Open Letter to Millard

[lifter6973]

Kind of a half truth with the tgi example isn't it? People despise rats and its been a while but if I recall correctly the member was threatening to rat him out. So source or not on the internet or not thats unacceptable in any setting.

Edit. Its been a while so if he didn't threaten to snitch then feel free to correct me.

Rats are the lowest scum of the earth. Ask @Twisted, he knows and so does the scumbag RAT owner at ASF that harbors him.

 

[shackleford]

Millard is one of the best I've seen at running forums. I agree on if he says not to do something, I just won't do it. There are so many shit board owners out there that are way worse than anything Ive seen here.

i agree this forum is the best ive found

 

[SkankHunt]

Millard is one of the best I've seen at running forums. I agree on if he says not to do something, I just won't do it. There are so many shit board owners out there that are way worse than anything Ive seen here.

Any forum where we can speak our mind about sources and not get banned is a good forum to me.

 

[Millard]

I wrote my little manifesto over my ban and honestly, I didn’t think I broke the rules at the start of my ban. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of threatening defense. And “duck and cover” isn’t nearly as graphic as the little picture of a missile exploding the side of a building that accompanied my nemesis’s threat.

But I do understand “violence” so I gradually shifted away from trying to think of “threat” and when thinking of violence, I accept my ban. I’m not arguing that and I completely understand the rule and how you administered it. Very fair.

My real point that I was trying to convey today is that a source is far more capable of carrying out these threats than Average Joe Member. Which is why I’d prefer to see sources held to a higher standard when it comes to rules. That’s not going to happen I guess but I can dream.

Some sources are good but a lot of sources do this because it’s another area of the criminal world in which they excel in after prison records eliminate their options for normal employment.

I appreciate this.

I understand the sentiment but the standard can't really get much higher when it comes to the anti-violence rule for sources or for anyone else.

I think the confusion comes because you and others may think I see all violations of the anti-violence rule as equivalent. No. I don't.

I've never suggested this was the case. This is exactly what I said in my response to your original post:

"You should argue that it is more concerning when a source violates the rule than when a non-source violates the rule. I think you will find unanimous agreement on this point."

If you violate the rules, you violate the rules.

It's not a judgment on whether you are the good guy or the bad guy, whether you were justified or not justified, whether it was a minor violation or a gross violation, whether it was hypothetical or real, whether it was a joke or serious.

These are entirely different questions.

 

[Millard]

this is a problem.. the source should be banned period!!!

This was never in dispute.

 

[cochino]

Yes, it is in the underground rules: Steroid Underground RULES

"Engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, misattribution and fraud is prohibited."

It wasn't my intention to break the rules. I'm guilty for not reading the underground rules in the sticky.

 

[NLM36]

It wasn't my intention to break the rules. I'm guilty for not reading the underground rules in the sticky.

I blame Cochino for setting a bad example

 

[lifter6973]

It wasn't my intention to break the rules. I'm guilty for not reading the underground rules in the sticky.

I'm guilty of not reading the rules or instructions for anything so I got ya beat there.

 

[shackleford]

Group Hug?

 

[SkankHunt]

Group Hug?

 

[Sp2.0]

I believe "Group hug in the shower tonight" from the longest yard would be more fitting.

 

[FR0Z3N_B0MB3RRR]

Ahaha has been @Silentlemon1011 banned because he said something about the bullets for that source? Cmon...

 

[TRT.]

My real point that I was trying to convey today is that a source is far more capable of carrying out these threats than Average Joe Member.

There's no such thing is "Average Joe" member. There are family and father figures and there are cartel members.

 

[FR0Z3N_B0MB3RRR]

Anyway didnt get the sense of the ban for BigBallsDickGuy... he said “have a long driveway, better to duck and cover” So?

it could mean a lot of things... like “be careful there are lot of bats/drones/ lot of wind and so on”

if he had to defend himself he would have said something to fool him, not to letting he know what could have happened... he could have said something like “well man, i will fight you with my kung fu moves... shirtless... weaponless... we will be just me and you, FOR THE FUCKIN GLORY... come here Xxx n Y at xx:yy this Sunday... you ll find me shirtless and with my arm folded...”

Smarter move for a deceptive hitman... against a very smart enemy... 100% would have worked

Anyway, I think @Silentlemon1011 wrote something more explicit and so maybe he should be banned too if you didn’t ban him already... ahah... if you ll ban him for that, please ban me too then, because #silentlemonmatters #istaywithlemon

Welcome back @BigBaldBeardGuy 8===>

 

[shackleford]

Anyway didnt get the sense of the ban for BigBallsDickGuy... he said “have a long driveway, better to duck and cover” So?

it could mean a lot of things... like “be careful there are lot of bats/drones/ lot of wind and so on”

if he had to defend himself he would have said something to fool him, not to letting he know what could have happened... he could have said something like “well man, i will fight you with my kung fu moves... shirtless... weaponless... we will be just me and you, FOR THE FUCKIN GLORY... come here Xxx n Y at xx:yy this Sunday... you ll find me shirtless and with my arm folded...”

