Sigma Audley Inc. - Your source for peptides, ancillaries, AAS, and more!

Dude i dont know what you wnat to tell me. I just gave some feedback information. I had 30vials. 15 of them had a difference in weight of up to 0.2g which were the hcg vials.

The other 15 HGH (NOT HCG) vials had a differnece only in the 0.001g range. Do you understand this is in fact a signifikant difference?
Now could this be due to different vial batches? Yes it could. Could it be due to differnet amount of powder in the vials (doesnt matter it most of it is filler) yes it could.

We dont know. I just wanted to share this information. I really dont understand what your problem is
Thanks? I guess somebody might find your weighing mildly interesting, but I will repeat myself and say that this information amounts to approximately NOTHING. It appears that you are trying to show some level of quality or lack thereof doing this vial weighing. Well, I am telling you that what you were doing doesn't give any useful information.

Believe what you will. I'm done arguing with you over something so stupid. Enjoy your project.
 
Thanks? I guess somebody might find your weighing mildly interesting, but I will repeat myself and say that this information amounts to approximately NOTHING. It appears that you are trying to show some level of quality or lack thereof doing this vial weighing. Well, I am telling you that what you were doing doesn't give any useful information.

Believe what you will. I'm done arguing with you over something so stupid. Enjoy your project.
Thank you for providing absolutely nothing at all, as it seems you think the members here are all retarded and wont consider that maybe the vials were just from an non-uniform batch.

You saved SA from going broke, great work!
 
I appreciate your enthusiasm to be helpful, and in the future, by all means, keep trying.

However, at this point, you should learn more about the dynamics of this forum and feedback before making posts like this. Here's why...

Weighing your vials and sharing the discrepancies does not provide the community any feedback of value. In fact, it's a waste of time to read and have to explain this to you. We have other topics of importance that would benefit from applying limited resources there.

Taking the weights YOU measured, and applying math—because thats all we have to go on—I calculate that your lightest HCG vial is "under-dosed" by 2.5%... and, actually even less if we knew the weight of the vials without contents. If you ask any experienced member on this forum, that's considered an acceptable "variance."

Here's my math...
Assuming you are weighing 5000iU vials of HCG (because YOU did not provide that information), I calculate as follows:
5000iU/3.669(weight of heaviest vial) = 1,362.7691469065 (per gram of vial).
3.577 (weight of lightest vial) x1,362.7691469065 = 4,874.6252384846.
4,874.6252384846/5000i =
0.9749250477. Converted to % and rounded = 97.5%.
97.5% of 5000iU = 4874iU. Your lightest vial contains 4874iU HCG.

If you were planning on taking—lets keep it an even number—500iU per injection... it would actually be 487.4iU.

Do you think your testicles are going to notice a difference in 12.6iU HCG? Do you see how this brings no value? Do you see how this was a waste of time?

Those are all rhetorical questions, we all know the answers.
Dude i just gave feedback. Everything was great, communication was good, arrived way sooner than i expected. And i added the only other information i could give, because i weighted it anyways out of curiosity so why not.

I dont think i stole somebodys time by adding this information to my overall feedback.
 
Yes the CCP will be kicking in doors over bulk sucrose purchases
You're thinking Raw materials, I'm thinking if someone publishes that their HGH contains T+H+E+ S+H+I+T, is it not for the authorities to look for whomever is producing mainstream T+H+E+S+H+I+T and link it to the particular UGL vendor is selling the same?
Also if 7 different vendors are selling T+H*****T that sort of betrays the fact that they are all sourcing from a particular company, and that can help whoever is hunting, target their common supplier...
Just a theory anyway..
 
I received my tracking number from Bella this morning.... I placed another smaller order last week just so she will have to keep dealing with me!!
I’m about to go back in on some more peps myself. Narrowing my list down or growing it. Depends on how you look at it. She probably going to tell me go to hell!
 
Dude i just gave feedback. Everything was great, communication was good, arrived way sooner than i expected. And i added the only other information i could give, because i weighted it anyways out of curiosity so why not.

I dont think i stole somebodys time by adding this information to my overall feedback.
There are two ways to make a suggestion... "express" and "implied."

"Express" means I come out and say, "This source cheated me because my vials are not uniformly weighed."

"Implied" is what you did... even though you didn't say, "source cheated me." By saying the vials were not uniformly weighed, it "implied" there was something "off" or "nefarious."

Anytime we hold sources accountable, we must make sure we have our "ducks in row." And, we MUST be the honest brokers of truth. If we engage in lies, misinformation, negligence, and/or incompetence... we end up with cracks in our armour that souces may exploit.

Now, your response the first time, when @UncleBuns—a valued and respected member—tried explaining that to you, should have been, "ok, Ill make sure I get it right next time." Instead you continue to defend the implication, or "implied" suggestion.

I get it, you were just trying to provide feedback. Do you get what we are saying... what that feedback "implies?"
 
There are two ways to make a suggestion... "express" and "implied."

"Express" means I come out and say, "This source cheated me because my vials are not uniformly weighed."

"Implied" is what you did... even though you didn't say, "source cheated me." By saying the vials were not uniformly weighed, it "implied" there was something "off" or "nefarious."

Anytime we hold sources accountable, we must make sure we have our "ducks in row." And, we MUST be the honest brokers of truth. If we engage in lies, misinformation, negligence, and/or incompetence... we end up with cracks in our armour that souces may exploit.

Now, your response the first time, when @UncleBuns—a valued and respected member—tried explaining that to you, should have been, "ok, Ill make sure I get it right next time." Instead you continue to defend the implication, or "implied" suggestion.

I get it, you were just trying to provide feedback. Do you get what we are saying... what that feedback "implies?"
Yes and do you understand my point that that implication is totally correct? Or can you be sure its not because of a difference in the actual compound mass? No you cant. As much as i cant say if its just tge vial or the lid. And exactly thats where unclebuns is wrong. While i never claimed that thsi difference comes from a differnece in actual.compound, he claimed that it absolutly cant be attribuite to that. And thats simply wrong.

I just said, its an noteworthy anomaly and i think anybody who takes PEDs should have enough sense to interprete this numbers/anomaly on theire own. Would the other 15 vials have had the same amount of weight differnece i probably wouldnt even notice it.

Anyways i just wanted to give some.feedback for other peopel, not start a whole discussion over some irrelevant stuff like this.

My experience witz the source was very good and based in this one order i can only recommend.
 
Back
Top