Jano "The ultimate Con-man and Liar?" thread...You be the judge

[Jin23]

The "wife" in question wasn't even Jano's; it was someone else's, and there was no threat made. It was an analogy.

You fucked up here, Millard. Big time. Given the fact that Brutus has been a respected member in good standing for 10 years, this needs to be rectified immediately. Anything short of full reinstatement is unacceptable and will serve as an example to all that investing the time and effort to contribute to Meso, build an account, make friends, etc. is a pointless endeavor that can all be taken away in an instant.

@Millard I too concur with @CensoredBoardsSuck. It is painfully obvious how @janoshik spin-doctored the whole discussion; he didn't even try that hard really, it was done more or less as a joke/fun. He even confirmed it him self, that this is a bit of fun for him, a guilty pleasure:

You are 100% right.
I treat myself to a guilty pleasure here and there.

It was an analogy, albeit distasteful, it was semiotically sound - well placed. The cheating wife and the pedophile one. When I get more time on my hands, I can do a short critical discourse analysis if you wish, as this is my field.

I haven't been following the thread a page or two after that, so I don't know what transpired afterwards, but on the basis of those initial shared analogies and thoughts, banning Brutus can be interpreted as giving leniency to a source or subduing to his influence. A source which is now also friends with the boards most notorious source; they even went on a date lately off which a log was made.

While you can post walls of text if you wish, explaining the logic of your decision (the length of which only takes away your credibility), looking at your actions structurally, the conclusions of censoredboardssuck make all lot of sense. Either you were fooled or you had some other incentives/motifs; I'm not going to assume one or the other, but obviously I'm having a hard time imagining how anybody could be fooled so easily.

If the analogies we are using is something users of this forum must be weary about, you should make a formal statement, explaining the new rules of this forum, so everybody can - per your policies - thread more carefully from now on, especially when dealing with high profile sources.

Either way, I concur Brutus should be brought back and apologized to.

 

[readalot]

A source which is now also friends with the boards most notorious source; they even went on a date lately off which a log was made.

Why anyone would have applauded this makes no sense to me. Further proof of the Stockholm-like syndrome pervasive here. Conflict of interest. The event in and of itself should disqualify both with thoughtful members here.

 

[Jin23]

Why anyone would have applauded this makes no sense to me. Further proof of the Stockholm-like syndrome pervasive here. Conflict of interest. The event in and of itself should disqualify both with thoughtful members here.

Yes. Exactly. But all that thread got was love and respect.

 

[janoshik]

Yes. Exactly. But all that thread got was love and respect.

A rare commodity for either of you, indeed.

 

[BigTomJ]

A rare commodity for either of you, indeed.

Ive got no dog in this game, and even have spoken in your defense in this thread man.

but that tea time meet and greet with QSC, one of the most controversial and devisive sources to ever exist, was not a good look.

Raises a bunch of major red flags in regards to potential bias and favor when testing their products.

That meetup and tour single handedly made every single test of QSC products that wasnt sent 100% blind by a 3rd party completely untrustworthy.

not saying testing results from a source who selectively send what they want tested was ever trustworthy, but now there is an additional level of scrutiny that must be applied.

 

[janoshik]

Ive got no dog in this game, and even have spoken in your defense in this thread man.

but that tea time meet and greet with QSC, one of the most controversial and devisive sources to ever exist, was not a good look.

Raises a bunch of major red flags in regards to potential bias and favor when testing their products.

That meetup and tour single handedly made every single test of QSC products that wasnt sent 100% blind by a 3rd party completely untrustworthy.

not saying testing results from a source who selectively send what they want tested was ever trustworthy, but now there is an additional level of scrutiny that must be applied.

Indeed, the bias and favor is extremely obvious, especially with the dozens if not hundreds of non-blind QSC samples the third party peptide testing communities are sending to me and which turn not quite as well as desired.

Are you honestly of the opinion that bias and favor could not be talked without actually meeting in person and posting in public about it? Seriously?

On top of that, I've been inviting people over for years and many, even from over here, actually visited, QSC was the only one who decided to post about it as far as I can tell and I don't see nothing wrong with that. It's been a pleasant meeting and I am glad we were able to show one of our regular clients around.