Smarter move for a deceptive hitman... against a very smart enemy... 100% would have worked

Anyway, I think @Silentlemon1011 wrote something more explicit and so maybe he should be banned too if you didn’t ban him already... ahah... if you ll ban him for that, please ban me too then, because #silentlemonmatters #istaywithlemon

Welcome back @BigBaldBeardGuy 8===>

i think he was refering to the low hanging branches along his driveway. anyway if wiselemon is banned, ban #metoo.

 

[Freakmidd]

@Millard

MESO is a great site. I love it. It’s a great place to post and exchange information. PEDs are unfortunately illegal in the US despite the minimal (or manageable) risks associated with responsible use. For this reason, MESO and the harm reduction philosophy that is incorporated is an invaluable resource.

I want to be very clear, this post is nothing against you or the forum. I accept my ban and I learned from it. I’m just offering discussion regarding a very real concern/issue. I believe a lot of the newer members that read this will get a better understanding of what occurs when dealing with underground labs.

There is the Steroid Underground, which is not intended to be a source board but rather an area for members to discuss sources. Again, absent legal regulation, this is an invaluable resource for the discussion of various PED manufacturers as it provides safety and self-monitoring of these sources.

There is a flaw in the system though and I believe sources should be held to a higher level of conduct than Average Joe Member.

For example... a source posted a thread advertising a contest with $160,000 in cash prizes. That’s pretty impressive at the surface, but it highlights exactly how much money is at stake for these black market vendors. Money that I am sure they would seek to protect, with little regard to the individual members of this board. When the average member posts, it is purely for individual reasons. However when a source posts it is primarily for profit. This is a big differentiation.

The representative refused to answer member questions regarding multiple past issues. Fair, reasonable questions. And when these issues were offered for discussion, the rep claimed he was being attacked and resorted to devious responses, initially consisting of encouraging other sources to pull resources and doxx multiple members (this is specifically why members should never link their screen name with any other personal information). Later, this included threats of a “swift surgical strike” against multiple members. When a black market source has enough resources to “give away” $160,000 in a contest, these threats are obviously serious.

A “threat” is a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done. This is usually an offensive attack.

A deterrent is a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.

I was banned for two weeks after receiving what I considered a serious threat. The rep encouraged other sources or members to provide my location and then later threatened a “swift surgical strike”. My banning was in response to my post of “Bring it, I have a long driveway so you better duck and cover”. Which I made to DETER the threatened attack. Absent the serious threat by the source, my statement obviously never would have been made.

In that situation, how is banning a member for attempting to deter a criminal organization from attacking their home (and family) indicative of harm reduction? The rep threatened me because I asked valid questions regarding their checkered past.

Sources are not members at MESO. They are here for PROFIT. The majority conduct themselves civilly as businessmen and that earns respect. However, sources should be held to a higher standard than members to encourage that professionalism. The community in general does not want gangbangers, thugs, and hardened criminals turned sources, as that would only contribute to the existing stigmas that are unfortunately attached to this lifestyle. The community WANTS sources that are professionals and actually care because they run similarly to legitimate businesses. These sources would obviously agree to be held to a higher standard than members because they already hold themselves to that level on their own.

Absent that change, it is very easy to envision a scenario where a group of sources could easily work together at MESO and change the uncensored forum to fit their own needs.

Welcome back big guy.

Although I understand Millard's position, I believe your response was justified.. and more of a warning, in response to a very real and actual threat.

 

[FR0Z3N_B0MB3RRR]

i think he was refering to the low hanging branches along his driveway. anyway if wiselemon is banned, ban #metoo.

exactly.. ahahah... duck and cover because there is a @Silentlemon1011 three with low hanging branches full of lemons

#freeBigBallBeardGuy #lemonsmatter

 

[FR0Z3N_B0MB3RRR]

Welcome back big guy.

Although I understand Millard's position, I believe your response was justified.. and more of a warning, in response to a very real and actual threat.

@shackleford explained it perfectly... he was warning that good man to be careful...

i think he was refering to the low hanging branches along his driveway. anyway if wiselemon is banned, ban #metoo.

 

[Sp2.0]

@cochino and @BigBaldBeardGuy It's cool that you guys chose to come back.

 

[FR0Z3N_B0MB3RRR]