I gave an argument that open-sourcing AI would increase the risk of the world being destroyed by accident. You said

I note that Anders Sandberg recently included: "Otherwise the terrorists will win!" ...in his list of of signs that you might be looking at a weak moral argument.

I presented the mismatch between this statement and my argument as evidence that you had misunderstood what I was saying. In your reply,

I never compared destroying the world by accident with terrorism - you appear to be projecting.

You are misunderstanding me again. I think I've already said all that needs to be said, but I can't clear up confusion if you keep attacking straw men rather than asking questions.