Enhanced Testing Database

[AlexDavis43]

"Trying to find common ground and taking the high road."

Translation: I'll give you another chance to completely agree with me. If you don't, you're a bad faith actor POS liar who has been against me from the beginning.

If you agree with me, you are a great thinker and I admire greatness.

 

[narta]

Let's summarize the thread

Readlot when people don't agree with him:

The end.

 

[curveball2025]

Let's summarize the thread

Readlot when people don't agree with him:

The end.

Give @readalot enough time and he will get banned a third time. At least then we will have another beak for a couple of weeks. I briefly took him off of IGNORE, hoping he was actually acting mature, but obviously I was sadly mistaken. Back to IGNORE he goes.

Goodbye, again, my dear friend @readalot

 

[Millard]

So I’ve read through this thread and this controversy seems to revolve around two issues:

(1) About @readalot pressuring sources to perform additional analytical testing (i.e “Enhanced Testing”)

(2) About how @readalot responds to members who are criticizing his promotion of Enhanced Testing.

I am only going to focus on the first issue because protecting sources from Members who criticize and pressure them to perform additional analytical testing is antithetical to MESO’s harm reduction objectives.

Readalot mostly applied his pressure indiscriminately, targeting both big and small, popular and unpopular sources. However, he did show explicit favoritism toward sources that complied with his Enhanced Testing recommendations. There's that.

The most obvious and natural detractors of Readalot’s push for additional testing are the Sources themselves.

Sources clearly hated what Readalot was doing. And they made it known. They insulted and harassed him, complained publicly and privately about his behavior. At least 5-6 sources reported him hoping to get him banned for spamming or harassment.

However, the most vocal detractors of Readalot’s push for more testing have been those who identify themselves as regular Members.

To be fair, many Members say they support the testing but but oppose Readalot’s methods due his alleged harassment and spamming in threads dedicated to specific sources. I get this. But the practical consequence of “shutting down” Readalot’s Enhanced Test is the protection of these Sources from community pressure to perform additional testing,

There have been a several Members who pushed back against Readalot’s efforts, trying to discredit him at the least, if not worse. Obviously, it’s always interesting when some Members join Sources on the same side to attack a Member. Certainly, there is some nuance here and all Members and Sources don’t necessarily have the same motives.

The criticisms of his Enhanced Testing that I will address took several forms and they are all worthy of discussion:

1) Sources should be protected from Readalot’s “spamming” and “harassment” in pushing his Enhanced Testing agenda.

2) Specifically, smaller sources should be protected from the Enhanced Testing agenda because it would create an unnecessary burden for them when competing with larger sources.

3) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because it added little value for consumers.

4) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because it wouldn’t make any difference even if it uncovered any problems.

5) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because even if it uncovered problems, consumers would still assume the risks anyway.

As far as protecting Sources is concerned, come on! This is MESO and MESO doesn’t protect Sources. Why would anyone ask to protect sources from additional analytical testing?

If the community encourages low-effort posts using name-calling and insults (for better or worse), encourages posts demanding “tit” pics, and encourages posts seeking to limit source introductions to specific days of the week all in the name of “holding sources accountable”, it seems disingenuous to discourage the targeted/focused pressure to perform additional analytical testing.

To address the FIRST criticism on harassment and accountability: I mean pressuring sources to perform testing is not harassment; harassment is apprarently just pejorative term used to dismiss pressure for accountability. This type of pressure is one of the most reasonable expectations for Members to use on a Forum dedicated to transparency and harm reduction.

To address the SECOND criticism on the burden for smaller sources: Harm reduction just doesn’t prioritize maintaining this low barrier of entry for wannabe steroid dealers. Big or small, all sources profit from selling products that introduce health risks to consumers. And they all have an ethical responsibility to minimize that risk and no one should feel guilty about holding them accountable for it.

(If anything, harm reduction advocates should want to discourage any tempted Members to avoid risking legal harm through participation in illegal drug distribution.)

