Janoshik Analytical laboratory testing services

[B Ware]

 

[Millard]

@janoshik, this is a moderation issue for me. The hostility, antagonism, insults, calling me a liar, accusing me of "gaslighting", and manufactured drama etc. are unwarranted and non-productive.

If any member violates a rule like invoking violence against another user and/or their family members in whatever context, the most efficient approach (as I've stated already) is to click of the "report" link underneath the relevant post. Moderation action will be taken.

Now how would the above be classified if not gaslighting?
I'm genuinely curious what's that if not a textbook definition of that and libel combined.

If all those are genuine mistakes, you have to admit they are somehow pilling up, aren't they?

What are you even talking about? I was wrong about one thing and that's it - that being that you were never banned.

I never ban anyone capriciously under pressure from other members. I only ban members when they violate the forum rules. I mistakenly assumed that you never did this. And I was wrong.

1. You were never ever banned.
2. If you ever took a break it was from your own volition, why would you lie about being banned? (deleted post)

I initially did not think you were ever banned because I mistakenly assumed you never broke the forum rules.

Immediately (well, within 30 minutes), I realized I was wrong. I accepted responsibility for this mistake. I retracted my statement. And I apologized.

Hardly a lie when the mistake was not intentional or deliberate. It is certainly not gaslighting.

It seems strange that you consider this some sort of "gotcha" moment to hold against me.

My willingness to admit mistakes, accept responsibility, and apologize when necessary is an asset and not a liability. You should try it.

3. Well, you WERE banned, but (edit) it was because you were threatening people's kids.

This is another one of your strawman arguments.

The first strawman was the claim that I banned you for doing something "highly illegal".

This is blatantly and provably false. I never said this.

Your second strawman argument is that I banned you for "threatening people's kids".

This is also blatantly and provably false. I never said this.

This is literally what I said contemporaneously some 5 years ago about your ban:

"Members are rarely banned on MESO. But I have very little tolerance for any who uses personal information about one's minor children, especially that which is private or otherwise not publicly known, in an attempt to intimidate another member. You not only threatened but actually carried through with this unacceptable behavior...

I find this type of behavior far more offensive than the typical internet tough guy threats. That type of bullshit, while unacceptable, is inevitably inconsequential but the very act of bringing another member's minor children into the conversation in an attempt at intimidation and/or implied threat has implicit consequences."

You will see your strawman arguments laid bare.

4. Well, maybe you were not doing that but you were most likely using private or otherwise not public information to sound intimidating

I have never changed the stated reason for why you were banned. This was what I said 5 years ago and I've been consistent since then when citing the reason.

So any suggestion that I've changed the reason for your ban is blatantly false.

Just to be clear: I will always interpret any source who invokes a member's family when the member has been critical of the source as an attempt at intimidation and/or an implied threat. This is ALWAYS and highly unacceptable behavior on this forum.

Bonus point number 6 would be checking out who invoked family members in the pertained discussion first and what consequences were suffered by such party.

So are you admitting that YOU invoked family members (secondly) in the pertained discussion? Thank you.

I can still put Brutus' woodchipper fantasies on a timeline long after I was banned for perceived offenses, so I assume it was not early enough.

How many more chances is he going to be getting?

As I have already asked you, please click the "report" link. I am not aware of this post and do no know when it occurred.

If it occurred when "free speech absolutism" reigned supreme on MESO, I won't retroactively penalize members.

However, I've aggressively cracked down on the use of violent rhetoric on this forum in recent years in all contexts.

If any member repeatedly continues to do use such rhetoric after the first ban, they are subject to a permanent ban.

So it was not you, who had called me disgusting for quoting Brutus, while I was calling him out on it

This is false. I didn't say it was disgusting to quote Brutus. I said "repeatedly discussing pedophilic acts in explicit detail" was disgusting.

Did you actually quote Brutus? Is this actually true? I seem to recall you using your literary license to creatively paraphrase him with your own words:

Would you like to read more about five year old kid penises in relation to fellatio

sucking off five year old kids

rambling like a dope fiend about kids dicks freely

And just to be clear, I am QUOTING you above.

and then was it not you who called me a whiner for pushing the issue, that ultimately lead to his ban?

No. This is false. This is what I said:

"There's a report button on every post that you can notify moderators of potential rule violations. Click this to report.

Repeatedly whining and complaining about no action being taken and insulting me and the forum while failing to report specific infraction doesn't work so well."

pushing the issue, that ultimately lead to his ban?

