Pharmacomstore

[MoriorInvictus]

I don't think people should be yelling "READ THE SCOC ARGH" to a remailer when (1) the SCOC is not even stickied, so new posters won't even know it exists and (2) remailers aren't labs, or at the very least this guy is obviously a rep and not the same person who produces their gear, so he probably has no way to get pictures of their autoclave or whatever else.

It doesn't fucking matter if the SCOC is "stickied" or not. It's common knowledge on this forum that a new SRC must adhere to the SCOC and address all items that are applicable. So he's a reseller of pharma gear... GREAT!! Fucking address the SCOC as applicable to him (Like he said he would!) and let’s move on.

And by the way, why the fuck are you getting on here sticking up for a SRC you don't even know? You've already stuck up for 2 different SRC's on 2 different threads... WTF??

 

[brutus79]

Most people are agreeable and hate saying no. It's the nature of human psychology.

Is it stupid? Absolutely. Reading a conspiracy into it is probably a bad move, though.

Your innate ability to decipher the intention behind the actions of someone who has a 99% chance of fucking people right up the ass is amazing. .. what instigated you sharing your wealth of knowledge in both the human psyche and the proper way of dealing with people we feel are not trustworthy? Charity? Did you have a dream one night recently about gyms full of people who cannot secure performance enhancing drugs because they lack the fountain of youth that is your boundless experience amd 100% success rate in handling these situations? I guess I won't look a gift horse in the mouth and simply thank the heavens you have seen fit to grace us with your valuable perspective. Did I mention you seem to be a worthless yet pretentious jerk motherfucker? Yea- that's my job around here and i hate schill motherfuckers like you. Go ride source dick somewhere else.

 

[a0_]

This board is uncensored, correct? So, what incentive do I have to listen to paranoid replies that read motivations when they're not there? If anything, those kinds of replies contribute to collective irrationality here, which in turn makes it harder for anyone to evaluate information concerning sources.

I'm going to keep posting, is what I'm saying. You can deal with it or not. I'm indifferent.

It doesn't fucking matter if the SCOC is "stickied" or not. It's common knowledge on this forum that a new SRC must adhere to the SCOC and address all items that are applicable.

You do realize that common knowledge requires participation in that knowledge, right? A new source has no way of knowing that the SCOC even *exists* unless they spend half an hour where disgruntled posters yell at someone for not posting a code of conduct and then drudge through the search feature. Expecting someone to know about it prior to joining is unreasonable.

This is like, message boards 101. Every board I've ever been on stickies important information.

 

[manafest]

I will say this..Since browsing this forum I see a lot of Negative pack mentality going on...(shrugs) I don't quite get it at times but whatever...Normally when trying to get something positive out of anything in life you rarely use a negative approach ...

 

[brutus79]

This board is uncensored, correct? So, what incentive do I have to listen to paranoid replies that read motivations when they're not there? If anything, those kinds of replies contribute to collective irrationality here, which in turn makes it harder for anyone to evaluate information concerning sources.

I'm going to keep posting, is what I'm saying. You can deal with it or not. I'm indifferent.



You do realize that common knowledge requires participation in that knowledge, right? A new source has no way of knowing that the SCOC even *exists* unless they spend half an hour where disgruntled posters yell at someone for not posting a code of conduct and then drudge through the search feature. Expecting someone to know about it prior to joining is unreasonable.

This is like, message boards 101. Every board I've ever been on stickies important information.

This is not a source board... a sticky source code of conduct would be an issue legally and an overall contradiction of our purpose.

Collectively irrational? We have an almost 100% fail rate with the fly by night sources that set up shop here. I consider it irrational to give any "source" who doesn't have the cash to start up on a source board the benefit of the doubt... but your insolence and unfounded arrogance either belies stupidity or an ulterior motive.. and you seem fairly well spoken, so it must be in your financial interests to stick up for sources.

You don't need incentive to listen- pin some dirty gear and die from it for all I care. I just try and make it known that crack cocaine a dealer just shitted out after swallowing it when cops raided his block is probably safer and more effective then most new sources gear- and I am talking still steaming out of his butthole.

