad idea. Everyone knows Sudafed pills suck, and most people know that when someone says 'sudafed', what they really mean is any pill containing pseudoephedrine. It's like saying 'Kleenex' when you mean 'tissue', or 'Clorox' when you mean 'bleach'. But the other named brands out there including the generic brands shouldn't be published because it just gives the dea something to focus their anger on. There happens to be a small grocery store chain that I know of that stocks a particularly friendly generic brand of pills that are virtually impossible to find anywhere else. This threat to national security has only been allowed to continue due to an oversight on the part of the DEA, and I'm sure as soon as it is brought to their attention they will attempt to correct it. The last thing I want to see when I log on the Hive is a thread drawing attention to that store and that brand of pills. As far as chainstores, I don't care if you say you went to Wal-mart and picked up some Duracell batteries, because you can get Duracell batteries at every fucking store on the planet. Wallmart is generally not considered a "source", it's a convenience. A 'source' is a place that supplies difficult to aquire, borderline illegal products, with no questions asked and questionable payment a shipping policies. Those places should be protected like gold if you ever happen to find one. You wouldn't tell a complete stranger that you were out hiking the other day and found a deposit of unmined gold and then tell them where it was, so why give them a source for red phosphorus that has gone virtually unnoticed? When too many people tap a source, the source dries up. Dispite the government's attempt to control every fucking thing on Earth, occassionally sources fall through the cracks because they either aren't in a prime location, or they are considered to small to worry about, or their was a typo that left them of the dea's computer. Whatever the reason, the minute a source is mentioned on the Hive, they become a priority target. To reiterate, why do you care if anyone else can find shit? As long as you can find the things you need for yourself, that's all that really matters. Fuck everyone else. Free Spitball. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Semtexium (Hive Bee) 07-21-01 01:12 No 192289 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
I either wrote that wrong or you read that wrong, I'm saying it's a bad thing if YOU get busted, the "YOU" is there to get the point across. I need to learn english AGAiN or amerikan or something... 
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
noj (Hive Bee) 07-21-01 02:03 No 192297 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
that doesn't at least make an effort first. Hell, swim came here with no science background other than psychology. Thanks to those willing to share ideas and their trials and tribulations on the hows and whys, swim was successful in his lucid dreams in 2 short months. Everything was acquired simply by using the fucking search engine. There really is no need to ask anyone where to get anything. What you need is already here. The rest should be up to you. If you can't get beyond that, then this line of dreaming is likely a risk to you, us, and the war itself. Author unknown. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
sawman55 (Stranger) 07-22-01 10:12 No 198028 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
This is the age of information. Anyone, anywhere,anytime, the information should and will be spread to everyone. This is the future, like it or not! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Unobtainium (Object of Desire) 07-23-01 00:56 No 198187
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
Well that particular information is not going to be spread here. Like it or not. Free Spitball. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
ChemGrrl (Guilty of Contempt) 07-24-01 12:52 No 198580 
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
Naming a supplier (say the purely fictitious-LXY Glassware) using the rationale that it can be found using any search engine on the net does no good. Such a thing only makes it easier for Uncle Feddie to stake out businesses and supoena their order records. No matter how well you hide your true address, someone still has to recieve the package, and it really is just a matter of time before the trail will lead back to you. Glassware is particularly relevant to this example, as it is easily broken and/or chipped and does need replacement at least occasionally. In fact, I might worry more about a glass source than just about anything else except maybe a source for rp. That said, yes there are sources for just about anything on the net. Some are fronts, some support our cause. The key is finding out which are which, and which are such big names that your order will get lost in the mountain of paperwork (like Wal-Mart.) The only way to know for sure about a source is to become the source yourself. Since this isn't practical... Even those of us who are dilletantes at this, still should have enough respect for bees that are fighting the cause to not indiscriminately burn sources. Just because you hang out to bs, doesn't mean that someday you won't want to at least buy someone's homemade product, and shooting them in the foot won't make that job any easier. Think about the consequences of what you post regarding sources. Please? ChemGrrl Six legs good, four legs food. (pigs 4, sheep 4, bees 6) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
zooligan (Hive Addict) 07-24-01 13:20 No 198584 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
"And if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, then we'll just be bogus too!" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
elfchemist (Hive Bee) 07-25-01 01:01 No 198741 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Country_Fuck (President, Stonium Fan Club) 07-25-01 15:58 No 198858 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (Stoni's sexual toy) 07-25-01 16:16 No 198861 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
> 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 (Chief Bee) 07-25-01 18:34 No 198887
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (President, Stonium Fan Club) 07-25-01 23:51 No 198934 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
> 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 (President, Stonium Fan Club) 07-26-01 00:21 No 198937 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (Guilty of Contempt) 07-26-01 00:59 No 198943
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (Stranger) 07-26-01 01:11 No 198947 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (Stoni's sexual toy) 07-26-01 01:38 No 198955 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (Hive Bee) 08-09-01 18:43 No 202840 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (Hive Bee) 08-11-01 17:39 No 203504 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (Hive Addict) 08-11-01 20:39 No 203532 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (Chief Bee) 08-11-01 22:43 No 203555
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
Don't ever try to sell anything on this board. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Buster_Hymen (Hive Bee) 08-13-01 19:21 No 204209 
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
\\\/// ф¿ф Signatures are for weenies. I don't believe in them. \O/ '''' |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Country_Fuck (President, Stonium Fan Club) 08-13-01 20:59 No 204245 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
BH-Are you fucking nuts??????? Son of a bitch, will ya look at that! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Buster_Hymen (Hive Bee) 08-14-01 21:44 No 204578
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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... \\\/// ф¿ф Signatures are for weenies. I don't believe in them. \O/ '''' |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
go_fast (Stranger) 01-09-02 05:51 No 254286 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (Stranger) 01-30-02 00:55 No 262486 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (Junior Service Representative) 01-30-02 03:34 No 262575 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
Who's to say the alleged Canadian supplier is not in the DEA's back pocket??? PB |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
William_Omblome (Newbee) 01-30-02 08:55 No 262688 
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
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 (Holy Roman Emperor) 01-30-02 09:24 No 262698 
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
haha, sure they can. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Pig_Farmer (Hive Bee) 01-31-02 01:36 No 262980 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
The US governement can do just about anything it wants. The notion that a supplier is safe to use merely because it's in Canada and you're in the US is ludicrous. Son of a bitch would ya look at that! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
William_Omblome (Newbee) 01-31-02 02:43 No 263000
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
All I'm saying is that the DEA can't shut down a Canadian business or monitor their sales. They can influence the Canadian government to take action tho. Think about it, the RCMP can't come down here so why would we be able to go up there? If A equals success then the formula is A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Pig_Farmer (Hive Bee) 01-31-02 03:29 No 263022 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
Who says they can't open their own little establishment across the border? Son of a bitch would ya look at that! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Unobtainium (Holy Roman Emperor) 01-31-02 06:47 No 263078
|
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
The DEA has offices in every US friendly country, and most governments are happy to have them there and give them whatever they want. Since they aren't a Canadian government organization, they can usually get access to information that is not normally available to Canadian authorities legally, and with impunity. People in foriegn countries should probably fear the DEA more than their local police. The RCMP can come to the US, and frequently does. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
callen (Stranger) 03-12-02 23:32 No 281513 |
|
Re: naming sources.... | ||||||
|
My friend was reading labels way back in the early '80's,before the Internet really even existed. When he goes shopping, he reads the labels. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||