This isn't true either.

The issue that led to his ban was the post about sexual assaulting your wife. I asked you to report the specific post in question. You did. And within 30 minutes, he was banned.

I know I'm repeating myself but this is all you need to do if anyone brings up the idea of violence against a member or their family. This type of behavior is entirely unacceptable. And swift moderation action will be taken.

Was it not you saying that I am to take literal libel and false accusations as I own a lucrative business?

No. I did not say this. I think you should definitely respond and I hope you find an effective strategy to deal with this.

I just don't think insulting and attacking me is an effective strategy when I have nothing to with the accusations in question.

Were you not, just in this very discussion (and before), falsely saying I have threathened people's kids?

No. This is false. I never said that. (See above)

Was it not you pushing the notion that my issue is with people noting my own shortcoming and business issues from more than half a decade ago, not with being called a pedophile and your rules being broken with token measures being taken?

I am not exactly sure what you are saying here.

However, I am doing my best to understand the source of your anger towards me.

Because if you think I am on board with the people who are continuing to criticize you in such a manner for one issue that happened seven years, you are mistaken.

Have you not written paragraphs upon paragraphs condemning me and me only?

Of course. That is because you are insulting and attacking me personally again and again. I am criticizing you for this. I hope this is abundantly clear by now and any future failure to acknowledge this can only be considered willful. I'm sure you understand why I would respond accordingly.

Are you entirely sure it's Janoshik who started being hostile and antagonistic over here?

With me? Oh, most definitely yes.

I have nothing against you and your services aside from your repeated personal attacks and insults directed at me.

Honestly, I am wondering what I've done to deserve the hostility, antagonism and being treated like trash other than getting into conflicts with the 'vets,' especially as I have shown you nothing but honest respect before all this and tried hard to so do even afterwards

Read through my post a couple of times and carefully consider what you've said about me and how I've shown them to be demonstrably false. Maybe you will understand.

 

[M@NU]

is it possible one of you @Millard @janoshik just gives it up?
you see it leads to nowhere.
You both do a great job and the community needs both of you - i fear if this argueing continues we will see another ban sooner or later

 

[B Ware]

Y’all remember that one time 5 years ago? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

 

[Vanargandar]

is it possible one of you @Millard @janoshik just gives it up?
you see it leads to nowhere.
You both do a great job and the community needs both of you - i fear if this argueing continues we will see another ban sooner or later

I highly doubt @Millard would ban @janoshik over some disagreements. They're both grown ass men and that would directly go against what Millard stands for. That would also be a huge hit to this community as Jano is one of the few reliable testing services around, who actually interacts with members.

 

[Pantera]

is it possible one of you @Millard @janoshik just gives it up?
you see it leads to nowhere.
You both do a great job and the community needs both of you - i fear if this argueing continues we will see another ban sooner or later

I don't think jano would ban Millard.

 

[janoshik]

Indeed, let us cease these unproductive exchanges.

We hereby assert that any further dissemination of libelous or false accusations will be met with prompt and decisive legal action. The bolded part, as explicitly stated, reflects the utmost leniency permissible under these circumstances.

This statement is not to be construed as a threat of violence or a breach of any known rules, terms or regulations. In the interest of clarity, fairness and harm reduction, it is imperative that individuals be prepared to substantiate their claims under scrutiny of a neutral and impartial entity.

Considering our intent to utilize only the legal measures at our disposal for defense against actions explicitly prohibited by this site's regulations, particularly refering to: "
You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws." we are confident that our decision will be favorably received by the administration of this site and can be viewed as nothing more than our intent to abide the Terms and rules.

We eagerly anticipate collaborating with Mr. Baker to foster a safer world by upholding the truth and ensuring access to effective harm reduction services for all. It is our hope that any concerns regarding our statement can be addressed through respectful and constructive public discourse.

 

[JeffroCat]

It looks like someone's lost the plot here.

 

[lukiss96]

Indeed, let us cease these unproductive exchanges.

We hereby assert that any further dissemination of libelous or false accusations will be met with prompt and decisive legal action. The bolded part, as explicitly stated, reflects the utmost leniency permissible under these circumstances.

This statement is not to be construed as a threat of violence or a breach of any known rules, terms or regulations. In the interest of clarity, fairness and harm reduction, it is imperative that individuals be prepared to substantiate their claims under scrutiny of a neutral and impartial entity.

