Intro Colossal Labs

[Oldschool]

Hot *clothed* boys should be fine though

 

[ickyrica]

Had to hit the show ignored content to see what the hell was going on there. Lmao man!

 

[Oldschool]

Had to hit the show ignored content to see what the hell was going on there. Lmao man!

My bad. I bet you thought "well that sorry motherfucker". LMFAO

 

[MisterSuperGod]

this is concerning.

porn removed from the discussion, would dialogue that focuses on mostly negative aspects about a source but remains relentless in its pursuit of consumer protection be considered spam? Essentially spamming a source thread with the same dialogue over and over to keep members aware of the issues at hand. Is that considered spam and if so, is it acceptable to some degree because of the safety measure it is generally viwed as?

Thanks dude

@AIRBORNE DADDY I had a real deal moment in my cubicle at work. I refreshed the page and a giant penis with MSG popped up. Not fun, funny, but not fun...

i still wake up screaming some nights.

 

[ickyrica]

i still wake up screaming some nights.

Giant MSG cock chasing you down in your nightmares. You wake up sweaty and concerned, swearing off tren forever!

 

[Oldschool]

Giant MSG cock chasing you down in your nightmares. You wake up sweaty and concerned, swearing off tren forever!

Meso class of 2016 in the house.

 

[Cityofgrit]

Samples are officially on their way to analyzer.

 

[Millard]

Yep. 99% of the time, I forget there are women on this board, too. I’ll have to use other means to derail shitty source threads.

Derailing threads IS the problem.

 

[Millard]

would dialogue that focuses on mostly negative aspects about a source but remains relentless in its pursuit of consumer protection be considered spam? Essentially spamming a source thread with the same dialogue over and over to keep members aware of the issues at hand. Is that considered spam and if so, is it acceptable to some degree because of the safety measure it is generally viwed as?

What do you think? How many times is too many?

If someone has a bad experience with a source, is sharing it over and over acceptable? Is 10 times too many? How about 100? 1000?

Now how about this? If someone has a good experience with a source, is sharing it over and over acceptable? Is 10 times too many? How about 100? 1000?

For me, if anyone says a source is a spammer (or gtg) without providing a clear reason or reasons then even one time is too many. They are simply wasting my time.

If the post adds value to the discussion, then I approve. If it doesn't, well then...

 

[Samsquanch]

Derailing threads IS the problem.

Understood. That comment was made before you explained how Google delists URLs.

 

[MindlessWork]

My bad. I bet you thought "well that sorry motherfucker". LMFAO

Well played you sneaky bastard lol

 

[MindlessWork]

But threads made by a scammer or potential scammer are ripe for a good derailing (maybe no porn though!)
Would not surprise me if Colossal himself reported MSG’s post

 

[Millard]

Understood. That comment was made before you explained how Google delists URLs.

But threads made by a scammer or potential scammer are ripe for a good derailing (maybe no porn though!)
Would not surprise me if Colossal himself reported MSG’s post

Derailing a thread with useless bullshit is the last thing anyone should want to do if they are truly interested in creating a useful and informative thread discussion that allows consumer to make their own informed decisions. Thread derailment is incompatible with this objective. I don't know how so many people came to believe this was helpful to consumers in any way whatsoever.

Derail : definition

to prevent a plan or process from succeeding

to cause to fail or become deflected from a purpose; reduce or delay the chances for success or development of

to obstruct the progress of : frustrate

 

[ickyrica]

What do you think? How many times is too many?

If someone has a bad experience with a source, is sharing it over and over acceptable? Is 10 times too many? How about 100? 1000?

Now how about this? If someone has a good experience with a source, is sharing it over and over acceptable? Is 10 times too many? How about 100? 1000?

For me, if anyone says a source is a spammer (or gtg) without providing a clear reason or reasons then even one time is too many. They are simply wasting my time.

If the post adds value to the discussion, then I approve. If it doesn't, well then...

Eloquently put.

 

[MindlessWork]

Derailing a thread with useless bullshit is the last thing anyone should want to do if they are truly interested in creating a useful and informative thread discussion that allows consumer to make their own informed decisions. Thread derailment is incompatible with this objective. I don't know how so many people came to believe this was helpful to consumers in any way whatsoever.

Derail : definition

to prevent a plan or process from succeeding

to cause to fail or become deflected from a purpose; reduce or delay the chances for success or development of

to obstruct the progress of : frustrate

Fair enough and well put. In the case of new sources we will keep it civil long enough but once such a source goes rogue we then should just post a PSA and then abandon it rather than cluttering it with bs. Makes good sense.

 

[Dohn joe]

Fair enough and well put. In the case of new sources we will keep it civil long enough but once such a source goes rogue we then should just post a PSA and then abandon it rather than cluttering it with bs. Makes good sense.

I think putting out a PSA (even in said thread) and then not posting again would be a great path. I know we dont like censorship but is there any way to close the thread after we discover a huge issue? An example would be someone posting a pic of "their" stock and it actually being a pic from google.

@Millard Baker

 

[MindlessWork]

I think putting out a PSA (even in said thread) and then not posting again would be a great path. I know we dont like censorship but is there any way to close the thread after we discover a huge issue? An example would be someone posting a pic of "their" stock and it actually being a pic from google.

@Millard Baker

Millard won’t close threads but we can simply stop posting in such thread and letting it die. I do realize some noob or troll might bump it but we can simply point people to a PSA and tell them why.

 

[Dohn joe]

Millard won’t close threads but we can simply stop posting in such thread and letting it die. I do realize some noob or troll might bump it but we can simply point people to a PSA and tell them why.

Yeah i figured it was something along those lines about closing them. Just wasnt sure if safety or scammer would tilt the scale in favor of it. For now im ok with letting them die. Thanks for the info.

 

[MindlessWork]

Yeah i figured it was something along those lines about closing them. Just wasnt sure if safety or scammer would tilt the scale in favor of it. For now im ok with letting them die. Thanks for the info.

No problem. The porn thing was good while it lasted though thanks to @MisterSuperGod and others

 

[HIGHRISK]

this is concerning.

porn removed from the discussion, would dialogue that focuses on mostly negative aspects about a source but remains relentless in its pursuit of consumer protection be considered spam? Essentially spamming a source thread with the same dialogue over and over to keep members aware of the issues at hand. Is that considered spam and if so, is it acceptable to some degree because of the safety measure it is generally viwed as?

Thanks dude

@AIRBORNE DADDY I had a real deal moment in my cubicle at work. I refreshed the page and a giant penis with MSG popped up. Not fun, funny, but not fun...

Lmao my bad. I remember that