UK GENTECH LABS

[brutus79]

let me get my dictionary out we could all use some big words.. that should make us all sound like we know what we're talking about..

Brutus don't you have a family to take care of how do you have so much time on the board?
I'm not even joking why don't you go live a real life

Well I don't waste time selling fake gear like you- that opens my day up a bit. Thanks for your concern though.

Were any of those words too big for you buddy?

 

[brutus79]

5 of you go to the same gym.
talk about the board on the way to the gym
in the gym
on the way home from the gym.. don't you think that's sad

And every time you and your Troll friends
talk bad about me, you get me more customers..

Brutus, if I knew that was the plan,
we could have went over it in PM first.. I feel bad now leaving you out..

Booted from one board already, and the
only reason you guys are still here, is because Millard allows it..

A bunch of trolls
2 shills
and 1 mentally challenged individual .. The Soured Cream Team .. Nice

M signing out..
Off to the flea market for some Nunchuks

You are as strong at math as you are at obtaining quality raws. Stick to frivolous drivel in your posts. Trust me..

 

[MANWHORE]

I'm just saying there is more to life than hanging out on the internet all day ..

Get some family beach time
Maybe you won't be so angry at everyone

 

[I_know_nothing]

Do you honestly disagree with my efforts to reduce personal attacks, insults and name-calling in order to facilitate more productive discussion? Do you think more personal attacks, insults and name-calling will promote more productive discussion?

It's not about encouraging people to be nicer or more polite as you suggest. Some of the most productive debates are also have some of the most intense, passionate and ruthless participants. It is about reducing the ad hominem attacks that usually derail debates.

As much as I personally like @CensoredBoardsSuck and appreciate his critical-thinking skills, insight and extensive contributions to the forum, I will stand by principle. It has always served me well to consistently operate the forum by principle rather than give anyone special treatment.

I share a passion for free speech with @CensoredBoardsSuck and empathize with his frustrations at being the target of criticism and disagreement. But he knows very well that this comes with the territory of an uncensored forum. It is exhausting but necessary for free-spirited debate. I sincerely hope to see and welcome his return. This doesn't mean I have to agree with him on everything.

I'm surprised you made an appearance and stated an opinion on this issue. Tbh I was beginning to think that you were somehow involved/connected with cbs and Jim. It was frustrating seeing countless threads where cbs and Jim continuously reframed discussions into personal attacks, the most commonly seen one is "whats your motive?! You must have a motive?!". It gets absolutely pointless when debates and discussions start going into personal attacks because suddenly logic and reasoning and evidence for the topic at hand goes out the door. As I've said before, i have no interest in coming here to compare dicks and respond and debate personal attacks, it's an absolute waste of my time. That being said, I appreciate the post millard, it shows that you have the right ideas in mind. These boards should foster discussions that move thinking forward not endless personal debates that stagnates the board.

Great to see you take, what I believe, is the right stance.

 

[Dr JIM]

I will stand by principle. It has always served me well to consistently operate the forum by principle rather than give anyone special treatment.

This doesn't mean I have to agree with him on everything.

With deference M it takes two (or more) to tango and you seemingly singled out one (CBS) more than another, and that is why your approach was less than one of personal conviction or principle, but rather the result of frustration.

If you differ with the nature or course of a particular debate then their are several remedies many which you have used effectively in the past.

But when one individual is critically admonished on the open forum it sends a conflicting message, regardless of how it is parsed, that overt personal conflicts by a select few shall not be tolerated.

Is not the latter a part of managing an uncensored forum where religious and political bias becomes the operational doctrine of the respondents?

For example how can anyone expect an ISIS thread to generate anything worthwhile when "supporters" cite religion or politics as a means of justifying the "art" of 9-11 or the beheading of US citizens abroad?

It all comes with the territory IMO.

I would agree, there are less impoverished means of venting ones differences than thru personal attacks but for some, it seems to be an almost necessary part of achieving a means to an ends, winning the "debate" and gaining respect and credibility as a consequence.

