| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Oh c'mon. It was in jest. It's no secret that organized religion causes many problems in this world. And I don't think someone expressing an
opinion is a problem at all. And as long as I'm not trying to convert others to my viewpoint through violence and coersion how is it a plague? Many
religious people do that and that's why I called it such.
But let's not get started on that.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
| Quote: | | And as long as I'm not trying to convert others to my viewpoint through violence and coersion how is it a plague? |
Also words can do harm. Polarizing and preaching hatred have done more harm than any religion in the world.
| Quote: | | But let's not get started on that. |
OK, then let's go back to the topic of undesirable chemistry web pages...
[Edited on 13-12-07 by woelen]
|
|
|
Fleaker
International Hazard
Posts: 1252
Registered: 19-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: nucleophilic
|
|
Is it just me, or is there an overwhelmingly large number of drug-related posts in organic chemistry? I feel that this takes away from the board and I
am sure that I am not the only one who thinks this. So before us here at sciencemadness.org become an undesirable type of chemistry web page, I
propose more stringent guidelines for any drug-related posts. It just seems I can only see so many damn references to methamphetamine precursors
without getting angry, very angry.
Neither flask nor beaker.
"Kid, you don't even know just what you don't know. "
--The Dark Lord Sauron
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
Fleaker, I agree with you in spirit but am wary of trying to set rules for such discussions. You can hardly mess around in chemistry without making
or using chemicals that can be considered a precursor, or a precursor to a precursor, for some drug. There are just so many of them (drugs and
precursors).
Here's a quote from another member (contrived) in another current thread that says it all:
| Quote: |
"Currently we are doing research on colorimetric methods in quantifying components of biodiesel. However the DEA Precursor lists now include most of
the contents of a 1950 Gilbert Chemistry Set so we thought we’d better get registration."
|
I have, I imagine, made many precursors, just for the fun of it, likely not even realizing I was doing such. I would like to make some mercuric
chloride and some benzaldehyde. Is it bad to talk about this on the forum?
I like the idea of leaving it up to the mods to censor such discussions.
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Fleaker is quite correct. Anyone want to serious dispute that most, if not all, posts relating to phenylacetic acid, phenyl-2-propanone (by any name),
ephedrine, and sadly, phenylalanine (in particular its decarboxylation) are methamphetamine related posts, even when not outright "cook" thread
material.
It is true that these compounds do have other uses, but it strains credulity to hypothesize that those other uses are behind this overwheening focus.
I railed about it to the point where I had to be told to shut the fuck up or be banned.
Well, I no longer rant about it, but I don't think agreeing with a fellow member who is like minded, constitutes a rant.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
We don't tolerate obvious requests for recipes or help-me-cook threads. I'm loathe to get any more strict than that. I think it leads to a witch-hunt
mentality, where one scours the entire clandestine drug literature looking for connections to members' threads. I prefer a presumption-of-innocence
approach, at least until a thread is completely transparent in its intentions.
I'm sure there are also people who are repelled from this site because of the energetic materials section. If I sanitized the forum to eliminate
discussion involving potential safety, health, or regulatory violations, there wouldn't be much discussion here anymore. I suggest participating in
the threads you like, reporting threads that you think violate forum rules, and ignoring threads that are within forum rules but that you find
personally distasteful or suspicious.
[Edited on 12-14-2007 by Polverone]
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
syntelman
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 26-8-2007
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tired
|
|
I propose that we close the energetic materials subforum and ban any further discussion on the subject.
To further conform I think it's also reasonable to deny any membership applications from people from muslim etnicities.
OR, we could focus on _qualitative_ discussions on chemistry disregarding what direction it points in and fuck the narrow mindness...
|
|
|
JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Are you a CIA agent, then, Syntelman? Only someone like that, who hates free speech, would propose that sort of censorship.
|
|
|
syntelman
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 26-8-2007
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tired
|
|
No, I am a man of the sarcastic generation and you are a (wo)man who didn't read my entire post. 