That's Meso 101. Do what you want and stick up for who you want- but don't expect to make any friends and when the source goes mia that you were cheerleading for expect to make real enemies. Good luck.

 

[brutus79]

I will say this..Since browsing this forum I see a lot of Negative pack mentality going on...(shrugs) I don't quite get it at times but whatever...Normally when trying to get something positive out of anything in life you rarely use a negative approach ...

Try eroids or promuscle. They will be very nice when they fuck you out of your money, bro.

 

[MoriorInvictus]

This board is uncensored, correct? So, what incentive do I have to listen to paranoid replies that read motivations when they're not there? If anything, those kinds of replies contribute to collective irrationality here, which in turn makes it harder for anyone to evaluate information concerning sources.

I'm going to keep posting, is what I'm saying. You can deal with it or not. I'm indifferent.



You do realize that common knowledge requires participation in that knowledge, right? A new source has no way of knowing that the SCOC even *exists* unless they spend half an hour where disgruntled posters yell at someone for not posting a code of conduct and then drudge through the search feature. Expecting someone to know about it prior to joining is unreasonable.

This is like, message boards 101. Every board I've ever been on stickies important information.

I don't really give a fuck what "Every board" you've seen does. And no one else on this forum does either! Are you trying to imply that someone joining this forum to push their own UGL and/or Pharma grade AAS products would not take the time to research what that site would require of such an endeavor? I'm no genius but if it were me, I would do my homework before logging into a site and setting up shop!

I wouldn't expect someone just looking to share knowledge, experience, etc on AAS to understand what the SCOC is before joining. But I sure as hell would expect someone who manufactures their OWN GEAR and has invested THOUSANDS of dollars to do so!!!
You gotta be FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!

Oh, and I don’t care if you stay, leave, or fucking drop off the face of this earth!! But quit acting like some self-righteous asshole!! I imagine you’re one of those dick faced assholes that talks down to everyone. I bet you have lots of friends

 

[manafest]

I'm just not believing that being a negative dick to everyone and anyone will keep you from getting fucked out of money by doing business with sources that know most of are doing it illegal in the first place...I Do agree on what is trying to be accomplished here at meso with the scoc...but to just hand it to them with a punch in the face isn't going to make them more honest ....to each their own..(i have my opinion)...I have read countless threads of people just getting worthless typed abuse towards them and once again that accomplishes what? pretty much nothing these days...

 

[brutus79]

I'm just not believing that being a negative dick to everyone and anyone will keep you from getting fucked out of money by doing business with sources that know most of are doing it illegal in the first place...I Do agree on what is trying to be accomplished here at meso with the scoc...but to just hand it to them with a punch in the face isn't going to make them more honest ....to each their own..(i have my opinion)...I have read countless threads of people just getting worthless typed abuse towards them and once again that accomplishes what? pretty much nothing these days...

I am a negative dick to everyone because it makes me happy! What keeps me from getting fucked out of money is the fact that I am not stupid enough to give any of these sources a penny. This is not a source board; sources choose to come here because the uncensored nature allows them to and the price is very competitive to source here- as in free. Countless threads? Have you read pep? Bio? Herc? Mfl? Those will keep you busy for the reast of the year even if you are reading good will hunting style. They cost me money- you get to learn for free! You are welcome.

 

[MassTurk]

Sources come to meso to make MONEY. They have a potential customer base that is pretty significant. Even though we are not a source board this is a fact. The alternative to scoc is letting everyone figure out the sources on their own. To be honest most don't even do blood work. There is a way here on this board, for all new comers learn the stomping ground you just walked in before challenging the way things are. You may have a lot to contribute but if you don't know how to listen, you won't be heard. Most will find out things are the way they are for a reason. We are all for a better alternative. Put your time in

 

[Millard]

the SCOC is not even stickied

This is like, message boards 101. Every board I've ever been on stickies important information.