I would concur such disagreements should be contained to SPECIFIC sub-forums where entering members can anticipate their contents as inherently "controversial", however.

Finally I will also add contacting involved members by PMs should be the first approach, regardless of how fruitless such endeavors have been in the past.

Respects
Jim

 

[Docd187123]

With deference M it takes two (or more) to tango and you seemingly singled out one (CBS) more than another, and that is why your approach was less than one of personal conviction or principle, but rather the result of frustration.

If you differ with the nature or course of a particular debate then their are several remedies many which you have used effectively in the past.

But when one individual is critically admonished on the open forum it sends a conflicting message, regardless of how it is parsed, that overt personal conflicts by a select few shall not be tolerated.

Is not the latter a part of managing an uncensored forum where religious and political bias becomes the operational doctrine of the respondents?

For example how can anyone expect an ISIS thread to generate anything worthwhile when "supporters" cite religion or politics as a means of justifying the "art" of 9-11 or the beheading of US citizens abroad?

It all comes with the territory IMO.

I would agree, there are less impoverished means of venting ones differences than thru personal attacks but for some, it seems to be an almost necessary part of achieving a means to an ends, winning the "debate" and gaining respect and credibility as a consequence.

I would concur such disagreements should be contained to SPECIFIC sub-forums where entering members can anticipate their contents as inherently "controversial", however.

Finally I will also add contacting involved members by PMs should be the first approach, regardless of how fruitless such endeavors have been in the past.

Respects
Jim

Please tell me where in the following post was one singled out more than another:

@CensoredBoardsSuck @Docd187123 it's amazing how much mutual respect you had for each other's knowledgebase, intelligence and contributions prior to your public falling out in the Muslim/Israeli threads (which you've proven yourselves completely incapable of discussing without a barage of name-calling). But please spare the members the bullshit of your continued name-calling and rehashing of the topic in every other thread. Thank you.

 

[Dr JIM]

Please tell me where in the following post was one singled out more than another:

Oh your right as ALWAYS!

But do you understand the meaning of the word "seemingly" as I used it in my post?

Why of course you do bc your ALWAYS RIGHT.

But just in case viewers are not as enlighten as yourself, it's a reference to the perception of others, on the outside, and in that regard I am not alone.

Moreover I've no doubt it's the reason why CBS reacted they way he did, he felt he was being singled out, and so would have I.

 

[Docd187123]

Oh your right as ALWAYS!

But do you understand the meaning of the word "seemingly" as I used it in my post?

Why of course you do bc your ALWAYS RIGHT.

But just in case viewers are not as enlighten as yourself, it's a reference to the perception of others, on the outside, and in that regard I am not alone.

Moreover I've no doubt it's the reason why CBS reacted they way he did, he felt he was being singled out, and so would have I.

Seemingly means to give off an impression. So can you explain why yourself and/or others PERCEIVE one party was singled out when both were mentioned? Take as long as you need to

*Edited to add: he mentions both our handles, he said each other's (not one or the other), and yourselves (not yourself). Pretty clear cut it was directed at 2 individuals not just 1

 

[hammertime]

I'm just saying there is more to life than hanging out on the internet all day.

This ^

Sums things up perfectly. Some people need to get some perspective.

This thread has taken a turn for the worse, would be good to get back on topic some time this month Instead of throwing the toys out the pram because your buddy was put in his place. If he acts like a child he should quite rightly be treated like one.

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

This ^

Sums things up perfectly. Some people need to get some perspective.

This thread has taken a turn for the worse, would be good to get back on topic some time this month Instead of throwing the toys out the pram because your buddy was put in his place. If he acts like a child he should quite rightly be treated like one.

I don't think this thread has really ever been "on topic", certainly hasn't been since you joined 2 weeks ago. Kinda weird how you want to get back on topic then you throw more fuel into the fire, eh? Let's see how that works out.