To address the THIRD criticism on the “limited” value of additional testing: Analytical testing is perhaps the best harm reduction tool we have at our disposal. Just because the testing may reveal there are no obvious problems with a given sample doesn’t mean the testing is useless. This information as part of ongoing surveillance of the products we get from an unregulated marketplace is the whole point of testing. The information about product quality and safety is useful when the results are bad OR good.

To address the FOURTH criticism on the supposed lack of impact from testing results:

Even if consumers don’t change their behavior, just having more info about product safety and quality is a good thing. Because some consumers will change their behavior. This incremental positive impact is the goal of harm reduction.

To address the FIFTH criticism on the willingness of consumers to take risks: Sure there are consumers who are willing to assume considerable risks anyway regardless of what they learn from additional testing. The issue here is making sure these risk takers don’t face hidden dangers without their knowledge. Making informed decisions is always better than operating out of ignorance.

The bottom line is Sources do not need to be protected from this.

This so-called controversy comes at a time when MESO is overrun with Members developing and basking in parasocial relationships with Sources, defending Sources, providing customer service for Sources, and displaying other obsequious and sycophantic behaviors towards Sources.

And apparently, there are also a lot of secret sources and established sources that are using alt accounts to deceptively masquerade as Members.

Sources secretly masquerading as regular Members should not be tolerated by anyone. Tolerance for these duplicitous behaviors undermines the fundamental principles of transparency, harm reduction, and trust that define the MESO-Rx Forum.

(This is not to say they can’t make contributions towards harm reduction. This is to say they should be completely transparent with their conflicts of interest just like every other source is required.)

So with this as a backdrop, shutting down someone seeking greater source accountability with additional and more thorough analytical testing isn’t a priority.

 

[musclesiege]

So I’ve read through this thread and this controversy seems to revolve around two issues:

(1) About Readalot pressuring sources to perform additional analytical testing (i.e “Enhanced Testing”)

(2) About how Readalot responds to members who are criticizing his promotion of Enhanced Testing.

I am only going to focus on the first issue because protecting sources from Members who criticize and pressure them to perform additional analytical testing is antithetical to MESO’s harm reduction objectives.

Readalot mostly applied his pressure indiscriminately, targeting both big and small, popular and unpopular sources. However, he did show explicit favoritism toward sources that complied with his Enhanced Testing recommendations. There's that.

The most obvious and natural detractors of Readalot’s push for additional testing are the Sources themselves.

Sources clearly hated what Readalot was doing. And they made it known. They insulted and harassed him, complained publicly and privately about his behavior. At least 5-6 sources reported him hoping to get him banned for spamming or harassment.

However, the most vocal detractors of Readalot’s push for more testing have been those who identify themselves as regular Members.

To be fair, many Members say they support the testing but but oppose Readalot’s methods due his alleged harassment and spamming in threads dedicated to specific sources. I get this. But the practical consequence of “shutting down” Readalot’s Enhanced Test is the protection of these Sources from community pressure to perform additional testing,

There have been a several Members who pushed back against Readalot’s efforts, trying to discredit him at the least, if not worse. Obviously, it’s always interesting when some Members join Sources on the same side to attack a Member. Certainly, there is some nuance here and all Members and Sources don’t necessarily have the same motives.

The criticisms of his Enhanced Testing that I will address took several forms and they are all worthy of discussion:

1) Sources should be protected from Readalot’s “spamming” and “harassment” in pushing his Enhanced Testing agenda.

2) Specifically, smaller sources should be protected from the Enhanced Testing agenda because it would create an unnecessary burden for them when competing with larger sources.

3) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because it added little value for consumers.

4) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because it wouldn’t make any difference even if it uncovered any problems.

5) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because even if it uncovered problems, consumers would still assume the risks anyway.

As far as protecting Sources is concerned, come on! This is MESO and MESO doesn’t protect Sources. Why would anyone ask to protect sources from additional analytical testing?

