Kinda makes you wonder now doesn't it?
EDIT: Thinking about it, let's knock that down to just 'capacity'. Yeah, that's better. Oh yeah, and the capacity to do something is not enough to be sent to prison over, IMO - especially if the capacity was there but dormant until brought to the fore after a concerted effort by an outside party.
So Entrapment is okay, as long as we put the cause of "terrorism" on it?
Furthermore, The plot was Made Up. He didn't do anything, so.....basically we're convicting someone on Roleplaying.
Being guilty for having illegal thoughts?
Better throw my ass in jail too while you're at it, because I've thought killed over half the population of my fellow Americans fifty times over. complete with "how to guides'.
If anything, they've proven that peer pressure can make people do crazy things. Or at least say they're going to do crazy things, eventually.
Thing is he did back out, but they pressured him back into it.
So Entrapment is okay, as long as we put the cause of "terrorism" on it?
Furthermore, The plot was Made Up. He didn't do anything, so.....basically we're convicting someone on Roleplaying.
Being guilty for having illegal thoughts?
Better throw my ass in jail too while you're at it, because I've thought killed over half the population of my fellow Americans fifty times over. complete with "how to guides'.
He claims to have backed out. We don't know what actually happened and this story doesn't appear to be the most reputable source. So no, I'm not saying entrapment is ok. What I'm saying is just because a convicted criminal says it isn't his fault doesn't mean we automatically buy into it. I'm also saying that prodded or not, it was his decision to go through with it. As for the plot being made up, well yeah that's how a lot of sting operations are.
Now if this story is 100% legit, then yeah that's ****ed up and should be investigated and if evidence supporting that is presented in court he could probably get his conviction overturned. But him saying so does not make it true, and it being true does not make all similar operations bad.
People who think this is the right way to go about finding terrorists are real idiots. Peer pressuring people into becoming terrorists will only generate new terrorists, not help you catch existing ones.
I don't think anyone is saying that. The problem is that we don't know if this is that. We have the word of the accused against whatever recordings and testimony were provided by the NYPD.
Yes, because roach traps are immoral.
The difference is the active vs. passive. A trap or honeypot or something like that is passive, allowing their victim to spring the trap by their own volition, their own wrongdoing. In cases of entrapment you have the officer seeking out people and pressuring and manipulating them into doing things they ought not be doing. It'd be like if the roach motel sprouted little trappy legs, sauntered outside, and then chased around the roaches in the grass while shouting "get in my belly!"
I don't think anyone is saying that. The problem is that we don't know if this is that. We have the word of the accused against whatever recordings and testimony were provided by the NYPD.
It certainly sounded like people thought that doing such was a good idea based on the reactions to this story. It certainly sounded like people agreeing with the methods used.
I don't think anyone is saying that. The problem is that we don't know if this is that. We have the word of the accused against whatever recordings and testimony were provided by the NYPD.
It certainly sounded like people thought that doing such was a good idea based on the reactions to this story. It certainly sounded like people agreeing with the methods used.
Which has no bearing on the facts of the case nor the legality of the methods claimed to be used.
Yes, because roach traps are immoral.
The difference is the active vs. passive. A trap or honeypot or something like that is passive, allowing their victim to spring the trap by their own volition, their own wrongdoing. In cases of entrapment you have the officer seeking out people and pressuring and manipulating them into doing things they ought not be doing. It'd be like if the roach motel sprouted little trappy legs, sauntered outside, and then chased around the roaches in the grass while shouting "get in my belly!"
Yet, if that kind of trap worked, wouldn't we all be Evangelicals by now?
Of course there is also the question of credibility.
Umm ... if the desire or capacity can be instilled, the desire or capacity was always there. The idea may not have been, but the desire or capacity certainly was.
EDIT: Thinking about it, let's knock that down to just 'capacity'. Yeah, that's better. Oh yeah, and the capacity to do something is not enough to be sent to prison over, IMO - especially if the capacity was there but dormant until brought to the fore after a concerted effort by an outside party.
Yeah. Glad to see your edit. Capacity is capacity. Either you are capable of something or you are not. Desire on the other hand is something that can be instilled or taken away.
Yet, if that kind of trap worked, wouldn't we all be Evangelicals by now?
I think a better analogy would be the way the Spaniards converted Latin America to Catholicism.
Yet, if that kind of trap worked, wouldn't we all be Evangelicals by now?
I think a better analogy would be the way the Spaniards converted Latin America to Catholicism.