Personally I think this, as Polverone puts it, witchhunt is extremely uninteresting in the long run. As long as a thread meets a certain standard I
think it is completely irrelevant wheter it's subject is the synthesis of drugs or explosive materials. We are all free to choose what threads to read
and participate in.
Ignorance (which sadly is expressed much to often here nowadays) and censorship sucks.
[Edited on 15-12-2007 by syntelman]
[Edited on 15-12-2007 by syntelman]
|
|
|
Fleaker
International Hazard
Posts: 1252
Registered: 19-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: nucleophilic
|
|
I think syntelman's saying what I was going to say next albeit with some sarcasm. Drug chemistry is every bit as illegal as energetic materials
chemistry here in the USA so we might as well be fair. Still, I have friends that have come to this site and were very turned off by "New Route to
P2P", less so by some nicely written article in Energetics by Axt. They have complained that 1 out of 5 posts in organic chemistry had overt drug
applications (I don't know about that, but there are quite a few threads and definitely it's an objective evaluation).
"OR, we could focus on _qualitative_ discussions on chemistry disregarding what direction it points in and fuck the narrow mindness."
On the contrary, it's not narrow mindedness at all, quite the opposite. Disregarding what direction something points in? THAT is being narrow minded.
So you're suggesting that I disregard someone ruining my hobby and making it more difficult for me to pursue? Frankly, I wouldn't normally give a damn
what other people do so long as they do it to themselves; it's when it interferes with how I live my life that I take offense.
If the discourse is kept scientific (like proper grammar, mechanisms or reactions proposed/offered), I think discussing various reactions is fine even
if they have obvious illicit applications. Most anything can be misused, it's the operator who's at ultimate fault. It's my opinion any swimming or
requests for "how do I get the good stuff out of ____ (insert pill) for cheap?" or worse yet "in a dream, I uprooted a whole forest of sassafras
trees..." is entirely inappropriate, adds nothing to the board, and is probably being put to illicit purposes.
I like our mods here, I like our system here, I like the freedom members have here. I just think the standard should be set higher for discussion of
obvious precursors. I've got no problem reading about phenyl acetic acid--it's got legitimate uses in the fragrance industry. I wasn't asking for a
totalitarian state, just less of these damn obvious low-caliber threads. I know I'm not the only one here who hates it.
I agree that almost anything is some sort of precursor. What I would've liked to see is more science and why that particular *direct* precursor is
being made. Benzaldehyde has many more uses than say PPA so I wouldn't question why, but if, in the same thread you ask how to make nitroethane, yes,
I'm going wonder what the hell you need both of those reagents for, and why you're not telling.
I regret saying anything about this problem as it is connected with many other things. It's ultimately unenforceable without sacrificing what we have
here. Maybe I should side with Voltaire even though I know information gleaned from here is being misused and abused.
Neither flask nor beaker.
"Kid, you don't even know just what you don't know. "
--The Dark Lord Sauron
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I agree with you somewhat Fleaker. My opinion differs in that if someone does a post on a direct precursor (even if it's the chemistry of ephedrine)
then so be it. As long as it's not completely obvious that that person is trying to make a drug or if the post talks specifically on how to make that
drug from said precursor. Direct drug precursors can be just as interesting as any other substance. So, why exclude them from discussion just so we
don't "look" like drug cooks.
Maybe we could make a requirement that the post needs to look intelligent or be focused on the OTHER interesting things about the "precursor" other
than drug manufacture.
I mean just think about, if we were all REALLY concerned with "looking" like drug cooks then we probably wouldn't be doing home chemistry at all.
In a perfect world we wouldn't have to care what people think. We shouldn't have to. It sucks that we have to because of (mostly) methamphetamine.
What a stupid, stupid drug.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
syntelman
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 26-8-2007
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tired
|
|
Fleaker: How can accepting a discussion no matter it's topic being narrow minded?
And exactly how does internet discussions on drug synthesis ruin your life?
