It seems largely an issue of semantics. The argument you are making for using the term "claim" rather than "evidence" clearly benefits sources. When an individual(s) has "evidence" that a source has quality control issues, it sure does sound a lot worse than when the individual is only making a "claim".
There are unsubstantiated claims and claims substantiated by evidence. Sometimes the quality of the evidence may be low. But it is still evidence and it should be called evidence; it should not be dismissed as only a "claim".
I agree, it's semantics. You and CBS are right, evidence is evidence, poor or not. My point was that testing evidence has the weight of a claim because it is extremely easily to manipulate and difficult to verify. Any source who posts their testing data is instantly dismissed, yet the testing data from an end user is expected to be accepted without question.
Your posts seem to indicate that my arguments are only for the benefit of the source. I look at these situations from both sides. If someone posts a bogus test that says a product is poor, when the product is not poor, that person is doing a disservice to end users. False representations, pro or con are equally harmful to an end user. Authority used incorrectly can wrongly deprive someone of something good. I've seen people swear up and down a product was bad when it wasn't. I've seen people use bad information to make judgments across a range of issues in this community. My goal is to find the truth good or bad.
When an experienced steroid user tries a product and the product does not "feel" like the AAS in question, his testimony is indeed evidence. It may be low quality evidence but it is evidence nonentheless. It is a claim backed by that person's experience.
Dosages in orals vary widely. I saw a study where orals were overdosed double or triple what they should be. Most sources do not have appropriate dispensing equipment. Guys who cap orals typically mix an active ingredient with an excipient in a coffee grinder and dump that on a capping machine from a health food store. If a source wants their product to be “good” they need only overdose the oral. With oils, significant overdosing is difficult because products are typically sold at the highest concentration they will reasonably remain in solution. This is not the case with an oral, it can easily contain significantly more active ingredient than it should. An end user feeling less with one lab than another doesn't mean that the product they received is not proper.
A labmax report on the specific product is also evidence. It is clearly not as strong as analytical analyses by accredited and/or independent labs. But it is a significant improvement over an individual's subjective experience that it feels like the product. It should easily be verifiable and repeatable.
Using a labmax is better than not using it. Any test is better than no test. My concern is that labmax tests are often conducted by unskilled personnel, rely on color changes that are subjective, are unverifiable, and people treat them like undeniable proof one good or bad. In this case, a third party conducted a labmax. Labmax tests do have value but how much value they have is very subjective.
A DDL/ecstasydata qualitative report -- not on the product in question but -- on the powder used to make the product is also evidence. The quality of this evidence is debatable since it didn't even involve the specific product in question.
My old argument about testing raw hormones was that those results are less meaningful for the purpose of determining the heavy metal content of a finished product, because the excipients could contain heavy metals outside of an acceptable range. If a finished product tested poorly, its individual constituents would need to be tested anyway. My argument was that testing the finished product first, would be optimal, because the whole formulation is tested in one shot and if the finished product is good, everything in the formulation is good. Where as with testing the hormone first, there is no guarantee the finished product would test within an acceptable range of heavy metal content, therefore another test would need to be conducted on the finished product. I was trying to save that guy from having to do two tests but he didn't realize it. He posted personal attacks and was on a rant about how he knows hormones all contain heavy metals, a claim for which he was able to produce no evidence. Also, he used his offer to test products and appealed to himself as an authority to fear people into giving up their hormone source.
Any efforts to dismiss evidence as being something other than evidence only benefits the source.
You're right that I shouldn't portray evidence as a claim. My point was that a lot of the evidence that is being created has the weight of a claim. So yes, I misspoke. However, you seem to suggest that I am only speaking from a pro source position. I'm the exact same guy I have always been, status, authority, mod, or not. You and Brutus have seen what I've done to sources who rip people off.
I disagree that the dismissal of evidence only benefits the source. For example, any evidence a source or a client creates that is positive is typically thought to be fraudulent, instantly dismissed, and treated with the same weight as a claim. The paradigm that every open source is nothing but a pathological liar out to steal everyone's money and every satisfied client is a shill, has created a climate of fear and resentment that makes many consumers in this community instantly distrust information that could be accurate, to the detriment of both sources and consumers. The knee jerk dismissal of information which not in line with consumer's expectations deprives them of discovering the truth and harms their ability to make decisions.
Having said that, I pretty much agree entirely with the criticisms you have made about the other problems associated with the reported evidence in this thread. With the skill of a defense attorney - and I say this with the utmost respect - you laid out all the reasons a skeptic -- and we should all be skeptics -- should question these type of reports.
I appreciate the constructive criticisms and feedback Millard. You're a sharp guy and I always enjoy talking to you. I absolutely agree that guys should be skeptical.
I made the post quoted below late last year, before I was a mod at AB, in response to Labmax tests.
regular;241556 said:
I got a few PMs asking for my take on this thread.
Beyond my opinion that it would have been appropriate for Joe to alert the staff about what he intended to post beforehand out of respect, I don't see anything wrong with him posting his observations from the testing he and his friends conducted. So long as the results are reliable, more testing would beneficial to the community. I've seen sources express interest in having their products tested because they are confident in them. Had Joe's post been less inflammatory and accusatory the information he produced would have undoubtedly been better received.
The credibility of testing results are limited by:
• The party who supplied the product to be tested.
• The method used to test the product.
