Even though I agree with being as discreet as possible, giving the full name of the vendor at this point doesn't make any difference at all. We talked about the website on which he sells his products or even the country from which he operates. So it's kind of an overreaction to reprimand the person who fully shared the name of the vendor. If there are law enforcements who are specialised in the online drug- trafficking reading these threads, I'm sure, they already know who C is at the beginning of this thread. It's no different than to call nembutal as N. Just as everybody in this site and every law enforcement with an IQ 90+ checking out this site knows what N is, they already know who C is. All I'm saying pretending like mentioning these vendors "C" or "A" will help these people not to get caught would be foolish of ourselves. They are already --Thank God-- out of any western jurisdiction. So we are as safe as we can get be. But, as I said. I'm totally okay with the tradition of calling them just by their first letters.
Sorry, but I'll have to disagree.
Bad habits tend to lead to further bad habits, so it's not wise to take a "chilled out" approach.
If we do that then over time, we will make things *much* easier for any anti-choice people / groups, etc.
We should not be directly stating which marketplace any given vendor sells on.
Such details should only be discussed in PMs.
I understand that our efforts to be discreet may not be sufficient, but I don't believe in just saying : "oh, don't bother, just discuss everything freely".
Such a casual approach will spread and will lead to a much easier job for the anti-choice groups.
Efforts at being discreet may raise the required effort to gather information for such anti-choice groups.
So for a given resource allocation, a lower amount of information may be gathered.