The police are using swords and pestilence?
The police are using swords and pestilence?
I think it was more along the lines of coversion at sword point being closer to a roach motel running around the grass shouting "get in my belly" then the evangelicals I can shut the door on, but I'm starting to think this analogy may have wandered a bit.
Point is...
... seeing as it's the beginning of the summer and by the end of every summer for the last few years that I've been paying attention I've had fun and exciting new stories of police raids on gay bars on trumped up charges (if they have any base at all), I'm gonna with "yes".
And...
... the main point was to illustrate the crucial distinction between entrapment (which is active and predatory) and a honey pot (which is passive and not all that predatory).
The police are using swords and pestilence?
I think it was more along the lines of coversion at sword point being closer to a roach motel running around the grass shouting "get in my belly" then the evangelicals I can shut the door on, but I'm starting to think this analogy may have wandered a bit.
Point is...
... seeing as it's the beginning of the summer and by the end of every summer for the last few years that I've been paying attention I've had fun and exciting new stories of police raids on gay bars on trumped up charges (if they have any base at all), I'm gonna with "yes".
And...
... the main point was to illustrate the crucial distinction between entrapment (which is active and predatory) and a honey pot (which is passive and not all that predatory).
Yep, and I agree with you. I'm just too much of a smart ass to let some things pass.
Umm ... if the desire or capacity can be instilled, the desire or capacity was always there. The idea may not have been, but the desire or capacity certainly was.
EDIT: Thinking about it, let's knock that down to just 'capacity'. Yeah, that's better. Oh yeah, and the capacity to do something is not enough to be sent to prison over, IMO - especially if the capacity was there but dormant until brought to the fore after a concerted effort by an outside party.
Sorry if I was unclear--when I said 'capacity' was using it in the sense of 'the skills and/or materials necessary to do so'--the ability to build a button to press, not the ability to press a button once one is presented to them.
Completely aside from the ethical problem I have with entrapment of this nature, I have big problems with operations like these solely on an efficiency standpoint. Law-enforcement should be going after the people who are both willing and able to carry out terrorist plans, not wasting time, effort, and money with people who are willing but not able. If someone is willing, but not able, keep him under observation to make sure he doesn't go anywhere, sure, but don't bother actually doing anything about it, and certainly don't try to cultivate him to bring him to the point where he thinks he is able. That's just inventing problems for yourself.
Completely aside from the ethical problem I have with entrapment of this nature, I have big problems with operations like these solely on an efficiency standpoint. Law-enforcement should be going after the people who are both willing and able to carry out terrorist plans, not wasting time, effort, and money with people who are willing but not able. If someone is willing, but not able, keep him under observation to make sure he doesn't go anywhere, sure, but don't bother actually doing anything about it, and certainly don't try to cultivate him to bring him to the point where he thinks he is able. That's just inventing problems for yourself.
Ethically I agree (although I say again we don't actually know what happened in this case).
As far as your efficiency idea, I completely disagree. Once someone becomes will to commit violence, the means is far too easy to achieve, and once they have the means, you have no way to predict when the act will happen. Not to mention you are completely gambling on the fact that you will actually know when they achieve the means. Besides, how is it more efficient to keep someone under observation for an indefinite period of time and possibly fail to stop a murder rather than devote the resources up front, lock them up, and move on to the next guy?
Completely aside from the ethical problem I have with entrapment of this nature, I have big problems with operations like these solely on an efficiency standpoint. Law-enforcement should be going after the people who are both willing and able to carry out terrorist plans, not wasting time, effort, and money with people who are willing but not able. If someone is willing, but not able, keep him under observation to make sure he doesn't go anywhere, sure, but don't bother actually doing anything about it, and certainly don't try to cultivate him to bring him to the point where he thinks he is able. That's just inventing problems for yourself.
Ethically I agree (although I say again we don't actually know what happened in this case).
As far as your efficiency idea, I completely disagree. Once someone becomes will to commit violence, the means is far too easy to achieve, and once they have the means, you have no way to predict when the act will happen. Not to mention you are completely gambling on the fact that you will actually know when they achieve the means. Besides, how is it more efficient to keep someone under observation for an indefinite period of time and possibly fail to stop a murder rather than devote the resources up front, lock them up, and move on to the next guy?
