:::::No, I didn't. I did not. But I admit that I wasn't being very nice, and I apologize for that. However: I do think it's stupid to threaten people on the Ref Desk talk page with blocks (without even explaining your position, no less!). I don't mean to offend, but it's... well... not smart. I don't know how else to put that. And I do think there's an element of hypocrisy at work here (though I realize that it's not an intentional one). I discuss the latter in more detail on the Ref Desk talk page, so I won't repeat myself (but I will point out here that if you assume bad faith from the original poster without any evidence  and you did, as citing WP:DENY indicates  and then accuse us of doing that that to you, that is kind of hypocritical). For what it's worth, I'm guilty of both stupidity and hypocrisy myself more often than I care to admit, and yet I don't consider myself stupid or a hypocrite. I try hard not to be either. 
 :::::The point is: I don't like the way you're dealing with this, and it's making me angry. I think you're pretty quick on the trigger and your frustration is probably making you blunter than you would be if you didn't feel like we were ganging up on you (even though we're not), and that I can sympathize with. But it doesn't help that we feel like you're ignoring the context and arguments to the contrary here, and your willingness to throw your weight around (the block threat, "stop now", all that) doesn't exactly help things any. 
 :::::To go beyond this a little, another reason I don't like the way you're dealing with this is that what you're doing goes contrary to the whole purpose of Wikipedia and, as its subset, the Ref Desk. (And this part, I should stress, doesn't really have much to do with my reaction to this whole thing  I'm explaining this in the interests of clarifying my position to you.) We are here to dispense information. We are not here to judge which information is suitable for people and what isn't. That way lies censorship and elitism  the idea that some people can handle facts, and some people can't. Now, obviously, there are some limits imposed by common sense. We don't include detailed information on how to build bombs, for example, nor do we tell people covered in blood how to leave the country without detection, for example. There's no need to be stupid about it. But we do explain principles of the former and  under less alarming circumstances  the latter, if asked. Why? Because honestly: these are not secrets. Generally, it's not the understanding of the principles involved that keeps people from doing this stuff, but the knowledge that it's wrong, or at least the knowledge that you can get in trouble for it. You can find most of this stuff from any decent library, or from Wikipedia itself. It's true that most information can be used for malicious purposes, but it's important to realize that that's got very little to do with the nature of Wikipedia (or libraries, encyclopedias and reference desks in general) and everything to do with the nature of information. I mean, we can make Wikipedia something other than that, but at that point we're building a Disneyland, not an actual "snapshot of human knowledge" or anything else in that vein.