This is not a source board... a sticky source code of conduct would be an issue legally and an overall contradiction of our purpose.

MESO will not "sticky" or otherwise endorse the SCOC because it encourages/promotes the sale of AAS.

MESO is not a source board. The SCOC promises to allow sources to sell product on this forum if they comply with a series of seven requirements. MESO does not support this. The "steroid underground" subforum is not a sales channel.

MESO is an uncensored discussion forum. There are no prerequisites for participation in the discussion. Members are free to discuss all aspects of the AAS black market. This discussion is open to individuals involved at every level.

Having said that, the SCOC has some excellent questions. Members have every right to demand that sources (and those in the source ecosystem) address those questions. The discussion participants are evaluated by the answers they provide or fail to provide. It is important to note that whatever answers they may provide, it does not guarantee them a free ticket to sell anything on MESO.

 

[manafest]

delivered well...

 

[Millard]

This is not a source board... a sticky source code of conduct would be an issue legally

There are clearly some legal issues to consider. MESO wants to exercise the limits of its speech protections involving the discussion of the AAS black market in order to promote steroid education and harm reduction. It's not about promoting sales.

 

[a0_]

Collectively irrational? We have an almost 100% fail rate with the fly by night sources that set up shop here. I consider it irrational to give any "source" who doesn't have the cash to start up on a source board the benefit of the doubt... but your insolence and unfounded arrogance either belies stupidity or an ulterior motive.. and you seem fairly well spoken, so it must be in your financial interests to stick up for sources.

Yeah, this is sort of what I'm talking about.

You don't know anything about me, so rationally, you should only conclude things that you *can* know. If I were a source, the rational thing to do would be to say that you shouldn't order from me because you don't know enough good information -- which is fine. But you also wouldn't discredit me. You'd simply say "I don't know enough about you" and move on.

However, in no way would it follow that if I defend a source that I have a financial interest in that source. Note that I have never tried Pharmacom, ever, and probably won't unless I find a cheap domestic bulk deal, which isn't going to happen.

But something like this --

Me: The tone here sucks for [reasons].

You: If you're defending a source and arguing with people here (insolence/stupidity) you must have an ulterior motive, and it must be financial.

doesn't help at all, and probably hurts in the long-term.

My motive is to have a better, non-paranoid method to evaluate sources. It would benefit everyone, everywhere, on every steroid board to do that. I love that people are labmaxing sources and getting blood tests. But by "non-paranoid" I mean if you read some of the angrier all-caps posts on here out to anyone who doesn't use steroids, it would strike the average person as fitting the roid-raging stereotype to a T. That's NOT the attitude we want to have if we want steroids to be legal, ever, or at least decriminalized or reduced to a lower drug scheduling. It harms rational discussion here and makes people way too hostile for no reason and probably drives out sources who would otherwise cooperate with the source code of conduct.

But you had no idea what my motive was prior to just now, and you thought my motive MUST have been something else, for no reason. *That* is what I mean -- you should only conclude what you CAN know, as opposed to what you suspect. (Imagine if people could charge you as guilty based only on what they suspect.)

 

[Jruiz]

You And your constant rants about "negative motivations " and overwhelming "paranoia" ! You come here trying to be some monarch of higher learning and really you sound like an ass full of shit ! Take that malarkey elsewhere because this is meso and we say and feel what the fuck we want ! Period !

 

[a0_]

Telling someone to not post isn't going to make them stop posting, lol.

I don't think you're actually okay with negativity bias or paranoia. "Negativity bias" is not the same thing as "negative emotions", btw. Negativity bias is when you give undue credibility to information presented negatively.

I mean, you can be as irrational as you want. The same non-censorship policy that lets me respond to you lets you respond to me, and so on. Certainly you don't think it's helpful to the community though.

 

[Flounder]

Yeah, this is sort of what I'm talking about.

You don't know anything about me, so rationally, you should only conclude things that you *can* know. If I were a source, the rational thing to do would be to say that you shouldn't order from me because you don't know enough good information -- which is fine. But you also wouldn't discredit me. You'd simply say "I don't know enough about you" and move on.