I agree with you naga. The ability to commit something like terrorism is kinda easy and really can be done with a myriad of house hold items. For instance baseball bats or gold clubs can be used to hold people hostage. Cleaning supplies can be used to create poisonous gas. Heck house hold items can be used to make explosives. All stuff we can go to home depot and spend less than $20 bucks on we can use to terrorize a mall with possibly harming dozens if not hundreds of people. If there is a will to break the law the means to do so isn't too far away. And this goes for a lot of crimes as well.
As far as your efficiency idea, I completely disagree. Once someone becomes will to commit violence, the means is far too easy to achieve, and once they have the means, you have no way to predict when the act will happen. Not to mention you are completely gambling on the fact that you will actually know when they achieve the means. Besides, how is it more efficient to keep someone under observation for an indefinite period of time and possibly fail to stop a murder rather than devote the resources up front, lock them up, and move on to the next guy?
Infiltrating takes a lot of time and resources; it makes sense to do this with people who have the ability to harm you, because then you can learn about their plans and counteract them. But someone who doesn't have the capacity to harm you doesn't have anything you need to counteract, so infiltration is unnecessary and a waste of time. Instead, you can do things like set up honeypots that will attract and deal with anyone who is attempting to gain the ability to harm you, not just one single individual.
By 'keep him under observation' I meant putting them on a watch list and keeping tabs on them in the same sense you might keep tabs on a friend on Facebook rather than actual surveillance. Having someone on a watch list or two to send up flags if they try to buy guns or--assuming you have the appropriate warrants--search for 'how to make bombs' on their computer or whatever takes much less effort.
How big are the odds that this person would've never done anything if he hadn't been exposed to people telling him he needs to blow stuff up and showing him images of terrible things happening and playing on his mind all the time? Many people don't respond well to peer pressure.
I really can't imagine this kind of method being anything but extremely counter productive.
I still can't stop wondering if peer pressuring someone into a terrorist act means that you've found a terrorist or created one.
How big are the odds that this person would've never done anything if he hadn't been exposed to people telling him he needs to blow stuff up and showing him images of terrible things happening and playing on his mind all the time? Many people don't respond well to peer pressure.
I really can't imagine this kind of method being anything but extremely counter productive.
I think most people are in agreement on that. It is worth pointing out, though, that terrorists use the same and worse methods to recruit people.
Infiltrating takes a lot of time and resources; it makes sense to do this with people who have the ability to harm you, because then you can learn about their plans and counteract them. But someone who doesn't have the capacity to harm you doesn't have anything you need to counteract, so infiltration is unnecessary and a waste of time. Instead, you can do things like set up honeypots that will attract and deal with anyone who is attempting to gain the ability to harm you, not just one single individual.
By 'keep him under observation' I meant putting them on a watch list and keeping tabs on them in the same sense you might keep tabs on a friend on Facebook rather than actual surveillance. Having someone on a watch list or two to send up flags if they try to buy guns or--assuming you have the appropriate warrants--search for 'how to make bombs' on their computer or whatever takes much less effort.
You don't know who has the ability to harm someone you until you get close to them. Also, while they probably do have "honeypot" setups, some people are naturally paranoid and won't go near them (otherwise they would never have to bother with anything else). And again, observation sounds fine until that person murders someone or blows something up and you realize you could have prevented it but didn't. Watch lists and monitoring his internet won't necessarily tell you when he bought a gun off the street or when he built a bomb in the kitchen. Al-Qaeda's English magazine has been putting out more and more simple suggestions for small scale attacks, things like attaching a bunch of blades to the bumper of a truck and driving into a crowd. It is far too easy to achieve the means once you already have the will. I just don't think it's worth the risk.
Making a case out of nothing, is just that.
Sorry if I was unclear--when I said 'capacity' was using it in the sense of 'the skills and/or materials necessary to do so'--the ability to build a button to press, not the ability to press a button once one is presented to them.
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.
Completely aside from the ethical problem I have with entrapment of this nature, I have big problems with operations like these solely on an efficiency standpoint. Law-enforcement should be going after the people who are both willing and able to carry out terrorist plans, not wasting time, effort, and money with people who are willing but not able. If someone is willing, but not able, keep him under observation to make sure he doesn't go anywhere, sure, but don't bother actually doing anything about it, and certainly don't try to cultivate him to bring him to the point where he thinks he is able. That's just inventing problems for yourself.
I have to say, leaving people who are willing to do harm out there to do harm scares me. I also have to say, however, that I agree in the fact that resources are better spent chasing people that can actually do that harm or are very close to being able to do it. And then there's that whole 'thoughtcrime' aspect which I'm terribly uncomfortable with. So basically, I agree.