You are entitled to your opinion, but with all due respect, it does not make any sense in my eyes.

 

[BigTomJ]

Indeed, the bias and favor is extremely obvious, especially with the dozens if not hundreds of non-blind QSC samples the third party peptide testing communities are sending to me and which turn not quite as well as desired.

Are you honestly of the opinion that bias and favor could not be talked without actually meeting in person and posting in public about it? Seriously?

On top of that, I've been inviting people over for years and many, even from over here, actually visited, QSC was the only one who decided to post about it as far as I can tell and I don't see nothing wrong with that. It's been a pleasant meeting and I am glad we were able to show one of our regular clients around.

You are entitled to your opinion, but with all due respect, it does not make any sense in my eyes.

im not saying there is a bias man, im just saying how it looks.

I understand the reasoning for it from a business standpoint given they are one of your most lucrative clients/customers, I work in high level project management and facility tours such as that are extremely common in business partnerships.

however QSC is a source that attracts a lot of scrutiny and skepticism (rightfully so). not exactly a source that could be described as "respected" by the community as a whole.

no matter how benign the meeting was or how normal it may be, it comes off as favoring and now will cause a lot of people to question the integrity of testing results coming from QSC.


im not saying any of this is reality, i personally dont believe that this is the case. But you still have to recognize how it may look on the surface and how it will appear to some members of the community.

 

[readalot]

common in business partnerships

Nota bene.

Notice he wrote business partnerships not independent 3rd party analytical testing laboratories.

 

[BigTomJ]

Nota bene.

Notice he wrote business partnerships not independent 3rd party analytical testing laboratories.

I want to make it 100% clear that this is NOT what I was insinuating as youve suggested.

I know it's not a direct comparison, but my company is a fairly large customer of a particular vendor, we have been invited to tour their manufacturing. That doesn't mean we are a partner of theirs.

Me saying "partnership" was not intended to suggest "working together" but rather to mean "frequent business interactions"

 

[readalot]

I want to make it 100% clear that this is NOT what I was insinuating as youve suggested.

I know it's not a direct comparison, but my company is a fairly large customer of a particular vendor, we have been invited to tour their manufacturing. That doesn't mean we are a partner of theirs.

Me saying "partnership" was not intended to suggest "working together" but rather to mean "frequent business interactions"

Thank you for clarifying.

Call me old fashioned but conflict of interest (interests of the end user who relies on this service to test product potency/quality) is something to avoid if your business is accurately and impartially analyzing chemical/product samples (especially in this subculture). Even the appearance of it. I was not trying to put words in your mouth just pointing to the obvious. Or not obvious given the adulation heaped in that other thread.

 

[laclark89]

Thank you for clarifying.

Call me old fashioned but conflict of interest is something to avoid if your business is accurately and impartially analyzing chemical/product samples. Even the appearance of it. I was not trying to put words in your mouth just pointing to the obvious. Or not obvious given the adulation heaped in that other thread.

I want to make it 100% clear that this is NOT what I was insinuating as youve suggested.

I know it's not a direct comparison, but my company is a fairly large customer of a particular vendor, we have been invited to tour their manufacturing. That doesn't mean we are a partner of theirs.

Me saying "partnership" was not intended to suggest "working together" but rather to mean "frequent business interactions"

These days everything has to be broken down like a lawer especially on meso.

 

[laclark89]

I see all the controversy, This could all be solved easily with a small investment/test an sending jano 2 samples, blindly that u know what they are. Send 1 that u know is 100 perct legit or close to pure, and a second that's cut with half the same gear as the first but with half just carrier oil?

Also Fyi after a few years of this , I can run test or tren or even dbol for 4 weeks and my body will tell me if that shit is real.
Mabe if the dbol was anadrol I might not notice but u get it.

 

[readalot]

I see all the controversy, This could all be solved easily with a small investment/test an sending jano 2 samples, blindly that u know what they are. Send 1 that u know is 100 perct legit or close to pure, and a second that's cut with half the same gear as the first but with half just carrier oil?

Also Fyi after a few years of this , I can run test or tren or even dbol for 4 weeks and my body will tell me if that shit is real.
Mabe if the dbol was anadrol I might not notice but u get it.

Good tip.

If I end up going this route there are all kinds of fun experiments to do with any analytical lab you are screening....

