Picking spool or mushroom pins.

so basicly you must apply very little pressure to the torq wrench when
trying to pick a lock with spool or mushroom pins. I have a brinks
lock i've only picked once... argh...
Reply to
The Snowfish.
Loading thread data ...
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61-#spamblock*-@hotmail.com> wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de...
long.
wrench when
a brinks
formatting link
Reply to
Key
"Will people on this newsgroup give me information about picking locks, etc.?
Yes and No."
formatting link
I didn't see a section on feathertouch wrenches - if that is what you were referring to and I missed it, my mistake.
Reply to
Undisclosed
Don't waste your time or money on buying a feathertouch tension wrench, just make your own. Epoxy a 6 inch section of a goose quill to the end of your tension wrench and then limit the deflection of the end of the quill to 3/8 of an inch.
For clarification, you will be cutting the shaft of the quill at 6 inches and slipping the hollow end over the end of the tension wrench about 3/4 of an inch. Do not allow the epoxy to flow down the quill, a small wad of cotton helps here.
Reply to
Roger Shoaf
picking locks,
that is what you
tension wrench, just
the end of your
the quill to 3/8
quill at 6 inches
wrench about 3/4 of
small wad of
in the tube, then
:-) that should be considered for the FAQ ... :-)
Reply to
Key
Yeah he probably did. He probably noticed that they give and link to lots defeating information. Consequently he is following that trend. There is about one paragraph in those FAQ's which states that some people won't give defeating information. There is alot more than that in the way of actual info and links to it. If you don't want to discuss certain things don't but you waste your time citing the FAQ's again and again they DON'T support your position.
Reply to
Putyourspamhere
reader.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.freenet. de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
They still do more to undermine the no defeating instructions position than to support it.
Reply to
Putyourspamhere
I think you may be off on your own tangent here. The reason there is a FAQ is
Frequently Asked Questions
that we are just tired of discussing every two days. It does tell you that certain things won't be discussed in the list. It also gives links for the most frequently asked things so that the individual can expend their energy to find the answer on their own. After all, the concept is that the FAQ will give the answers so they don't have to be asked here. Your advice to not refer to the FAQ is self defeating and frankly a little shortsighted. I'm not interested in seeing an explanation here every couple of days when the FAQ can refer to the answer continuously. BBE.
Reply to
Billy B. Edwards Jr.
This is fine if you want to point to factual information contained in the FAQ's. Where it makes little sense is to post the link in an attempt to back up ones position that defeating info isn't discussed here as I elaborate on below.
It does tell you
No it doesn't really say that at all. It says:
" 0. Will people on this newsgroup give me information about picking locks, etc.? Yes and No. These is a serious debate, based on serious principles. Most experienced people here are quite willing to discuss the basics of lock construction and operation. Few (if any) are willing to give specific answers regarding opening a particular lock or safe - without knowing the asker or having other evidence that the inquiry is legitimate.
" The "Few (if any) part is in contradiction to the "serious debate" part since in order to have debate on the subject there must be disagreement. It's no coincidence that when the FAQ's are cited as why a poster should know that defeating information is not discussed here the poster frequently comes back with:
" 0. Will people on this newsgroup give me information about picking locks, etc.? Yes and No. These is a serious debate, based on serious principles " or part thereof, or words to the same effect.
The FAQ's go on to give and link to defeating information in and of themselves. That plus the fact that defeating information clearly IS and has been discussed here leads any reasonable person to believe that there is a good chance their request for defeating information will be answered, as it often is. Ones opinion of those providing such information is of no relevance. The only relevant thing is that the information is sometimes provided. Whether or not it should be provided is a matter entirely of personal opinion and also is not relevant. All stating that "defeating instructions are not given on this open forum" or anything to that effect typically does is turn people off by what they percieve as attempted censorship of what is an open forum. There are lots of things I personally won't discuss here but it's certainly not my place to tell others what to discuss.
Yes it does. Including links to lots of defeating information. That is not what's usually being referred to when the FAQ's are referenced in a thread where someone has asked how to defeat this or that however. As to this particular topic the only relevant thing in there that I'm aware of is about a sentence on choice of tension tool. The FAQ reference is typically made in an attempt to support the position that defeating information is not discussed here. The FAQ's don't support that position.
