regular
New Member
This was your original complaint, which was interpreted by many to mean that K's products caused JB to need gyno surgery. However, K's product didn't cause JB to need gyno surgery. This was re-posted on several forums and believed to be true because as I said before, users here generally assume that every source is a con-man and everything a user who frequently posts says is instantly believed to be true without question.
I'm not bringing this up to beat a dead horse. It's relevant to the conversation I'm having with Millard and his portrayal of me being anti-free speech. Millard is basically saying that I'm against people leaving feedback. I'm not, I expect the feedback to be honest though. You're a leader here, whether you want it or not, so you have to be responsible about what you're saying because people trust you.
I've seen as much evidence that you are a child molester as I've seen that IM is a scammer, gay, and works for K, none. What are you guys going to make up to make the other look bad next? I do not know who you are. I didn't track you down. IM responded to my PM before I got that far. He said he had no evidence you were a child molester, which was good enough for me. I don't look at people unless unless there is a good reason to.
What is being taken out of context? I'm directly addressing exactly what you've said.
When I noticed all of this was going on I contacted you guys and contacted K about your order. He said you guys had sent an email that had attachments that he didn't respond to and that was the source of the communication problem. He said he would process a refund for you guys and email you a month ago. According to what you're saying, he never emailed you guys, however he did offer you guys a refund and told me he would email you.
Have you guys made any effort to contact K since we last spoke? What's with the charade where you pretend you don't know how to get in touch with K? You were in his feedback thread antagonizing our staff, you were receiving an official response, and you left the conversation. I'm not going to play telephone between you guys. If you don't want to contact him anymore because your original email was ignored because it contained attachments, that is your choice. If you make a real effort and really can't get in touch with K, then get back to me and I'll contact him on your behalf, again.
Do you not realize that I will help you get a refund if that's what you want? I'm confused about whether or not you even want a refund because JB mentioned something about only requesting a refund if the products tested poor. Do you guys want a refund?
You generally do not treat people with respect to begin with, so the fact that you don't respect me isn't at all surprising. You lied about the gyno and you lied and said we would ban you and delete your feedback. Insulting my teammates and our board wasn't relevant to “product feedback” and didn't improve your situation. Had you simply stuck to a product complaint instead of antagonizing us and making up problems that don't exist I would be fine with your feedback.
Please quote the “threats,” “double talk pm,” and “board backstabbing.”
Since this started I've evaluated your claims, some of which are not true, some of which are inconclusive at this time. I spoke to K on your behalf and he offered you guys a refund. I encouraged you guys to test the products. I also checked to see if K would fund the testing you want to do, which K declined do to the way you treat people. I encouraged you guys to get your refund and then use those funds to conduct the tests too. You were welcomed to post your feedback where K's clients would see it. I'm not really sure what else you expect? I can't say your claim is “correct” or “right” any more than I can say the product you received was in fact “good.”
I find it hypocritical you're mad about IM calling you a child molester because it isn't true, yet you are upset because I criticized you for saying things that aren't true. So, when someone makes something up about you that isn't true, it's a problem, but when you make things up, that should be forgotten when you say so.
I'm not aware of your criminal history at this time. If you want me to verify your history and state weather or not you were ever convicted of a crime against a child, I will, let me know.
It's relevant to the conversation I'm having with Millard and not directed at you guys, even though Brutus is taking it that way. The embellishment was posted by Brutus and has nothing to do with you at all as far as I'm concerned. I think you feel the product you received is poor and want to know what's in it. I really haven't seen you lash out at our staff or K. I have no gripe with you running your tests and posting the results. You would have been better off going at this alone.
By slander, demoralization, and swift repercussions of going against the grain do you mean that I criticized the things you said that you admitted are not true?
I'm not against your product feedback but you don't seem to understand that product feedback doesn't mean making things up that aren't true in an effort to antagonize people. I'm not against you saying anything that is true.