If the community encourages low-effort posts using name-calling and insults (for better or worse), encourages posts demanding “tit” pics, and encourages posts seeking to limit source introductions to specific days of the week all in the name of “holding sources accountable”, it seems disingenuous to discourage the targeted/focused pressure to perform additional analytical testing.

To address the FIRST criticism on harassment and accountability: I mean pressuring sources to perform testing is not harassment; harassment is apprarently just pejorative term used to dismiss pressure for accountability. This type of pressure is one of the most reasonable expectations for Members to use on a Forum dedicated to transparency and harm reduction.

To address the SECOND criticism on the burden for smaller sources: Harm reduction just doesn’t prioritize maintaining this low barrier of entry for wannabe steroid dealers. Big or small, all sources profit from selling products that introduce health risks to consumers. And they all have an ethical responsibility to minimize that risk and no one should feel guilty about holding them accountable for it.

(If anything, harm reduction advocates should want to discourage any tempted Members to avoid risking legal harm through participation in illegal drug distribution.)

To address the THIRD criticism on the “limited” value of additional testing: Analytical testing is perhaps the best harm reduction tool we have at our disposal. Just because the testing may reveal there are no obvious problems with a given sample doesn’t mean the testing is useless. This information as part of ongoing surveillance of the products we get from an unregulated marketplace is the whole point of testing. The information about product quality and safety is useful when the results are bad OR good.

To address the FOURTH criticism on the supposed lack of impact from testing results:

Even if consumers don’t change their behavior, just having more info about product safety and quality is a good thing. Because some consumers will change their behavior. This incremental positive impact is the goal of harm reduction.

To address the FIFTH criticism on the willingness of consumers to take risks: Sure there are consumers who are willing to assume considerable risks anyway regardless of what they learn from additional testing. The issue here is making sure these risk takers don’t face hidden dangers without their knowledge. Making informed decisions is always better than operating out of ignorance.

The bottom line is Sources do not need to be protected from this.

This so-called controversy comes at a time when MESO is overrun with Members developing and basking in parasocial relationships with Sources, defending Sources, providing customer service for Sources, and displaying other obsequious and sycophantic behaviors towards Sources.

And apparently, there are also a lot of secret sources and established sources that are using alt accounts to deceptively masquerade as Members.

Sources secretly masquerading as regular Members should not be tolerated by anyone. Tolerance for these duplicitous behaviors undermines the fundamental principles of transparency, harm reduction, and trust that define the MESO-Rx Forum.

(This is not to say they can’t make contributions towards harm reduction. This is to say they should be completely transparent with their conflicts of interest just like every other source is required.)

So with this as a backdrop, shutting down someone seeking greater source accountability with additional and more thorough analytical testing isn’t a priority.

I think that definitely summarizes the issues surrounding sources. The crux of the sheer amount of negative feedback from various members really has to do with a personality conflict and the way that many of his messages are delivered. Some of the people on here that have been the hardest on him are ones that have had years of testing, commented many times on people can’t be friends with sources or blindly follow them. Whether it be testing or recommendations or answering questions the delivery of many of those messages but especially in response to challenges of his message, regardless of what it is, is met with arrogance, is dismissive, and at times chilidish. This has been the same on sst where people even said at the end it’s not the testing it’s the way you talk to people and your tone. If it’s a reco and someone says you don’t know what your talking about because of their experience with a compound he may get upset and if the person brings up a lack of first hand knowledge then it’s met with an attempt to discredit and try to make sure that person is put in his place. There is also feelings of favoritism as the leash he might have seems longer than others, especially when he was banned from other platforms.

That’s what I got from this and other forums and I think most don’t have a problem with him just the constant know it all attitude and can never be wrong or disputed with. So I think the good he does is at times outweighed by the constant posts and hubris. That’s my opinion based on what I’ve read and seen over the past 6 months.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

This is not to say they can’t make contributions towards harm reduction. This is to say they should be completely transparent with their conflicts of interest just like every other source is required.)