After all, the concept is
Perhaps you have taken my remarks out of context or perhaps I failed to state them clearly in some way. There is no point in referring to the FAQ's to support the position that defeating information is not dicussed on this forum since the most the FAQ's say in support of that is that it is a serious debate and that said information will not be provided by some, the FAQ's then go on to give and link to defeating information, and also acknowledge that the subject is open to debate, thus leading any reasonable person to believe that such information is discussed here by some. The FAQ's are certainly quite useful if you want to point someone to specific factual information, such as, for example, where to find the MIT lockpicking text.
Once again that's great if the answer is in the FAQ's so it makes perfect since to refer to them for a factual logical response to someones question. It doesn't make any sense however to refer to them if the point you are trying to make is that defeating information is not discussed on this forum.
Reply to
Putyourspamhere
There has been, in the past. You're disagreeing now, so apparently there still is -- but I honestly think you're in the "few" group.
If it really bothers you, I'd suggest we amend the FAQ by deleting "(if any)".
themselves.
I haven't reviewed them recently, and I'm not the editor so I can't fix that. If the links are desired, I'd suggest making clear that they're there as a "look, we really prefer not to discuss it here so go bother someone else" pointer.
See above re "most". There's always a judgement call involved, and people draw the line where they feel it ought to be drawn. Since this is an unmoderated group, I can't stop anyone from posting material I consider inappropriate -- but by that same token I'm allowed to publicly disapprove when they do and try to discourage from from doing so, just as you're allowed to publicly disagree with me.
(These days, I usually just killfile them. Most of 'em are incurable, and it's a lot less stress to simply treat them as trolls rather than either supporting OR flaming them.)
Community standards aren't censorship. Of course you can flout them and possibly form a new community thereby, but the old community may not want anything to do with you when you do so.
As to whether the particular question about "tension tools" crosses the line: See above. Judgement call. My personal recommendation would be that those who think the individual can be trusted with a reply send it off-line, but that's just me.
Having said that: I'm gonna follow my own advice and killfile this thread; if the debate spreads into other threads I'll start killfiling individuals.
Reply to
Joe Kesselman
Actually I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the core issue of whether defeating instruction should be discussed or not. To me the question has frankly become irrelevant. This is not a moderated group and no one can control what is or isn't discussed. Attempts to do so typically degenerate into a flame war. As a point of fact defeating instructions are given on this forum by certain individuals and always have been. While I may not always agree with what they post I personally would not make any attempt (it would be futile anyway) to stop their posting it. It's an open forum and who am I to say what is or isn't acceptable to post on it? If Usenet in general were censored it's usefulness would be vastly reduced. I will say that virtually any fact about a mechanism can be useful in some way with regard to defeating it. If you say that a given pin tumbler lock is made of brass and describe it's method of operation you have just told any reasonably knowledgable person how to drill it. If you take the secrecy aspect to far you can't discuss anything at all.
It doesn't personally bother me at all. I simply fail to see how any logical person thinks that citing a text which states that whether defeating information should be discussed is open to debate and goes on to link to and directly provide said information, supports their position with regard to no discussion of defeating information. Yeah I know run on sentence. Note that I am not saying you have done so because I cannot think of an instance. Others however do so frequently.
That would be an option. As to me personally I am not criticizing the FAQ's. The text is fine as is as far as I'm concerned. I'm simply stating that as written they do little to bolster the position that defeating instructions are not given or should not be discussed here.
I would not disagree with any of that. What I think makes no sense is to repeatedly cite the FAQ's in support of a position of secrecy when they provide almost no support for that position.
Reply to
Putyourspamhere
Once again I'm not even going to be drawn into the whole core question of is it ok to post defeating instructions. My entire point in this thread was that the FAQ's logically lead people to believe that defeating information MAY be given on this forum. Consequently they are not a good source to use to support the contrary position.
That's certainly your right but it has no effect on what's posted, which I'm sure you realize. Personally I seldom killfile anybody, other than absolute O/T posters and spammers. Even a complete troll might occaisionally have something worthwhile to say. I just ignore what I have no interest in.
Reply to
Putyourspamhere

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.