First of all, clandestine drug manufacture isn't a common problem outside the United States (with the exception of industrial preparations in for
example the Netherlands and Baltic countries). Secondly, explosive materials is clearly a much more high profile subject today and therefore much more
prone to further any restrictions on amateur chemistry. Personally I doubt that a discussion board such as Science Madness have any influence on
governmens. Sure, it may give them some ideas but they already have all the knowledge and ammunition they need to do as they please.
And the examples you mention clearly doesn't meet my standards nor do I think they should they be allowed, but the requirements should be applied on
all subjects and not only threads related to drugs. If anyone wants to synthesize amphetamine from benzaldehyde and write a intelligent and reasonable
thread on it, let it be. If you're not interested in that particular synthesis, just don't read it. I'm neither interested in amphetamine or
explosives and it's not very hard to avoid those discussions. Additionally one should not forget that drug chemistry is far from being restrained to
making a buck out of selling DIY methamphetamine, in the same way as energetic materials isn't always about being the next Bin Laden.
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
From Fleaker:
| Quote: |
So you're suggesting that I disregard someone ruining my hobby and making it more difficult for me to pursue? Frankly, I wouldn't normally give a damn
what other people do so long as they do it to themselves; it's when it interferes with how I live my life that I take offense.
|
I couldn't agree more.
Just because a person wants to know how to make a suspicious chemical is not a reason to forbid that discussion. If a poster is blatantly refering to
illegal use, then yes, by all means: Go directly to "detritus." This covers war gases and explosives as well as drugs. This is the
policy of this board as far as I understand it.
I think we all want a board where theoretical and experimental chemistry can be discussed in depth. You can't have that with a constant threat of a
"witch hunt."
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Syntelman is a ten-post member who has never posted a single time about chemistry but has strong opinions about this topic. I find that very odd.
If you care so much about chemistry, syntelman, who not try DOING some? and posting about it?
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
syntelman
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 26-8-2007
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tired
|
|
It's nothing odd about liking a forum and being an active reader, and wanting to avoid it going in a direction that I personally feel would be sad.
Not seeing what is has to do with this discussion, but I "do" chemistry on a daily basis at one of the larger universities in my country, but there is
no need for me to post about it on bulletin boards. I enjoy the reading, what I don't enjoy is people like who constantly whine like a grumpy old men
whenever possible (in your case, at every mentioning of anything even remotely related to drugs) because it makes my reading boring. You need a big
hug and some real life friends man.
I am very glad to see that Polverone seems to keep an open and free thinking mind, and hopefully the witchhunt will not lead to any opinion banning.
|
|
|
Fleaker
International Hazard
Posts: 1252
Registered: 19-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: nucleophilic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by syntelman
Fleaker: How can accepting a discussion no matter it's topic being narrow minded?
And exactly how does internet discussions on drug synthesis ruin your life?
First of all, clandestine drug manufacture isn't a common problem outside the United States (with the exception of industrial preparations in for
example the Netherlands and Baltic countries). Secondly, explosive materials is clearly a much more high profile subject today and therefore much more
prone to further any restrictions on amateur chemistry. Personally I doubt that a discussion board such as Science Madness have any influence on
governmens. Sure, it may give them some ideas but they already have all the knowledge and ammunition they need to do as they please.
And the examples you mention clearly doesn't meet my standards nor do I think they should they be allowed, but the requirements should be applied on
all subjects and not only threads related to drugs. If anyone wants to synthesize amphetamine from benzaldehyde and write a intelligent and reasonable
thread on it, let it be. If you're not interested in that particular synthesis, just don't read it. I'm neither interested in amphetamine or
explosives and it's not very hard to avoid those discussions. Additionally one should not forget that drug chemistry is far from being restrained to
making a buck out of selling DIY methamphetamine, in the same way as energetic materials isn't always about being the next Bin Laden.
|
"a intelligent and reasonable thread..." Exactly, that's all I want. It would be hypocritical to be biased against drugs but not explosives, which are
an international problem. To be honest, I wouldn't normally care if we discuss that or any other drug precursor or explosive so along as there's a
certain high criterion of scientific discourse to it, and I think it should be of a higher level than other common things. At least talking like a
scientist when you discuss some of those things should be attempted. There comes a point when free speech/exchange of ideas needs to be balanced
against clear and evident evil intent. The problem is that intent is rarely transparent.