If this is going back to my first attack, I was simply reselling gear at the time and it was discussion of basic implementation and quality improvement. I was also closing down.



PLAN- obtain raws from chinese manufacturer(He is reliant upon other people, a unique particular person who does have may have a conflict of interest)

DO: Send it in for testing(He doesn't buy raws, how many sources would be responsible with their raws?)

Study: obtain results(He doesnt buy raws, cant send it in, so he cannot obtain results, through other people?)

Someone who has sent in samples for him admits to dabbling in sourcing. This creates conflict of interest in the enhanced testing project.
Side note: I am sure that said dabblers clients would never even ask for testing in the first place

Act: Go to china and meet with the manufacturer with a blueprint? I highly doubt he would meet them or try to meet them face to face.

I am not saying the person sending in said sample is truly altering anything, I am just saying if he is going to discredit me(based off of my history), his whole database is discredited as well .


As you know, I am never against testing. I constantly tell people to challenge sources, do their own testing. Even as a source. But there has to be some true application to studying for quality improvement which I discuss why this will fail.

It's just how much can this stuff be implemented for overall quality improvement?

His egotistical behavior will not allow him to gain support.

But shit. Let's go support the sources who have a history of deception, contamination, and inaccurate dosing.

They have failed the most basic of testing, but tey complied with his ET. They are good to go.


This all started when I told him his ET won't show/change much. I was closing down as a source at this time. Price reduction and inventory clearance was in play

Also when I blasted him for spoon feeding sources to newbies. (As a source)

 

[BigTomJ]

So I’ve read through this thread and this controversy seems to revolve around two issues:

(1) About @readalot pressuring sources to perform additional analytical testing (i.e “Enhanced Testing”)

(2) About how @readalot responds to members who are criticizing his promotion of Enhanced Testing.

I am only going to focus on the first issue because protecting sources from Members who criticize and pressure them to perform additional analytical testing is antithetical to MESO’s harm reduction objectives.

Readalot mostly applied his pressure indiscriminately, targeting both big and small, popular and unpopular sources. However, he did show explicit favoritism toward sources that complied with his Enhanced Testing recommendations. There's that.

The most obvious and natural detractors of Readalot’s push for additional testing are the Sources themselves.

Sources clearly hated what Readalot was doing. And they made it known. They insulted and harassed him, complained publicly and privately about his behavior. At least 5-6 sources reported him hoping to get him banned for spamming or harassment.

However, the most vocal detractors of Readalot’s push for more testing have been those who identify themselves as regular Members.

To be fair, many Members say they support the testing but but oppose Readalot’s methods due his alleged harassment and spamming in threads dedicated to specific sources. I get this. But the practical consequence of “shutting down” Readalot’s Enhanced Test is the protection of these Sources from community pressure to perform additional testing,

There have been a several Members who pushed back against Readalot’s efforts, trying to discredit him at the least, if not worse. Obviously, it’s always interesting when some Members join Sources on the same side to attack a Member. Certainly, there is some nuance here and all Members and Sources don’t necessarily have the same motives.

The criticisms of his Enhanced Testing that I will address took several forms and they are all worthy of discussion:

1) Sources should be protected from Readalot’s “spamming” and “harassment” in pushing his Enhanced Testing agenda.

2) Specifically, smaller sources should be protected from the Enhanced Testing agenda because it would create an unnecessary burden for them when competing with larger sources.

3) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because it added little value for consumers.

4) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because it wouldn’t make any difference even if it uncovered any problems.

5) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because even if it uncovered problems, consumers would still assume the risks anyway.

As far as protecting Sources is concerned, come on! This is MESO and MESO doesn’t protect Sources. Why would anyone ask to protect sources from additional analytical testing?

