Labeling UGL threads gone bad

[FuriousWO]

Is there any way we can label the UGL threads for labs gone bad so it's clear who isnt good anymore.

For example, the GE-TM thread, could the title be changed to something like

"GE-TM labs -- do not use"

Once the community has deemed them bad, let's make it clear for everyone.

 

[eminem93]

who would change title

 

[FuriousWO]

Millard upon request?

 

[eminem93]

you think millard is going to slap the hand that feeds him?

 

[Millard]

There are many reasons I don't think MESO should get involved in determining which UGLs/sources are good or, in this case, which sources are bad.

By making an administrative decision to label some UGLs/sources as BAD, the implication is that those not labeled as such are GOOD.

But really, I think the desire to place sources/UGLs in the GOOD or BAD category represents a false dichotomy.

The pharmaceutical-quality, human-grade, FDA-regulated testosterone enanthate that you purchase from your local pharmacy - that is GOOD.

The truth is ALL sources/UGLs are BAD. It's the black market. Of course, they're going to suck. The question is how much, in what ways and to what degree.

MESO's position is to categorically discourage the participation in the black market instead of selectively discouraging the use of some black market sources or encouraging the use of other black market sources. Don't break the law - don't buy from ANY of them!

 

[FuriousWO]

That's fine and is consistent with the MESO way.
Is there a way we can centralize our experiences with UGL's. So a newcomer or even a regular that can't keep up on a daily basis with all the bs and banter in UGL threads can know what's going on? It seems to me it would keep the whole community a little safer for scams and potentially bad gear.

 

[enjoy_tren]

I hate when people say "just buy pharm grade". What about the compounds that no pharmacy makes? if you wanna use those you gotta play tbe game

 

[Ozzy619]

There are many reasons I don't think MESO should get involved in determining which UGLs/sources are good or, in this case, which sources are bad.

By making an administrative decision to label some UGLs/sources as BAD, the implication is that those not labeled as such are GOOD.

But really, I think the desire to place sources/UGLs in the GOOD or BAD category represents a false dichotomy.

The pharmaceutical-quality, human-grade, FDA-regulated testosterone enanthate that you purchase from your local pharmacy - that is GOOD.

The truth is ALL sources/UGLs are BAD. It's the black market. Of course, they're going to suck. The question is how much, in what ways and to what degree.

MESO's position is to categorically discourage the participation in the black market instead of selectively discouraging the use of some black market sources or encouraging the use of other black market sources. Don't break the law - don't buy from ANY of them!

I think you said it perfectly. There's always going to be problems with UGL's because there's no standard for them to abide by, like how the FDA regulates pharma grade. Anything in the black market is always going to come with risks. It like asking a drug dealer to sell pure drugs, its never going to happen. There's too many variables with an UGL. Its always going to be full of risks.

 

[Ozzy619]

I hate when people say "just buy pharm grade". What about the compounds that no pharmacy makes? if you wanna use those you gotta play tbe game

I don't think he's saying buy pharma grade, I think he's making a point that there's always a risk with a UGL.

 

[enjoy_tren]

Not referring to him, just a random thought

 

[FuriousWO]

I not asking for standardization or any regulation but in my mind it's akin to Myth posting up about Wicked today. Once a source has gone bad, and we all know they will, some kind of way of letting everyone know. But I see it's not really possible so I'm over it

 

[Tren423]

I not asking for standardization or any regulation but in my mind it's akin to Myth posting up about Wicked today. Once a source has gone bad, and we all know they will, some kind of way of letting everyone know. But I see it's not really possible so I'm over it

I like your thinking fwo. Our best route is to start a new thread when we need to announce that a source ha gone full "fucktard".

 

[Millard]

I hate when people say "just buy pharm grade". What about the compounds that no pharmacy makes? if you wanna use those you gotta play tbe game

Even though MESO recommends against buying products on the black market, it makes no judgment on those who choose to participate. Prohibition is a failure. Supply and demand will be met. Unfortunately, prohibition makes it a much more dangerous marketplace for the consumer. MESO wants to do what it can to minimize the associated harms.

 

[chewiebaca]

I like your thinking fwo. Our best route is to start a new thread when we need to announce that a source ha gone full "fucktard".

Yeah but we've seen how that goes. Apparently bashing ALP means all our vets have a secret agenda.
Making everyone aware on wicked resulted in mythoik being labeled as a scammer.. Watch out guys. He has gone scammer

 

[Millard]

That's fine and is consistent with the MESO way.
Is there a way we can centralize our experiences with UGL's. So a newcomer or even a regular that can't keep up on a daily basis with all the bs and banter in UGL threads can know what's going on? It seems to me it would keep the whole community a little safer for scams and potentially bad gear.

I not asking for standardization or any regulation but in my mind it's akin to Myth posting up about Wicked today. Once a source has gone bad, and we all know they will, some kind of way of letting everyone know. But I see it's not really possible so I'm over it

I like your thinking fwo. Our best route is to start a new thread when we need to announce that a source ha gone full "fucktard".

I understand the concern about efficiently communicating rapidly changing developments in the black market. It may be a good idea to create a thread to make case against a particular vendor e.g. "Case against XYZ Labs" or "Do NOT buy from XYZ Labs".

What I would recommend against is calling every BAD lab a scammer. The word "scammer" is so overused that it is has become largely uninformative. As a result, it is often dismissed by a significant percentage of consumers.

There are many instances where "known scammers" continue to recruit hundreds of customers many of which are mostly satisfied with the service; customers who have repeated positive experiences with a source aren't going give much credibility to a generic, non-specific scammer alert.

This doesn't mean that there is no basis for the scammer alert. It just means that the reasons for the scammer alert have not been communicated in a manner that adequately warns consumers of potential problems with a source.

Rather than paint BAD sources with broad designations only, it would be much more useful and effective to provide explicit detail. In essence, create a thread and make a case, including as much detail as possible, about why consumers should not use a particular vendor. For example, here is a non-inclusive list of reasons that vendors have fallen under the umbrella of the "scammer" designation. The availability of these reasons may allow consumers to make better decisions.

• Arrested by law enforcement
• Supply and/or distribution chain arrested by law enforcement
• Becomes confidential informant for law enforcement
• Takes money and never ships product
• Takes money and selectively ships product
• Very complicated/restrictive/ambiguous reship policy in instances of customs seizure
• Only re-ships once in instances of customs seizure notice
• Never re-ships in instances of customs seizure
• Ships product with microbial contamination or visible contaminants
• Ships underdosed product
• Ships product with androgen other than that listed on label
• Ships product with no detectable androgens
• Ships wrong product or does not ship entire order
• Misrepresents UGL products as FDA-approved
• Does not offer replacement products to dissatisfied customers
• Packages shipped in a sloppy manner that results in damaged product
• Packages shipped in insecure manner that increases risk of customs seizure
• Takes excessive amount of time to ship order
• Responds to negative customer feedback with threats of violence or other
• Responds to negative customer feedback with organized shill attack
• Responds to negative customer feedback with dismissive or rude responses
• Customer service is inconsistent
• Takes excessive amount of time to respond to inquiries
• Fails to provide secure email address
• Fails to provide pictures of paraphernalia used in production
• Sells overpriced product
• Source is new and has no feedback and/or history

 

[Kubrick]

Wow Millard. Well said. I agree with you 100%.