We would have nothing to talk about if everyone agreed about everything. I agree with the bulk of your posts, but we do find ourselves in these verbal sparring matches.
Scenario two unfairly drives consumers to the misfortune of scenario one by steering them away from a good open vendor. False representations, intentional or not, are harmful to both parties.
As management, I don't have a stake in furthering the interests of a source, I'm Switzerland with a big stick. My job is to make sure that no one is being unfairly abused and discover the truth. I can't lead if no one has the confidence that I have their best interest at heart.
I completely agree with you on all points. People are typically outright banned on many boards for saying anything negative about a source. All of the test results consumers produce should be welcomed anywhere. IM for example, posted a very negative test result for a source with a great reputation at AB. Brutus and JB were requested to leave their feedback at AB. Before becoming a member of staff I played a role in having three sources removed. The first time I thought I would be banned for sure. Punishing people for leaving poor reviews is wrong.
I've acknowledged that the clients in this case could be correct. I've also outlined how they could be incorrect and not realize it. I've seen both situations happen.
As far as what is occurring in this thread, these guys don't like each other and they are taking stabs in the dark, as evidenced by one party being named a scammer and the other being named a child molester. The personal attacks in both camps are muddying the waters. The only person who represents K is K. The criticisms from other people is their own. I asked him to come over here and get with JB and Brutus.
Sources posting testing evidence is pretty much useless. The paradigm is that all sources are money sucking vampires looking to scam and deceive everyone, any way they possibly can, and every staff member is on the take and allows the users they represent to get burned, then punishes them if they say anything.
While that is the case on scummy boards, each board has its own politics. Good sources care about their clients as people and aim to deliver high customer satisfaction because there is more money in being honest with people than ripping people off, in the long run. Boards worth being a part of allow their users to leave reviews they want. Sources who intentionally scam, know they will face severe consequences from managers with integrity.
Thank you, I apply the list I created to evaluate both good or bad evidence. The aim of that list isn't to discredit evidence to the detriment of consumers, but to help all interested parties understand the limitations of evidence. Similarly, I often find myself explaining the limitations of IT security tools. A tool, when used incorrectly, can create more harm than good.
I will respond to this inquiry in the thread you linked. I applaud your efforts to get reputable testing going. We discussed this before and it seemed unreasonable at that time.
This tool is being discussed right now at AB. If it comes to market and works as advertised, it could be a viable solution. I must stress that people would need to use this tool with extreme caution, as it apparently creates a public database of the substances it analyses. That database will undoubtedly be subpoenaed by the government. A lot of work will need to go into figuring out how to safely run tests by someone who is competent with IT security.
http://www.consumerphysics.com/myscio/
The labmax could be correct. The guy doing the labmax could have interpreted the results correctly. Brutus and JB could be making an accurate argument that the products are poor based upon that evidence. However, each person in the chain could be wrong too. Also, the test is completely unverifiable. A verifiable test, using analytical instruments, conducted by a licensed and credible source, would make a more potent argument that the product is poor.
I'm not arguing against the argument, I'm arguing to make a better argument.
The argument posted in this thread is that four products are “bunk” ie no product, because they each failed a labmax and one product is argued to be dbol instead of nolva. Estacydata can confirm or disprove these arguments.
On one hand, a labmax is treated as reliable enough to call the product bunk . On the other hand, the labmax is invalided, by people acknowledging the product my contain some active ingredient, and therefore perhaps being able to pass a test with estacydata. So the estacydata test is avoided and a mass spec test is sought.
K's var has tested as var with estacydata once before.
Estacydata is not a shell game to avoid a mass spec. If there was a provider of testing data that had the credibility of estacydata, who was verifiable and could give concentration data, I would advise you to use them. I am not aware of any such provider at this time.
Estacydata can lend credibility to those claims.