However, in no way would it follow that if I defend a source that I have a financial interest in that source. Note that I have never tried Pharmacom, ever, and probably won't unless I find a cheap domestic bulk deal, which isn't going to happen.

But something like this --

Me: The tone here sucks for [reasons].

You: If you're defending a source and arguing with people here (insolence/stupidity) you must have an ulterior motive, and it must be financial.

doesn't help at all, and probably hurts in the long-term.

My motive is to have a better, non-paranoid method to evaluate sources. It would benefit everyone, everywhere, on every steroid board to do that. I love that people are labmaxing sources and getting blood tests. But by "non-paranoid" I mean if you read some of the angrier all-caps posts on here out to anyone who doesn't use steroids, it would strike the average person as fitting the roid-raging stereotype to a T. That's NOT the attitude we want to have if we want steroids to be legal, ever, or at least decriminalized or reduced to a lower drug scheduling. It harms rational discussion here and makes people way too hostile for no reason and probably drives out sources who would otherwise cooperate with the source code of conduct.

But you had no idea what my motive was prior to just now, and you thought my motive MUST have been something else, for no reason. *That* is what I mean -- you should only conclude what you CAN know, as opposed to what you suspect. (Imagine if people could charge you as guilty based only on what they suspect.)

I respect you coming to Meso with some ideas for improving how information is evaluated here. Just remember Meso is the wild west of forums. This is the land of truly free speech, and with that comes both good and bad aspects. Meso really is like a melting pot of society, so you get the good and the bad people that come with that. Mix in the right to free speech and an uncensored format, and you wind up with Meso!!!
Oh yeah, I'm not sure how you will find a "non-paranoid method to evaluate sources". You have any reasonable ideas?

Probably could start a thread if you have anything.

 

[a0_]

I respect you coming to Meso with some ideas for improving how information is evaluated here. Just remember Meso is the wild west of forums. This is the land of truly free speech, and with that comes both good and bad aspects. Meso really is like a melting pot of society, so you get the good and the bad people that come with that. Mix in the right to free speech and an uncensored format, and you wind up with Meso!!!
Oh yeah, I'm not sure how you will find a "non-paranoid method to evaluate sources". You have any reasonable ideas?

Probably could start a thread if you have anything.

Thanks man, I appreciate the good attitude.

I actually posted some stuff in the SCOC thread but I'll just repost it here.

A lot of times when you deal with a source you don't have much info to work with. So you could make a Tier system for how a source has been validated, e.g.

Tier X: Labmax
Tier Y: Blood test
Tier Z: Mass spec test

and then rank a source based on how many of these tiers they meet. This way you could gauge your risk instead of just calling a source completely bullshit -- sometimes sources have good shit and not-good shit. (e.g. good injectables but bunk orals)

 

[biggerben69]

Oh..also...The very last thing I want is for gear and GH to become legal.

 

[Flounder]

Thanks man, I appreciate the good attitude.

I actually posted some stuff in the SCOC thread but I'll just repost it here.

A lot of times when you deal with a source you don't have much info to work with. So you could make a Tier system for how a source has been validated, e.g.

Tier X: Labmax
Tier Y: Blood test
Tier Z: Mass spec test

and then rank a source based on how many of these tiers they meet. This way you could gauge your risk instead of just calling a source completely bullshit -- sometimes sources have good shit and not-good shit. (e.g. good injectables but bunk orals)

OK this seems to be a reasonable idea but I must do point-counterpoint with you. This doesn't address new sources since none of these tests will have been performed yet. Also we seem to be having issues with all of these tests currently. Labmax is routinely questionable, blood tests are not matching up with Dr. Scally's 8-10x rule and mass specs are almost impossible to find or are unreliable(depending on who's doing them). I like the idea you have, but some things need to be ironed out, I think, for it to work properly.

Edit: Colt44 raised a good point over on the scoc. Every batch from these ugl's seems to be different. How could this system account for that. I don't see any way it could.