IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 12:44 PM 11/22/01 -0600, gep2 at terabites.com wrote:
>Again, the First Amendment has its limits.

Nope.  How unAmerican.  Are you British?

If some organization were to publish
>a "you can build it at home in your spare time" cookbook recipe of how
to create
>an innovative sort of nuclear weapon capable of destroying a large
city, I'd
>expect for the government to step in and prevent its publication and
sale...

Speaking of which do you find chocolate agar to be a better culture
medium
than uncooked blood agar?  And when oxygenating the culture
can you just bubble air or do you see better results from pure O2?

>The idea that this nitwit is "only just" publishing this kind of
material and
>not HIMSELF committing the resulting crimes (and it could WELL be that
the
>anthrax attacks already seen here are the work of one or more of his
customers)
>and that he therefore should be allowed to continue these sales
unimpeded and
>unmonitored is rather like saying that Osama bin Laden is only running
terrorism
>training camps, producing snazzy recruitment videos, publishing
terrorism
>handbooks and providing other logistical support but that nothing he's
done has
>actually CAUSED anybody to go out and commit these horrible atrocities.

>
>Again, sorry, I don't agree.

Presumably there is a lot of causal evidence that can't be shown.
Making videos is never a crime.  (Vs. coercing actors, or using the
state
to censor)

>>>How many sets of these "terrorism cookbooks" do you let fall
>>>into the hands of psychotics?

The most dangerous psychotics are the elected ones.

BTW Gordon you use "we" far too much, as if you are speaking
for others than your lil' ole self.  We find this annoying.