ANOVA gauge R&R - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[BigTomJ]

Thank you for clarifying.

Call me old fashioned but conflict of interest (interests of the end user who relies on this service to test product potency/quality) is something to avoid if your business is accurately and impartially analyzing chemical/product samples (especially in this subculture). Even the appearance of it. I was not trying to put words in your mouth just pointing to the obvious. Or not obvious given the adulation heaped in that other thread.

I don't disagree, which is why I spoke up as I did

 

[janoshik]

im not saying there is a bias man, im just saying how it looks.

I understand the reasoning for it from a business standpoint given they are one of your most lucrative clients/customers, I work in high level project management and facility tours such as that are extremely common in business partnerships.

however QSC is a source that attracts a lot of scrutiny and skepticism (rightfully so). not exactly a source that could be described as "respected" by the community as a whole.

no matter how benign the meeting was or how normal it may be, it comes off as favoring and now will cause a lot of people to question the integrity of testing results coming from QSC.


im not saying any of this is reality, i personally dont believe that this is the case. But you still have to recognize how it may look on the surface and how it will appear to some members of the community.

Yes, I understand that certain people try to make it look questionable.

These same people would question the existence of the lab had nobody been there, or some other absurd things, but I'm done negotiating with terrorists and will pay no heed to them. As you can see, they've already started to twist your words to suit their twisted narrative.

QSC indeed attracts a lot of scrutiny and skepticism and me and my business is the tool of most of that scrutiny. I don't see nothing wrong with them inspecting the facility we conduct tests at, especially when they are doing so in order to get more testing done so that they can provide higher quality products to everyone and avoid future issues - again, to benefit of everyone involved.

I see that you, and everyone else I care about, see my arguments and that is what is important for me. The general perception of that thread has been exceedingly positive by most as well.

Actions speak louder than words and with so many people desperate to prove my bias for a decade now and always failing I feel it's plenty enough.

I just find it funny how the same people who try to paint me as a cutthroat capitalist imply I'd do something like risking a multi-million dollar business for a relatively minor client.

 

[janoshik]

I don't disagree, which is why I spoke up as I did

And here I thought you've asserted that giving a tour in no way implies a conflict of interests

 

[readalot]

terrorists

twist your words to suit their twisted narrative.

Yeah ok. That is a stretch. But as soon as I brought up the sig figs, instrument and method precision concepts you immediately told me to not so politely F off and used the good ole IP theft excuse. No serious professional would do something like that. All my comments were constructive and you chose to go the low road like the examples above. Some of us have two eyes just so you know.

Disclaimer: I have zero conflict of interest or financial interest in any of this. But I do have an issue when someone skilled in the art tries to raise the bar and the party (who feels threatened for some reason) resorts to juvenile reactive attacks. Do better. Be better. Don't sabotage yourself.

 

[janoshik]

Yeah ok. That is a stretch. But as soon as I brought up the sig figs, instrument and method precision concepts you immediately told me to politely F off and used the good ole IP theft excuse. No serious professional would do something like that. All my comments were constructive and you chose to go the low road like the examples above. Some of us have two eyes just so you know.

Well, I could have been lot less polite about you wasting my time as well, but we all make mistakes.

That my second biggest regret right past not outright ignoring you.

 

[readalot]

Well, I could have been lot less polite about you wasting my time as well, but we all make mistakes.

That my second biggest regret right past not outright ignoring you.

Perhaps the ladder of accountability can be of service to you.

Happy Holidays.

 

[BigTomJ]

And here I thought you've asserted that giving a tour in no way implies a conflict of interests

And here I thought you've asserted that giving a tour in no way implies a conflict of interests

I'm not saying it is, only that it can be perceived that way.


In summary
I don't believe @janoshik is compromising testing in favor of QSC, and I don't get the impression he would.

I am not suggesting he would.

I am not suggesting a customer touring a vendors facility on an invite is a conflict of interest. Only that I could be perceived that way given the nature of our community and the nature of the relationship between tester and testee.

I recognize the tremendous benefit we have with jano being around as Millard had said, it literally changed the UGL gear landscape entirely as now the end user has methods of verification, where before we were entirely at the mercy of a drug dealers integrity and good will.