 

[Sworder]

We don't need gloves for this one. Sworder came out of the woods because he has an agenda. It won't be too long before we know what that is. He is methodically attacking tests, people ( you know the circle jerk) and all of a sudden expert in brewing and telling people how easy it is. You know what's next. He has a solid hook up ) just a pm will get you set up. Only rule. don't labmax your raws lmfao

Yes, I methodically "attack" I would use the word scrutinize testing and help people understand what the test is actually showing. Which is a good thing, second guessing and questioning. If the question, for example, "Why do you use Labmax as a testing kit when, even if it shows the 'right color', the concentration isn't taken in account? Labmax can give a incorrect reading of "good gear" and a "correct" reading even if the gear is "bad."

HPLC/MS applies to one vial only, I figured I would put that in context because I get the impression that if one lab's vial actually shows a acceptable result. And also the HPLC/MS provided by the SOURCE whom is selling the product. Conflict of interest? YES! Look at the tribulus terrestris adds whom claim it increases testosterone. Same applies to a source providing an MS/HPLC, they may provide misinformation. And even it if it accurate once again it doesn't apply to the vial you will get in the mail from that lab.

I was asked what solution I have for these testing problems. My response was to brew your own gear. You will know exactly how the product was made, you will know exactly how much hormone powder is in the vial, and you can test a batch with a HPLC/MS and it will be worth the money because you know you are getting the same Hormone in each batch. You don't think labs will say that the good HPLC/MS are for the batch you are using? Do you trust it?

I try to keep personal attack to a minimum, sometimes it is impossible to avoid it when responding to a post. Yes, I do recognize people whom circle jerk, meaning, to back each other up while avoiding to consider the argument or topic being brought up. Slandering without any information being the topic of discussion. If you agree with another person that's fine, it just seems like nobody is concerned about the topic and a group of people are just avoiding the topic and spamming the thread with personal attacks as "back up."

I have never claimed to be an expert at brewing, it is very simple. But this was once again answered to help provide an alternative method of acquiring AAS and ensuring the integrity of it.

No, you may be right. I didn't anticipate CBS' reaction. I thought it would have been more characteristic of him to engage in the discussion. That did not happen.

I still think two highly intelligent, educated and contributing members who engage in such behavior is counterproductive. What is the best way and most appropriate time to make this statement? I don't know. The message is important even if the delivery is not optimal. I will take the risk of being impolite and/or creating resentment if I think it will improve forum discussion in the long-term.

Your choice to bring it to the attention on the public forum is great because it shows that you do not condone this behavior. You have now been accused of "publicly admonishing" two individuals which was rightful however "member of the mutual admiration society" are defending ONE individual.
And that individual chose to just stop posting because he cannot accept a constructive criticism.

You could have accomplished the same thing with a pm instead of publicy admonishing him. All it did was give ammunition to those who he does battle with that exist to weaken the membership and scam the masses. I felt it undermined his true purpose here and although he and doc have peppered threads with a banter that may have been less than constructive I believe it would have worked itself out sooner than later without intervention.

A publicly displayed message is better because to forewarns everybody as well. Also, aren't you all about keeping things in the open to keep newbies from getting scammed?
Nobody used this as "ammunition" and even if the would. What kind of an argument is that? " XXXX person, all you do is state personal attack and slander." If that argument is presented in regards to a topic, that doesn't contribute much. Attack the topic, not the person in an intelligent conversation this type of "ammunition" is disregarded anyway.

His posts did not reflect his self-proclaimed "true purpose." The "DON'T LISTEN TO THIS GUY" argument can be presented with information and discussion to disprove what a person is saying. There is no need for personal attacks.

Also, I disagree, this continuation of slanders and personal attacks won't get worked out sooner or later and even if that was true. Why not intervene and help end it sooner? Also, from how I see it. Millard is providing his opinion as a member of the forum. We know he is the owner but he is not stating that people will be banned. From my perspective he is trying, as a member, to help other members have intelligent discussions. There is no harm in that!