As far as the narrow-mindedness goes, it's a matter of opinion and perspective. We obviously agree to disagree on this. I'll still offer some of my
rationale. Let's do a hypothetical as example (granted this is hyperbole): say a certain member posts an plans or an attempted synthesis of a nerve
agent, a lot of it. Would you want to answer his questions and tell him how it's done, even though you (I hope at least) know that a nerve agent is
really only for one purpose. Would you not have some doubt as to his intentions, or would you not care so long as his chemistry is sound? I think it
is narrow-minded to assume people are only just curious about how to make this or that. I am not saying everyone who posts of illegal things are bad
people (I'd bet it's the opposite and that most are just curious), but there are always a few. I just can't adopt a "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Do No
Evil" philosophy towards something I know is wrong for society and in turn, for my own interests.
I feel that it's a few people that are out to profiteer (in the case of drugs) or a few that aren't properly trained/knowledgeable enough (in the case
of explosives and drugs) which ruin the hobby for the rest of us with legitimate interests. Those few make our legitimate interests less and less
legitimate to the public, the government, and the scientific community. This is true of firearms users/owners worldwide. When you ask how it ruins my
life and makes it harder for us all, you forget that it is always a minority that ruin it for the majority. Ponder that well.
Neither flask nor beaker.
"Kid, you don't even know just what you don't know. "
--The Dark Lord Sauron
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Let's not allow this to get personal, because that would only take us further in degrading this board.
I pretty much use personal discretion and that's a big euphemism for saying that I close any thread that I don't frigging like or chastise any poster
which pisses me off. Undoubtedly, some will say I go too far and some will say I don't go far enough. As long as that is the case, I think I'm doing
well.
But I do make mistakes and members reporting threads make my work here alot easier.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
syntelman
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 26-8-2007
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tired
|
|
Fleaker: Yes...
Nothing is black and white, and everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion.
I do not deny that I have a somewhat liberal view on drugs and their use (read use, not abuse) although I personally have no interest in taking them
but I find their preparation and pharmacology interesting.
When you exemplify with the hypothetical preparation of a nerve agent, you somewhat blindly assume that anyone that prepares or uses/abuses drugs
harms innocent bystanders which I find is not the case. I do not argue that drugs can be very detrimental and dangerous, but I personally think that
responsible drug use is not the devil and may not be any worse than the occasional visit to the local pub. And from a strictly scientifical viewpoint,
drugs clearly are not as dangerous as the media and DEA portrait and severe abuse and it's consequences clearly have underlying societal issues.
None the less, if anyone asked about the preparation of a potent drug for use as a toxicological/poisonous agent I would definately argue that it
would be very unwise to give advice/help, but I think that there is a large difference between making a personal choice to take a drug and subjecting
civilians to a nerve agent (or a drug) and it is impossible to make any comparision between those cases in general.
I also think that it is quite naive to think that internet forums make any large difference in decisions made on government levels. Regulations
regarding amateur chemistry have existed long before bulletin boards such as Science Madness (or even The Hive) existed. And those responsible for any
regulations are not the govermental scapegoats, but the government itself even if it's easy to blame those who the laws are "based" upon.
All that being said I think we (all) agree that any discussions should be on a scientifical level, I just hope we stay at that level of moderation.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
So, syntelman, you are a chemist, or a chemistry student, and you like this forum, but you feel not the slightest inclination to post here EXCEPT when
you choose to kibbitz and tell us how to conduct ourselves on THIS issue, then you are suddeenly a fount of universal truth.
I say you are an outsider with no real standing to have an opinion that anyone here should give a damn about.