If the community encourages low-effort posts using name-calling and insults (for better or worse), encourages posts demanding “tit” pics, and encourages posts seeking to limit source introductions to specific days of the week all in the name of “holding sources accountable”, it seems disingenuous to discourage the targeted/focused pressure to perform additional analytical testing.

To address the FIRST criticism on harassment and accountability: I mean pressuring sources to perform testing is not harassment; harassment is apprarently just pejorative term used to dismiss pressure for accountability. This type of pressure is one of the most reasonable expectations for Members to use on a Forum dedicated to transparency and harm reduction.

To address the SECOND criticism on the burden for smaller sources: Harm reduction just doesn’t prioritize maintaining this low barrier of entry for wannabe steroid dealers. Big or small, all sources profit from selling products that introduce health risks to consumers. And they all have an ethical responsibility to minimize that risk and no one should feel guilty about holding them accountable for it.

(If anything, harm reduction advocates should want to discourage any tempted Members to avoid risking legal harm through participation in illegal drug distribution.)

To address the THIRD criticism on the “limited” value of additional testing: Analytical testing is perhaps the best harm reduction tool we have at our disposal. Just because the testing may reveal there are no obvious problems with a given sample doesn’t mean the testing is useless. This information as part of ongoing surveillance of the products we get from an unregulated marketplace is the whole point of testing. The information about product quality and safety is useful when the results are bad OR good.

To address the FOURTH criticism on the supposed lack of impact from testing results:

Even if consumers don’t change their behavior, just having more info about product safety and quality is a good thing. Because some consumers will change their behavior. This incremental positive impact is the goal of harm reduction.

To address the FIFTH criticism on the willingness of consumers to take risks: Sure there are consumers who are willing to assume considerable risks anyway regardless of what they learn from additional testing. The issue here is making sure these risk takers don’t face hidden dangers without their knowledge. Making informed decisions is always better than operating out of ignorance.

The bottom line is Sources do not need to be protected from this.

This so-called controversy comes at a time when MESO is overrun with Members developing and basking in parasocial relationships with Sources, defending Sources, providing customer service for Sources, and displaying other obsequious and sycophantic behaviors towards Sources.

And apparently, there are also a lot of secret sources and established sources that are using alt accounts to deceptively masquerade as Members.

Sources secretly masquerading as regular Members should not be tolerated by anyone. Tolerance for these duplicitous behaviors undermines the fundamental principles of transparency, harm reduction, and trust that define the MESO-Rx Forum.

(This is not to say they can’t make contributions towards harm reduction. This is to say they should be completely transparent with their conflicts of interest just like every other source is required.)

So with this as a backdrop, shutting down someone seeking greater source accountability with additional and more thorough analytical testing isn’t a priority.

I dont think many of the true members here have an issue with the message.
They have an issue with the messenger.

I share the opinion that uncensored, un obfuscated, and great volume of information is ALWAYS better than the counterparts.
Due to this, I see the POTENTIAL value in an elevated standard of testing.

However, the main issues come with @readalots application of these principles and his combative attitude towards his skeptics and detractors.
The issue of his admitted abstinence form the UGL community is an other frequently rizen understandable concern.

It seems to me that most people dont appreciate the combative and dismissive nature to any sort of critique or concerns in his grand master plan.

To compound this, one of the most controversial sources currently present on Meso and their shills have weaponized ET to dismiss the highest level quality concerns that would spell the death of a source years ago.

Most members, i believe, are in favor of more tools to protect ourselves and to make educated choices on our sourcing needs, however its clear that the community is resistant to get behind an outsider with lofty aspirations without being able to actually articulate how they plan on executing on those aspirations.

I understand what readalot is trying to accomplish and see the value on the most basic level of greater information, sources should be held to every applicable standard available and no other standards should invalidate others. But his approach to criticism has cost him the respect of anyone who otherwise may have been receptive to the concept.

ET means nothing if HPLC comes back missdosed or contaminated.
Raws testing means nothing if the finished product isnt accurately dosed.
All the testing in the world means nothing if the product is not sterile, has VISIBLE contaminants, and needs to be refiltered to "safely" use.