I think most people are in agreement on that. It is worth pointing out, though, that terrorists use the same and worse methods to recruit people.
Wasn't the general idea that "We are better then them"? If you stoop to the same level, that argument kinda loses its punch.
You don't know who has the ability to harm someone you until you get close to them.
Everyone but the most devout pacifist has the ability to harm someone, and possibly even them. If you push someone's buttons long enough you can probably make him do something violent. Whether that proves that he was going to be violent regardless of your actions on the other hand...
Everyone but the most devout pacifist has the ability to harm someone, and possibly even them. If you push someone's buttons long enough you can probably make him do something violent. Whether that proves that he was going to be violent regardless of your actions on the other hand...
In this case by "ability" I think it was fairly clear that I meant desire and the means to act on that desire. Not everyone has those two things. And my comment had nothing to do with pushing people's buttons, it had to do with the idea that we should just let people be until they are just about to kill someone. It's too easy to miss something important until it's too late.
gothamist.com/2011/05/20/man_arrested_fo...
www.ctpost.com/news/article/Bridgeport-m...
In the end it mostly just wastes time.
Well, if it's about the desire and the means to act on that desire, then I'm guilty. But I'm not actually going to do anything to anyone, so I don't see the point in hounding me until you have me convinced that I should kill someone and then arrest me.
In the end it mostly just wastes time.
If you're not actually intending to do anything, then you're not really meeting the intent when I say "desire". And again, if you don't try to catch the guys before they do something, the alternative is to catch them after they have done something. I fail to see how that sounds like a good idea.
There is a difference between observing them to see if they'll plan something and pushing them until they plan something.
Wasn't the general idea that "We are better then them"? If you stoop to the same level, that argument kinda loses its punch.
I think that went out the window with Guantanamo.
[...] if you don't try to catch the guys before they do something, the alternative is to catch them after they have done something. I fail to see how that sounds like a good idea.
Well, that depends. Are we going for security at any price? If so then I'd agree with you, though I think that baseline is gonna be a hard sell. However, some people think that absolute security comes at far too high a price, both financial and in terms of what kind of society that creates. If you're more conservative, then spending months, if not years pushing someone to commit a crime just so you can catch them sounds less likely "reasonable security" and "pursuing likely dangers" and more like "hero complex".
I put that into my calculator and I get 1984/Minority Report/[this]. And that's far too over on the security side of the security/freedom scale for my comfort. I'll take the risk of having another beat cop over an officer spending months trying to ferret out who might possibly be a terrorist if you wave enough ideas over their head.
If you're not actually intending to do anything, then you're not really meeting the intent when I say "desire". And again, if you don't try to catch the guys before they do something, the alternative is to catch them after they have done something. I fail to see how that sounds like a good idea.
One of those involves you pretty much Breaking The Law to 'enforce it', and the other, is actually correctly Enforcing the law. One's basically a Witch Hunt, and the other is Justice.
I'll give everyone a hint as to which is which, the former part of my response and latter follow in order in which they appear in Bone Naga's post.
Or we could, you know, stick to punishing people for the crimes they actually commit, and not what they might concievably be driven to contemplate.
We should arrest all poor people. I'm sure that undercover police officers could goad them into aggreeing to drive a getaway car for a hypothetical robbery, given enough time, threats, and lies.
Or we could, you know, stick to punishing people for the crimes they actually commit, and not what they might concievably be driven to contemplate.
That's no fun. How else can we waste millions of dollars and feel like we have made the world safer?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've said that by the time someone becomes willing to do violence it's practically too late as far as preventive policing goes, that preventive policing is better then reactive policing, and that the best way to find out if someing is willing to commit violence is to get close to them.
Yes, all of that is correct. That's why I support undercover operations and stings. I did not say I support going up to random people and pressuring them to become terrorists. Those are two separate things.
Or we could, you know, stick to punishing people for the crimes they actually commit, and not what they might concievably be driven to contemplate.
Isn't that what we do? Punish them for crimes they commit or were attempting to commit?
Your the one advocating a diffrent system, not me. (Okay, well, I was in the first half of my previous post, but was doing so disengenuously.)
Your the one advocating a diffrent system, not me. (Okay, well, I was in the first half of my previous post, but was doing so disengenuously.)
What are you smoking? When did I advocate a different system?