And that will remain my opinion unless and until you actively participate in the chemistry discussions of this forum and not merely its internal
affairs which are none of your concern.
You are like a rubbernecker at an auto accident.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
syntelman
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 26-8-2007
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tired
|
|
You are fully entitled to your opionion and I realise that my thoughts in many eyes won't weigh as much as those from long time members. However I
personally feel that my viewpoint is just as valid wether I have 10 or 1000 posts and I hope that it will make people think no matter if they agree
with me or not. So your opinion or arrogant posts won't refrain me from saying what's on my mind on any matter, chemistry related or not, now or in
the future.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Vulture: I wouldn't want your job here. It's obvious that you can see both sides of an issue and that makes choices very difficult, especially as
everyone is entitled to their opinion and you certainly have some yourself. The toughest thing is to makes choices for the greater good when it means
going against that which one finds acceptable in other context.
Frankly, I have always wondered what you personally thought of the level of moderation in a board like E&W...? It's been rolling along now for a
lot of years. To the best of my knowledge it has had more activity and longevity than the Hive did (in it's prime) and with polar extremes in
moderation.
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well the problem with moderating is that you always make a choice. If you don't look at a thread and that thread happens to be going wrong, you're
making the choice of leaving it open, just by not looking at it. It's not a voluntary choice, but it is a choice nevertheless. This is also why I
sometimes close threads which don't seem so bad at all, it's because I know where it's going and I know it's going to be a mess to contain the
fallout. Closing such a thread is perhaps a bad choice, but leaving it open would be the worst choice, if you know what I mean.
About E&W, the quality of moderation was very good when I was still active there (long time ago now). The problem is that some people mixed their
rather extreme political views with their moderation duties. Which is essentially why I got banned there even after they had offered me a moderator
position first.. But there were alot of moderators which I got along with very well.
Actually, it's funny you say that, because I've been and am regularly accused of NBK style moderation. 
[Edited on 19-12-2007 by vulture]
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
I've gone there (E&W) frequently. He (NBK) passed away from a heart attack brought on by a hx of heart disease at age 37. I can't really say that
I felt it was appropriate to shower everyone with one's political views if you are in a moderator position; extreme on not. Quite frankly I don't see
that happening here. I would almost say that this has been an example of a differing style of moderation (& not that I haven't had some of my
comments/threads closed also) but I think this works well for the style of posts here.
BTW - I DID want to edit this as I read with interest the notes that were left upon his passing (NBK) and one by Megalomania was quite reveling. He
made mention that NBK also may have been a user of some "medicines not prescribed by a doctor" & that had an impact on his heart disease. The
"medicine" that makes an impact on heart disease & brings a life quite short is meth or amphetamine related drugs obviously. This is a very
strange world.
[Edited on 20-12-2007 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Is there any evidence that he was an amphetamine user? Cocaine is MUCH worse for your heart than pretty much anything else. Then again there's
plenty of non-psychoactive drugs that cause heart problems as well.
The point I'm trying to make is there's hundreds of ways to get heart disease and more than a couple of drugs that will cause it.
I didn't even know the guy existed until he died. However, I'm bringing this up because I know how rumors can start and it would be a terrible thing
to be remembered as a "meth head" and even worse if it wasn't true.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
No - no evidence would exist. There was a family history of heart disease NO ONE said a drug caused it. Exacerbated it - maybe. (let's forget about
this fellow for a moment and let him rest in peace. In the context of the medical implications of the use of same; a post that said the guy did
"medicines not prescribed by a doctor": ...simply that. [It COULD mean he drank some "energy drink" by the quart but that's doubtful as it would be
mentioned specifically.] I frankly agree with you; I don't want to start ANY rumor what-so-ever. I don't even want to talk about the guy.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Why would abuse of one strong CNS stimulant be "worse" than than another? If we are not talking about caffeine here but amphetamines or cocaine - why
would one be worse than another? Why is cocaine harmful & amphetamines less so?
[Edited on 21-12-2007 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
