PsychedUp
Member
1) I probably should have worded my comment better, as I'm definitely not against elevating UGL testing standards. The point I was trying (and clearly failing) to make was that I feel methods such as third party testing are a more proactive and constructive approach to harm reduction than endless ChatGPT jargon. Just my opinion is all.Brother, let me help you by front running a few questions / comments:
1) should we only settle for basic testing for 3rd party testing or should we try and elevate the UGL testing standard? Why not try and elevate UGL testing standard
2) what is the issue with an endless ChatGPT essay of technical jargon? If folks care, they’ll read and if not, they can skip.
3) why are you riding this sources dick?
4) back in the 20th century we used equipment that by todays standards makes us look like savages. That’s analogous to todays harm reduction practices in UGL gear + peptides.
Don’t shoot me, the messenger. I’m just trying to move this conversation along and develop it into what it will become asap, so we can then get back to regularly scheduled programming.
EDIT: fuck my fat thumbs. Took me too long![]()
2) Fair point. If people want to read it, power on.
3) Wasn't aware that I was. I feel like that's one of the cardinal sins on here. He's the source I use the most on here and I just appreciate his approach in regards to his willingness to test his shit, that's all. I know that's really the least we should be expecting of our sources though, in reality.
4) Another fair point, can't argue with that. Probably wouldn't even if I could, you type a lot faster than me clearly.

