Of course, 'pipe bomb' is a pretty specific term of art. I'd be curious to know what the legal definition of such was -- if indeed any evidence referring to such was ever entered into trial. But it apparently was not.
Until someone points me at anything within the trial transcript itself indicating evidence of dealing in pipe bombs, I'm inclined to accept Roger at his word.
As a sidebar, I find it kind of funny how this here crypto community is absorbed by long-past actions of various parties that have absolutely nothing to do with any crypto topic whatsoever.
You missed the bit where the judge says selling bombs to juveniles is a very serious offence.
I think that these offenses are very serious. They could have been a lot more serious. The bombs could have gone off or people could have used them in destructive ways. Selling bombs to juveniles is never okay.
While it is true that the judge does not use the word pipe bomb in these sentences and only uses the word bomb, the intent is clear.
This is a typical example of you providing a partial truth in a deliberately misleading manner.
It only took a little wait for Hairy to nail you on that one.
I've seen you play the omission game in several technical discussions already... but defending Ver? Come on.