Considering our intent to utilize only the legal measures at our disposal for defense against actions explicitly prohibited by this site's regulations, particularly refering to: "
You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws." we are confident that our decision will be favorably received by the administration of this site and can be viewed as nothing more than our intent to abide the Terms and rules.

We eagerly anticipate collaborating with Mr. Baker to foster a safer world by upholding the truth and ensuring access to effective harm reduction services for all. It is our hope that any concerns regarding our statement can be addressed through respectful and constructive public discourse.

Awesome, we appreciate your work. Some people may not like you and I'm not a fan of your posts most of the time. But you're the necessary evil. Your work is valued.

 

[Deleted member 134759]

Any holiday sales jano? For Christmas? For us poor people?

 

[Deleted member 134759]

I'd like to point out, jano never molested me as a child.

 

[graciebjj]

I'd like to point out, jano never molested me as a child.

the ultimate feelz test

 

[janoshik]

There would be time, but not the privileges to post there, @Astartes.

First time I have seen significant heat degradation of a peptide/protein that happened in manner of days was this year and the peptide spent a couple days in a metal mailbox in Arizona.

Given I assume it'd be sufficient amount of heat to bake a pig, weather extreme, and most of the peptide still survived, I'm quite confident in my statement that lyophilizates of commonly used peptides are exceedingly heat resistant and fillers and excipients choice can indeed influence it for the better.

 

[deeeznuts]

Am I reading this right Jano? You're going to sue Millard if he says the wrong things to you?

Your comment reads like a 10 year old having a temper tantrum.

This is literally all that happened:

- Millard said he never banned you.
- You then said "hey you did x amount of years ago"
- Millard goes "my bad, you were right"

That's it. Now you're threatening to sue him.

I mean really, what are you going to tell the judge?

"Yes your honor, you see, we're part of this bodybuilding community where I test illegally obtained anabolics for people, and the administrator said I was never banned, but in reality I was really banned a few years ago. I caused me emotional distress and PTSD".

Grow up dude.

 

[janoshik]

Am I reading this right Jano?

No, you are not and your interpretation of our statement is indeed exceedingly wrong as a whole.

Happy to help.

 

[JeffroCat]

Am I reading this right Jano? You're going to sue Millard if he says the wrong things to you?

Your comment reads like a 10 year old having a temper tantrum.

This is literally all that happened:

- Millard said he never banned you.
- You then said "hey you did x amount of years ago"
- Millard goes "my bad, you were right"

That's it. Now you're threatening to sue him.

I mean really, what are you going to tell the judge?

"Yes your honor, you see, we're part of this bodybuilding community where I test illegally obtained anabolics for people, and the administrator said I was never banned, but in reality I was really banned a few years ago. I caused me emotional distress and PTSD".

Grow up dude.

Actually, it reads like he's willing to sue anyone. You, me, anyone. It's all nonsense, of course. He's clearly an emotionally unstable person whose lashing out. Everyone should take a good hard look at the one man the community has made too big to fail.

 

[janoshik]

Actually, it reads like he's willing to sue anyone. You, me, anyone. It's all nonsense, of course. He's clearly an emotionally unstable person whose lashing out. Everyone should take a good hard look at the one man the community has made too big to fail.

Affirmative, we have acknowledged our readiness to assert our legal entitlements in response to any illicit conduct directed towards us.

Is it your intention to engage in such unlawful activities against us, or do you harbor objections to our possession of these rights?

 

[JeffroCat]

Affirmative, we have acknowledged our readiness to assert our legal entitlements in response to any illicit conduct directed towards us.

Is it your intention to engage in such unlawful activities against us, or do you harbor objections to our possession of these rights?

I don't give a fuck about you or whatever rights you imagine you have. You are clearly behaving in a threatening manner, and you shouldn't just assume litigation would end well for you.

You must have consulted the dumbest lawyer in Bratislava. But if you feel froggy, then jump.

 

[janoshik]

I don't give a fuck about you or whatever rights you imagine you have. You are clearly behaving in a threatening manner, and you shouldn't just assume litigation would end well for you.

You must have consulted the dumbest lawyer in Bratislava. But if you feel froggy, then jump.

If the assertion of rights is perceived as a threat, it could indicate a deficiency in understanding or intelligence, particularly when the reaction is characterized by vulgarities.

 

[Deleted member 134759]

Isn't it clear what happened?

When jano and Tracy met, They switched bodies. Like that Rob Schneider movie "hot chick". Now Tracy is nice and jano isn't