To date, ET has contributed nothing to the community except giving shitty sources more ammunition to defend their glaring issues and their shills the peace of mind to dismiss all future controversy.
That's not to say the way its always going to be, but today, thats the reality.

@Spaceman Spiff summarized my personal concerns, and the concerns i see from the harm reduction community at large perfectly

But shit. Let's go support the sources who have a history of deception, contamination, and inaccurate dosing.

They have failed the most basic of testing, but tey complied with his ET. They are good to go.

EDIT:
To @readalot

Take a break for a little bit and come back to this from a different angle, take some time to get your panties untwisted and participate in the dialog rather than just shouting from your soapbox.
I think with some tweaks to your thought process and delivery youd find a lot more support.

 

[readalot]

I could spend a great deal more of my time meticulously rebutting your points but I'll refrain as I agree with the feedback from others including Narta and BBBG that it's time to see if others will step up and offer some skin in the game. But I will comment on these two:

But shit. Let's go support the sources who have a history of deception, contamination, and inaccurate dosing.

They have failed the most basic of testing, but tey complied with his ET. They are good to go.

How long would it have taken you to see my fight and contempt with QSC was tireless. G2G? That's the problem I have with you. You don't argue fairly or accurately.

Your example with the spoon feeding is a case in perfect point. I leave it up to reader to go see how that played out. But see you and your supporters aren't intellectual honest and never share the relevant details. Just crude attempts to trip me up all along the way which points to an ulterior motive or just really challenged critical thinking.

I am not saying the person sending in said sample is truly altering anything, I am just saying if he is going to discredit me(based off of my history), his whole database is discredited as well .

My database? If one accepts your argument as valid, then your conclusion may apply to the other thread that was used as a trial and proof of concept for the additional testing methods. You know the one you said was pointless anyway because everything came back good?

Now take a step back and look at the sign outside the door of this thread. Nothing you have argued negates the additional testing that's been done by others. It would not have happened on its own.

Fair points on my marketing and my communication. I do get fed up with people who make false claims and never make a retraction. It's the internet bullshit principle at work. So I had to fight through all the BS, false claims, readalot doesn't do AAS, readalot uses just 70 mg/week, blah blah blah. At some points all those false accusations must point to a trend. Especially when those claims could easily be debunked with a little reading. But easier to just throw stuff out there.

 

[readalot]

If it’s a reco and someone says you don’t know what your talking about because of their experience with a compound he may get upset and if the person brings up a lack of first hand knowledge then it’s met with an attempt to discredit and try to make sure that person is put in his place.

If you can find examples of this here on MESO I'd love to see them. Really. I've given recommendations for compounds I have no first hand experience with? I've always given full disclosure with what I know of personally/anecdotally vs what info I share of a theoretical/literature nature as far as I can tell.

On the rest, the feedback is received and I appreciate you taking the time to write it up and share it.

 

[Liter O' Test]

How can anyone blame readalot for being "Combative"?
(I don't think this is the right word)

He has multiple users come out of the woodwork (or alt accounts of the regular detractors) from multiple forums just to attack his character and all sorts of nonsense to distract from the issue at hand, and thats on top of the usual group of weridos.

readalot has to be dismissive because 95% of the criticism against testing is from disingenuous accounts such as...

1.shills
2.shill alt account
3.shill affiliated
4. source alt account
5.parasocial werido NPCs
6.fat-trt-guy-who-joined-meso-3-months-ago
7.insecure-guy-who-readalot-made-feel-stupid-8-months-ago-on-another-forum

These people only engage in bad faith arguments designed to subvert testing, demoralize readalot and other members and distract from the goal.

All while laughing at the few regular people that actually fall for the manipulation and get swept up in it.

 

[Millard]

That’s what I got from this and other forums and I think most don’t have a problem with him just the constant know it all attitude and can never be wrong or disputed with. So I think the good he does is at times outweighed by the constant posts and hubris. That’s my opinion based on what I’ve read and seen over the past 6 months.