Your the one advocating a diffrent system, not me. (Okay, well, I was in the first half of my previous post, but was doing so disengenuously.)
What are you smoking? When did I advocate a different system?
Oh, my mistake. Somehow it got in to 5 or 6 or more posters heads that something you said, either directly or indirectly implied an acceptance of the practice of targeting individuals with desire or ability to commit crimes, and taking leagal action before they have a chance to use their ability to act on their desiers and that, simply watching thoes with desire is not good enough. I guess we all just pulled that thought out of the aether.
Oh, my mistake. Somehow it got in to 5 or 6 or more posters heads that something you said, either directly or indirectly implied an acceptance of the practice of targeting individuals with desire or ability to commit crimes, and taking leagal action before they have a chance to use their ability to act on their desiers and that, simply watching thoes with desire is not good enough. I guess we all just pulled that thought out of the aether.
So the idea of using undercover agents to stop people who may be attempting to commit crimes is wrong? And even though that is part of the current system, and I'm saying that's what we should keep doing, somehow I am advocating a new system? Yeah, I would say you pulled that thought right out of your ass...er...aether.
Generally, undercover agents do not "stop people who may be attempting to commit crimes" they do things like 'find evidence of past crimes and arrest criminals'. They don't go out and look for people who they can convience to commit crimes. You know, people who might want to commit crimes, but havent, the people you deem are too dangerous to simply keep an eye on.
Or they stop someone from committing a crime that is about to happen. I'm pretty sure that's the point of anyone going undercover to find terrorists. It's not to wait until after they blow something up. Maybe you're cool with that, but for me, no not so much. And I never said looking for people that they can convince to commit crimes. I'm talking about people that are looking to commit a crime. I'm not sure what part of that idea is so incredibly difficult to grasp.
Anywho, how about them cowboys?
If I'm not mistaken the point of under cover officers is not to make arrests and "prevent" crimes so to speak but rather to gather evidence of recent crimes, current crimes or major crimes that will soon be committed so that say the police can get a warrant to bust down doors and whatnot.
Yep. As I pointed out, the terrorism aspect tends to focus on the "major crimes soon to be committed part". My stance is essentially that to find out what's about to happen to have to be a little proactive, not just sit back and hope someone comes to you. Now I mean proactive as far as infiltrating potential terrorist cells, finding out who the extremists are and getting close to them to earn their trust and find out what (if any) plans they have, as opposed to just deciding to put them on a list and call it a day.
This is apposed to being undercover to try and talk people (whom may or may not be criminals) into doing criminal acts. Because right there is sort of the line between observing and entrapment. But I have a feeling that's not what's being argued even though that seems to be where the discussion is at....
Right, that would be entrapment. I don't think anyone said entrapment is good, we don't even know if that is happening (we have the unimpeachable word of a convicted criminal), and yet somehow the discussion does seem to keep returning to that.
Or they stop someone from committing a crime that is about to happen.
No. They stop them once they have commited a crime. If you stop them before that, then they have done nothing wrong, and you have no reason to arrest them. Concealing a bomb is a crime, and if you stop them then, you have them for planting an explosive device, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder. If you stop him when he is buying gasoline and doodling crap in a spiral binder, you have just that. A guy who was doodling in a binder and buying gasoline, AKA, not a criminal.
Being part of a terrorist cell is a crime. Just wanted to point that out.
I think the FBI should be charged, with treason and terrorism, for creating a terrorist cell.
Exactly...
Its completely ok to infiltrate a terrorist cell, which is in itself conspiracy to commit murder and acts of terrorism. Its not ok to find someone and try to push them into it and then arrest them.
By the way anyone who has had a high school chemistry class has the 'means' to do violent things. Doesn't mean even a tenth of them will do it...
By the way anyone who has had a high school chemistry class has the 'means' to do violent things. Doesn't mean even a tenth of them will do it...
Gasoline and styrofoam! Woo!
I think the FBI should be charged, with treason and terrorism, for creating a terrorist cell.
Only if they actually did.
No. They stop them once they have commited a crime. If you stop them before that, then they have done nothing wrong, and you have no reason to arrest them. Concealing a bomb is a crime, and if you stop them then, you have them for planting an explosive device, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder. If you stop him when he is buying gasoline and doodling crap in a spiral binder, you have just that. A guy who was doodling in a binder and buying gasoline, AKA, not a criminal.
Being part of a terrorist cell is a crime. Just wanted to point that out.