My criticism is based upon your replies that portray me as some kind of enemy of free speech, when really my argument is that I don't like people making things up as they go along to abuse each other because it's counterproductive. Conclusions are often drawn from evidence-less claims on the weight of someone's reputation alone, for that reason, I expect people to stick to the truth. I don't make things up about people or lie to discredit people. I give the truth and expect it in return. I don't have time to read 45 pages of nonsense about a single order, but at the same time, I can't ignore people saying things that aren't true about something I'm somewhat responsible for. If getting on someone about lying means I'm an enemy of free speech, well, I guess I'm an enemy of free speech and you are defending deception. I have never requested that any posts or feedback be amended here, nor have I ever amended any feedback on any other board I'm a part of. I want you to not give me flack for doing what I'm supposed to do because you want to defend everything your guys say, even if what's being said is not true, under the guise of “free speech.” Every other board besides Meso isn't infringing on a user's freedom to say what they want. Every other staff besides yours isn't corrupt.
Lets clear the air about what's happening here.
Two guys who know each other on the street claim five products they received are unsatisfactory. This claim is suspicious because no other clients have complained about anything. If five products are in fact less than what they should be, staff members expect complaints from several clients that do not know each other on the street. Brutus embellished, bent the truth, or lied depending on how you see things because he was “mad” when leaving his original “product feedback,” per his own admission. K and our staff never abused the clients despite being abused by Brutus. As I've said before, guys here generally treat every source like they are a con-man right off the bat because they don't know any better. K acknowledged there could have been a problem with the products the clients complained about and said if there was a problem, it wasn't intentional. K never refuted their claim of the products being less than what they should be. Instead, he encouraged them to test the products to see for themselves. Had Brutus been polite, K would have likely paid for the tests the clients want to run. He offered the clients a refund a month ago. Due to K ignoring an email the clients sent that contained attachments, the clients appear to be making no further effort to contact K. I'm not sure if they are paranoid about getting a refund because of what guys who do not represent our staff or K have said, or if they are waiting for their test results, or if they even want a refund. The offer to refund them was made a month ago and at that time K told me he would email the clients but the clients say K didn't email them. Brutus knows he can get in touch with K by posting in K's feedback thread because he was being officially replied to in that feedback thread, until he left abruptly, after he portrayed our staff and board as being corrupt and said that we ban people for poor feedback and delete feedback, which he later admitted isn't true. I've never amended someone's feedback or deleted feedback. I've only banned one person for leaving negative feedback since becoming a staff member and that was because that person claimed the source would intentionally put poison in his reshipment in an effort to kill him, which is ridiculous accusation and level of abuse that I wont tolerate. In this case, my teammate Myo and I encouraged the clients to leave feedback where K and his clients would see it. No one's feedback has being suppressed.
There isn't much verifiable evidence on either side regarding the products being what they should be or poor.
One of the products in question was sent by another client to estacydata before this complaint was received and that product tested favorably. There is evidence that single tablet, from another client, was good per estacydata. K did not submit that product for testing as the clients believed.
K was sending off some products for Mass spec tests the last time I checked. I have no idea what those results are because I haven't checked. Those results, good or bad, don't hold much weight as far as I'm concerned because they are unverifiable.
The clients claim that they are going to send the products off for mass specs instead sending them to estacydata, which is verifiable. The original complaint was that products are completely inactive because the labmax that was conducted by a guy the clients know was said to indicate so. On the weight of the labmax results their friend conducted, all of the products were claimed to be “bunk.” An estacydata test can confirm the clients original claim and the client's friend's original labmax results, yet the verifiable estacydata test is being avoided. On one hand, the labmax is thought by the clients to be credible enough to make the claim that the products they received are “bunk,” but on the other hand the clients wont send the products to estacydata because they feel there could in fact be active ingredient in the products, which would enable the products to pass an estacydata test. Passing an estacydata test would refute the validity of the original labmax results.
The clients do not trust UGL products because they are unlicensed, unregulated, and unverifiable. Therefore, they intend to use the UGL equivalent of an Analytical Laboratory because the Analytical Laboratory they have selected is unlicensed, unregulated, and unverifiable. They intend to use an unverifiable service to verify the authenticity of something else. They intend to utilize a verification method that has the same shortcomings as the products they distrust.
Earning a profit does not mean that a business' intent is to screw people.
) and not be banned for it. But just because I have the freedom to say it doesn't mean anyone will believe it. The burden of proof is on me to prove it, not Millard to disprove it. Most people are intelligent enough to figure that out on their own and they don't need big brother protecting them - or depriving them of what big brother doesn't want them to hear. After all, it's for their own good, you know.