I dont think many of the true members here have an issue with the message.
They have an issue with the messenger.

As I stated in my previous post, I’m not going to argue or defend the manner which @readalot responds to members who are criticizing his promotion of Enhanced Testing. The ad hominem attacks on his character and personality or even argumentative style are irrelevant.

I’ll readily concede rather than argue because the overriding issue that I see is the protection of the sources he targets whether that is the end goal or not. It is not for many. It is for some. And others just hate him so much they will latch onto any argument if they think they can run him off.

The danger here is that people are “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” or “shooting the messenger” or whatever similar idiom you wish to use.

 

[Millard]

If this is going back to my first attack, I was simply reselling gear at the time and it was discussion of basic implementation and quality improvement. I was also closing down.

I know you support analytical testing which is why I’m admittedly surprised by your strenuous arguments against the additional testing proposed by Readalot.

The contributions you make to this forum community are amazing. I think you’ve done what 20 to 25 analyses of different raw samples with Janoshik in 2024 alone. Is that correct?

This aligns very well with the harm reduction focus of MESO. I personally appreciate every member who shares the results of the testing they get done.

You’ve referenced on several occasions the value provided by the lab testing that you get done as a contrast to what Readalot is doing. And with all due respect to everyone involved, I will probably make that argument better than you have. Yet this shouldn't be a "my testing is more beneficial that your testing" contest.

It is obvious that your choice of tests has a more tangible value to a certain segment of the forum community, particularly homebrewers. I know you encourage everyone to do their own testing and test their own samples. However, homebrewers, amateur and professional alike, who trust the results that you obtain from analyzing your samples often forego their own testing. This saves them literally save thousands of dollars. This is a tangible benefit.

Yet, it is a mistake to solely approach the value of lab testing by cost savings for homebrewers. Readalot is targeting a different market segment.

Readalot’s stated motivation is to pursue a safer supply for him personally with the extended benefits to others who would appreciate and benefit from his efforts.

The knowledge and assurance that their products are free from various forms of contamination is very important to a certain market segment. This reassurance doesn’t necessarily have the tangible benefits in terms of dollars and cents for this segment as it does for homebrewers. Nonetheless, the educational and harm reduction benefits are undeniable. Any attempts to undermine this is contrary harm reduction.

 

[Millard]

Let's go support the sources who have a history of deception, contamination, and inaccurate dosing.

They have failed the most basic of testing, but tey complied with his ET. They are good to go.

I am not sure how you arrived here. This is a false choice, staw man, and red herring all at once!

Obviously, supporting “sources who have a history of deception, contamination, and inaccurate dosing” is not the only outcome of Enhanced Testing; the purpose of Enhanced Testing isn’t endorsing bad sources; and the main issue is whether Enhanced Testing has harm reduction benefits and not sources’ history poor product and practices.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I am not sure how you arrived here. This is a false choice, staw man, and red herring all at once!

Obviously, supporting “sources who have a history of deception, contamination, and inaccurate dosing” is not the only outcome of Enhanced Testing; the purpose of Enhanced Testing isn’t endorsing bad sources; and the main issue is whether Enhanced Testing has harm reduction benefits and not sources’ history poor product and practices.

his comments on "keeping score" for donations was a triggering event for me.

I am not going to lie. I don't like holding donations over anyone's head. Sources or regular members...

To me his behavior was a childish actions to harass sources. If was just a sign of his overall motives

 

[readalot]

his comments on "keeping score" for donations from donations was a triggering event for me.

I am not going to lie. I don't like holding donations over anyone's head. Sources or people as a sign of integrity.

You are telling me we went at it for pages and pages because of this?

For those keeping score...

QSC declined
GA ignored
Axle $500

If I would have written "for those trying to keep track for outreach purposes" then we would have been OK?

Would you like me to go make a revised statement?