Ok now you're just quibbling over verbage. Attempting to commit a crime is still a crime. Yes, got it, but the point in these cases is to make sure they don't actually carry out the final act, whether it's by snatching them after they build a bomb or by giving them fake parts so that they can't actually blow one up. You know what, I think we're actually both on the same page here, we just keep saying it two different ways.
I think the FBI should be charged, with treason and terrorism, for creating a terrorist cell.
Only if they actually did.
Well if they didn't, then there's no grounds for a case against this guy either. Either it's a real enough cell to convict someone, or it's not.
I think the FBI should be charged, with treason and terrorism, for creating a terrorist cell.
Only if they actually did.
Well if they didn't, then there's no grounds for a case against this guy either. Either it's a real enough cell to convict someone, or it's not.
What he meant was "only if this guys story was not something he made up". Apparently his words are meaningless because, well, he is a criminal. Except that, if what he is saying is true, he really shouldn't be. But he is a criminal, so what he is saying is most likely not true, and should be ignored, or something. It's all very circular.
See the problem here?
We are creating Criminals.
A criminal, that wasn't a criminal before this 'investigation' started. A criminal that had done no illegal activity to speak of (Or else he'd be in jail already,etc) prior to his involvement with the US government.
See the problem here?
We are creating Criminals.
Only if you believe in the word of criminals...
A criminal, that wasn't a criminal before this 'investigation' started. A criminal that had done no illegal activity to speak of (Or else he'd be in jail already,etc) prior to his involvement with the US government.
See the problem here?
We are creating Criminals.
Only if you believe in the word of criminals...
Did I miss the memo that went out declaring all criminals to be liars about everything? Are they somehow incapable of telling the truth? If my family is starving and I steal a loaf of bread, are my words now all lies? If I then tell you that, "Am a liar.", am I telling the truth, lying, or just trying to make your head explode because I think you are a robot?
A criminal, that wasn't a criminal before this 'investigation' started. A criminal that had done no illegal activity to speak of (Or else he'd be in jail already,etc) prior to his involvement with the US government.
See the problem here?
We are creating Criminals.
Only if you believe in the word of criminals...
Did I miss the memo that went out declaring all criminals to be liars about everything? Are they somehow incapable of telling the truth? If my family is starving and I steal a loaf of bread, are my words now all lies? If I then tell you that, "Am a liar.", am I telling the truth, lying, or just trying to make your head explode because I think you are a robot?
It ok max 'pats on shoulder' I don't think your a criminal...
A criminal, that wasn't a criminal before this 'investigation' started. A criminal that had done no illegal activity to speak of (Or else he'd be in jail already,etc) prior to his involvement with the US government.
See the problem here?
We are creating Criminals.
Only if you believe in the word of criminals...
Did I miss the memo that went out declaring all criminals to be liars about everything? Are they somehow incapable of telling the truth? If my family is starving and I steal a loaf of bread, are my words now all lies? If I then tell you that, "Am a liar.", am I telling the truth, lying, or just trying to make your head explode because I think you are a robot?
Probably the last one. Because you seem to have trouble seperating one posters position from the mockery of a second, so you could very well have mistaken me for the resident robot.
By the way anyone who has had a high school chemistry class has the 'means' to do violent things. Doesn't mean even a tenth of them will do it...
Gasoline and styrofoam! Woo!
That's "homemade napalm".
I don't think you should be telling how that's done...
Wait, there are people that don't know how to make napalm?
Maybe...
And in this day and age, maybe it is a good idea to stay mum...
Wow, apparently I've made napalm before and never even known it. I'm glad I didn't combine that experiment with my "setting styrofoam on fire" experiment.
If I had a nickle for every time I said "I'm glad I didn't combine that experiment with my [insert other experiment name] experiment", I'd be a rich woman!It worked perfectly.
Well, we made **** ****s and taped ***** jars full of ****** on them, and used a ***** light bulb as a ****, and a * volt battery as power.
It worked perfectly.
We totally need to do a Mad-Libs OTT game.
Well, we made **** ****s and taped ***** jars full of ****** on them, and used a ***** light bulb as a ****, and a * volt battery as power.
It worked perfectly.
We totally need to do a Mad-Libs OTT game.
You could have each post quote the previous one and add the words (or just one word) and add a sentence with blanks... kind of tell a story...
Wait, there are people that don't know how to make napalm?
I didn't, but I know how to make nitroglycerin.