• The party conducting the test.
• The skill set of the party conducting the test.
• The party taking receipt of and announcement the results.
• Any perception of bias.
Several of these limitations have been pointed out by people participating in this thread. Everyone will have to decide for themselves how meaningful the conclusions Joe et al. have arrived at are.
Ideally, an independent testing authority would accept anonymous samples from many people and publish the results online. For example, ecstasydata.org will test gear and post results in this manner. This would prevent people from claiming bias on behalf of the party doing the testing and lend more credibility to the results. Unfortunately, getting products tested professionally is cost prohibitive and San Rafael Chemical Services was raided during ORD for testing steroids. The DEA revoked their license to analyze controlled substances and seized all of their financial and client data.
To that original list, I've added the two bold items. It has helped me to evaluate evidence people have presented me with. It would good if everyone used something similar and did not immediately accept test results, good or bad.
The credibility of testing results are limited by:
• The party who supplied the product to be tested.
• The party who submitted the product for testing.
• The party conducting the test.
• The method used to test the product.
• The skill set of the party conducting the test.
• The party taking receipt of and announcing the results.
• Any perception of bias.
•
Gaps in the chain of custody.
It an individual goes to a restaurant and there is a cockroach in their meal, they are under no reasonable obligation to do anything other than get up and leave. Surely, you would not fault the patron for refusing to accept a replacement product from the same kitchen that produced the original unacceptable meal? The consumer may justifiably have no interest in any replacement the restaurant has to offer. Surely, you would not fault the customer for their desire to alert as many other potential customers of this restaurant to the problems they experienced with this meal?
If poor product were as easy to verify as looking at it, then there would not be anything controversial about Brutus' and JB's order. You're referring to a cockroach that requires an analytical laboratory to find.
Imagine that someone is saying there is a cockroach in four out of seven items they purchased, the cockroaches can't be seen or tasted, no one else has ever filed a complaint of this nature with you, and you know the person making the complaint does not have an analytical lab. How do you know they are correct?
I don't see anything wrong with seeking a refund and no longer coming back due to a poor experience. I'm not K's rep/shill/salesmen/defense attorney. I've only recommended a source to very close friends, if they can't find something on a list that they need. Mods look shady when they pimp sources because everyone assumes there is a financial connection.
There is a difference between leaving feedback about a product and trashing a guy and the board he is on and calling everyone he knows a scammer. Sources are not six sigma black belts. They have issues with their formulations and labeling problems sometimes. Occasionally they just don't send everything someone orders. They are relying on suppliers with no regulation. Why is the first reaction to assume a guy with a good reputation earned over many years is trying to burn everyone?
Why is there any expectation of "professional courtesy" to allow the restaurant an alternative to the public reviews of the bad experience?
There is no expectation of professional courtesy. We all have to choose the path we are going to walk down. Professional courtesy has served me well. Anyone can be as obnoxious as they want within reason. As a moderator, I've punished one guy in response to a review because he claimed there would be poison in his reshipment, he was threatening, and extremely inflammatory. He was banned for a week or two.
There is no expectation of concealing a review. Feedback good or bad is welcomed. I invited Brutus and JB to post feedback at AB.
Now if the restaurant customer with the cockroach meal is acting solely out of self-interest, they may alert management, demand a refund, a free meal and perhaps coupons for additional free meals. And of course, if they return to the restaurant again and again in the future, they certainly don't want to antagonize management by repeatedly posting online public reviews of the incident.
The management isn't antagonized by poor product reviews. Unless we see poor reviews, we don't know what's going on. The goal isn't to suppress negative reviews. I invited JB and Brutus to post about their orders at AB, so did my teammate Myo. When I saw someone was having a problem, I addressed it immediately. I'm not sure what else I could do?
I'm seeing words like scammer going around in reference to someone over at our house. I was told to go mod at Alinboard. Someone said this whole situation was being swept under the rug. VIPs are the bad guys on a reputable board. This thread does not only contain just a review of a product, it's a mess.
I think most people will have the most respect for the individual who does not act out of self-interest (or at least not out of self-interest alone) and vocally share the negative restaurant experience with the larger community. The reason is that this type of incident is something that the community as a whole wants to know.
This thread was a feeding frenzy of everyone attacking everyone. All JB and Brutus needed to do was leave a review of the product if they want, request a refund or reship, and PM a mod if they couldn't work it out with K. I don't even think K knows any of this is going on yet.
As a small business owner, I completely understand the management position. And I would prefer consumers take the approach that you recommend because it benefits ME as a small business owner. But I can be honest and admit that it is not in the best interest of consumers as group.
I try to treat people with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt. In exchange, people like me. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to conceal a review. Nowhere did I say, “don't leave a review.” As I stated above, both Myo and I told Brutus and JB to leave their review at AB where K is more active, so K and others would see it. Encouraging someone to leave negative reviews is good for management. We earn people's trust in situations like these.
By the way, I wrote a mailvelope guide like we talked about, but mailvelope is in code review with firefox. They got a real security audit a few months back and adjusted a few things. I tested it out and it can encrypt forum PMs reliably. I've seen a few administrators in our community get caught reading PMs, one was implicated in stealing payment information. When mailvelope comes out of code review, I will post the guide here.
I wrote a guide for gpg4win about a year ago. Gpg4win can be used to encrypt text on a notepad-like interface. I'll post it over here.