I don't think this thread has really ever been "on topic", certainly hasn't been since you joined 2 weeks ago.

Funny how join date is so important, do you think his statements are false? Attack the statements, don't focus on the join date lol!

Moreover I've no doubt it's the reason why CBS reacted they way he did, he felt he was being singled out, and so would have I.

Millard didn't single him out, and even if so, is the message to improve the forum?
Honestly, I feel Millard mentioned DocD just to avoid singling out a person. And even if he did, is that bad? Pericles got singled out too for good cause long ago! Just my observation...

 

[hammertime]

I don't think this thread has really ever been "on topic", certainly hasn't been since you joined 2 weeks ago. Kinda weird how you want to get back on topic then you throw more fuel into the fire, eh? Let's see how that works out.

What are you alluding to exactly?

And why are you concerned at more fuel being thrown into the fire?

Take your butthurt for my buddy crap to another thread and let us discuss whether or not this lab is a scammer or not.

Whether i've been here two weeks or two years is irrelevant, id still form the same opinion of you and your cronies from reading this thread.

 

[Dr JIM]

Seemingly means to give off an impression. So can you explain why yourself and/or others PERCEIVE one party was singled out when both were mentioned? Take as long as you need to

*Edited to add: he mentions both our handles, he said each other's (not one or the other), and yourselves (not yourself). Pretty clear cut it was directed at 2 individuals not just 1

That's your opinion and I've stated mine, is there another point or will perpetual arguing be the limits of your contributions to Meso

 

[Galileo]

Hi

I am a generic, wanting to use-quality AAS MesoRX forum user. Maybe I should send your business Gentech funds in exchange for gear. But before I make a purchase and inject something into my body that could potentially kill me/make me seriously ill/make me casually ill/be vastly underdosed/be an entirely different compound/be nothing valuable at all, either scenario being a total waste of money, adding to which the risk of purchasing SC3 drugs, what proof do you supply wanting-to-buy users that you are good to go?

Thanks in advance

- G

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

What are you alluding to exactly?

And why are you concerned at more fuel being thrown into the fire?

Take your butthurt for my buddy crap to another thread and let us discuss whether or not this lab is a scammer or not.

Whether i've been here two weeks or two years is irrelevant, id still form the same opinion of you and your cronies from reading this thread.

I'm certainly not concerned about adding fuel to the fire. What I was pointing out was that if you're trying to get this thread "back on track" you've got a pretty brain dead way of going about it.

The lab is brand fucking new. There are established labs in the UK, why so interested in Gentech? No one with half a brain would give 2 shits about about a new, unproven lab.

I like it fine right here, I think I'll continue pissing in this thread, thanks..

 

[hammertime]

The lab is brand fucking new. There are established labs in the UK, why so interested in Gentech?

Labs such as? I presume they have test results freely available if they have your approval?

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

Yes, I methodically "attack" I would use the word scrutinize testing and help people understand what the test is actually showing. Which is a good thing, second guessing and questioning. If the question, for example, "Why do you use Labmax as a testing kit when, even if it shows the 'right color', the concentration isn't taken in account? Labmax can give a incorrect reading of "good gear" and a "correct" reading even if the gear is "bad."

HPLC/MS applies to one vial only, I figured I would put that in context because I get the impression that if one lab's vial actually shows a acceptable result. And also the HPLC/MS provided by the SOURCE whom is selling the product. Conflict of interest? YES! Look at the tribulus terrestris adds whom claim it increases testosterone. Same applies to a source providing an MS/HPLC, they may provide misinformation. And even it if it accurate once again it doesn't apply to the vial you will get in the mail from that lab.

I was asked what solution I have for these testing problems. My response was to brew your own gear. You will know exactly how the product was made, you will know exactly how much hormone powder is in the vial, and you can test a batch with a HPLC/MS and it will be worth the money because you know you are getting the same Hormone in each batch. You don't think labs will say that the good HPLC/MS are for the batch you are using? Do you trust it?

