I do take your point. But I would also ask you to imagine that instead of threatening to mass murder a bunch of people she was just creating text based csam. Still, all of what you said applies, but clearly she would be prosecuted over this victimless crime and the jurisprudence in fact disagrees that it would be victimless. So applying that reasoning to this act she clearly committed the crime (legalese notwithstanding). The fact that threatened mass murder doesn't trigger the same thought process is, well at least interesting to me.

I am not sure what point you think you are taking. I have no idea if what I said based on the text of this law applies to the text of a different law. I am having trouble following your argument (especially the "legalese notwithstanding" as my point is based on the legal text and I don't understand the purpose of a conversation around 'is this legal' outside of legal text) - could you say more?