I try to keep personal attack to a minimum, sometimes it is impossible to avoid it when responding to a post. Yes, I do recognize people whom circle jerk, meaning, to back each other up while avoiding to consider the argument or topic being brought up. Slandering without any information being the topic of discussion. If you agree with another person that's fine, it just seems like nobody is concerned about the topic and a group of people are just avoiding the topic and spamming the thread with personal attacks as "back up."

I have never claimed to be an expert at brewing, it is very simple. But this was once again answered to help provide an alternative method of acquiring AAS and ensuring the integrity of it.



Your choice to bring it to the attention on the public forum is great because it shows that you do not condone this behavior. You have now been accused of "publicly admonishing" two individuals which was rightful however "member of the mutual admiration society" are defending ONE individual.
And that individual chose to just stop posting because he cannot accept a constructive criticism.



A publicly displayed message is better because to forewarns everybody as well. Also, aren't you all about keeping things in the open to keep newbies from getting scammed?
Nobody used this as "ammunition" and even if the would. What kind of an argument is that? " XXXX person, all you do is state personal attack and slander." If that argument is presented in regards to a topic, that doesn't contribute much. Attack the topic, not the person in an intelligent conversation this type of "ammunition" is disregarded anyway.

His posts did not reflect his self-proclaimed "true purpose." The "DON'T LISTEN TO THIS GUY" argument can be presented with information and discussion to disprove what a person is saying. There is no need for personal attacks.

Also, I disagree, this continuation of slanders and personal attacks won't get worked out sooner or later and even if that was true. Why not intervene and help end it sooner? Also, from how I see it. Millard is providing his opinion as a member of the forum. We know he is the owner but he is not stating that people will be banned. From my perspective he is trying, as a member, to help other members have intelligent discussions. There is no harm in that!

Funny how join date is so important, do you think his statements are false? Attack the statements, don't focus on the join date lol!

Millard didn't single him out, and even if so, is the message to improve the forum?
Honestly, I feel Millard mentioned DocD just to avoid singling out a person. And even if he did, is that bad? Pericles got singled out too for good cause long ago! Just my observation...

Sworder, haven't you realized no one is listening? This is the umpteenth time you've given this same freaking testing speech.

I was not "attacking his join date". Stop twisting my words. I've never attacked anyone's join date. Whatever the fuck his name is said he wanted to get the thread back on track then made a snide comment. I replied saying the thread has never really been "on track" and that it certainly hasn't within the past 2 weeks since he's been here.. How the fuck is that an attack?

I'm curious as to why you've been trying to turn my posts into something they're not the past few days..

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

Labs such as? I presume they have test results freely available if they have your approval?

Haha, no labs have my approval. If you're genuinely looking for a UK source Id look for established ones (over 2 years) on a UK board.

 

[Docd187123]

That's your opinion and I've stated mine, is there another point or will perpetual arguing be the limits of your contributions to Meso

Just curious since the evidence says otherwise.

As you so eloquently put it earlier, it takes two to tango Jim. I don't argue with myself, I argue with others when what they say makes little or no sense. You're more than welcome to stop arguing and contribute something to Meso yourself.

 

[Sworder]

Sworder, haven't you realized no one is listening? This is the umpteenth time you've given this same freaking testing speech.

I was not "attacking his join date". Stop twisting my words. I've never attacked anyone's join date. Whatever the fuck his name is said he wanted to get the thread back on track then made a snide comment. I replied saying the thread has never really been "on track" and that it certainly hasn't within the past 2 weeks since he's been here.. How the fuck is that an attack?

Well, seems like you have been reading it since you know it's the "umpteenth" time and that's all that matters to me Johnny

You referred to his join date in a negative way. Does that verbiage sound better to you?

Why the f would I respond constructively to an ass clown that's 10 days new