UK GENTECH LABS

[Sworder]

Your comments came more as a surprise to me than anything. I had always believed Meso's commitment to free expression was unconditional and absolute; that the only censorship was a result of following the law. I no longer believe that to be true. There's no question that Meso currently has much less censorship than other forums, and, looking at the archives, much less than it had in the past, but I now see some *administrator* imposed censorship that I hadn't seen before.

I don't think it's a secret that I detest censorship - my choice of username makes that obvious - and the only reason I came to Meso was because of a lack of censorship. But I don't like authority, either. Authority used to impose censorship is even more sinister than deleting posts. Treating people like children - even if they are behaving that way - is worse than censoring them.
CBS

CBS, you are way out of line. Millard, the member Millard, he doesn't have the administrative title in his profile for a reason. Interrupt me if I am wrong, but he is posting on the board as a member and he has yet to CENSOR anything. All your posts of belittling people are still there. All your insults and everything is still there. You are making a large post about something thatDID NOT EVEN HAPPEN. MILLARD HASN'T CENSORED ANYTHING RE-READ HIS POSTS, LOOK AT HIS MEMBER STATUS. Here is the scenario:

1. Member Millard states: Keep the personal attack down.
2. CBS says he doesn't want to post anymore.
3. CBS claims he is being censored.

I quoted Millard's posts, read them and look at the highlighted. It doesn't reflect any of CBS's heartfelt response.

CBS DocD 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.

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.

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.

I don't agree with forums that have a blanket prohibition on personal attacks. Sometimes, personal attacks are the most appropriate and logical course of action. Most of the time they are not.

Big sidenote: He is saying that personal attacks are the most appropriate and logical courses of actions sometimes!

HE NEVER STATED WHAT YOUR LOVELY POST IS REFLECTING!!

I agree that it has been effective to a certain degree in the underground. Yet even in these cases, productive discussion is sometimes thwarted and the opportunity for greater information is lost. It may be good for applying easy labels such as "scammer". As you know, I prefer much more descriptive and detailed information when evaluating sources. I will take "effective" any day but I will prefer and encourage "more effective" approaches if available.

Nice attempt at reframing the issue. But I think you know exactly what I'm talking about. In case I wasn't clear, it's the childish personal attacks, insults and name-calling that I'm calling out.

Side-note: Is there any mention of Millard stating he will exercise any sort of CENSORSHIP or consequences? No, he is providing his opinion as a member.

I never thought it was a particular controversial position to discourage personal attacks, insults and name-calling in order to facilitate more productive discussion.

But if you want to use the free speech defense to justify this type of behavior, I won't argue that.

It's not a free speech vs. censorship debate for me.

It's a productive discussion vs. unproductive debate.

 

[Mr.Bravo]

I am sorry if my comment was a joke, doesn't seem like Brutus took offense cuz it's a joke but if it did hurt his feelings, I apologize.
I am also stating that some posts contain personal attacks only without a shred of information.
Reread my post, there was something worthy to respond to before my one-liner with a winky face. Either way, yes it was wrong.


No, I don't know every source here has ripped somebody off. This is the problem, as I have said before Don't use the word ALL. How can you even conclude that?
I am not going to open my mouth about something I don't know is true. What is true, is that Gary was initially bashed without any evidence included in the post.

Seems like Meso still have members using good gear, yet, you are stating ALL sources that come here have ripped someone off in one way or another.
How is anybody even doing cycles anymore since all sources are scammers that come to Meso are bad, what forum do we need to go to try to find "good sources?"

Seems like Brutus and JBZ are running a cycle, they aren't stating what lab they are using. Why? One can put a disclaimer, "I am using this lab but do not think that because I am using it I am recommending you to purchase it."

There is a lot going on behind the curtains here, as you can tell from the underground they all fail according to you. But some people still get good gear huh.



Massturk, what do you really know? That as in, what do you know to be a complete truth? There was a mentioning of a bunk dbol, okay that's anecdotal evidence. The thing is though that you never know who has motive to post that, and does that person even have experience to tell what is good dbol or bad?
Anedotal evidence does count to some degree, I wouldn't say it is completely true based off that.



Exactly, here was my original post it states it pretty clearly. And in the case that Gary had a bad batch, he was initially called out with JBZ's statement before any "evidence" was present.




Sorry if you took offense to me using your words, obviously you are friends with Brutus. Your statement of how he was out of character and been supported by how he has acted lately. Do you agree?



I quoted you because I was writing in a previous post how out of character he was from what he initially posted in the SCOC. It just made me think that maybe his post in CBS was when he was out of character. I can provide statements as well if you want to prove my point.


This has been point all along and I have stated it umpteenth times. EVEN if a lab provides A B C documents to the board. They have a conflict of interest and their word doesn't mean shit. Everybody here is asking the sources to pat their own back, which they will because they want to sell lol.
This applies to the whole testing section as well, if a lab performs a test they can either fake it. Or they can just provide one good test and then send bunk gear if they really want to.

I think logic has been overlooked here for a while, thanks for posting my exact thoughts on questioning labs and having them provide the tests - anybody can post anything and be faked as they wish.

Come on sworder name one lab thats all. There is good gear out there iam not saying there isnt.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

There is no censorship. I have many opinions on how I think this forum can most effectively accomplish its goal of education and harm reduction. I've expressed them before and few people agreed with them. Again, I expressed an opinion - and let me say an opinion that expressed many times over the years - that personal attacks often interfered with productive discussion. And in case you didn't notice, members are still making personal attacks, calling each other names and insulting each other. Not many people give a fuck about what I think. And I accept that because I am committed to the principle of free speech.

Did you even read my post or did you just see the part where I questioned Meso's commitment to free speech and decided it must be all "drama?"

An administrator is not a regular member. You used your power as an administrator to influence the direction of a conversation between two participants, not 'conversations' in general. No threats of repercussions were made or implied, but if that wasn't censorship, why are we having this conversation?

Nothing has changed here. You are creating drama where none exists.

Careful Millard. Someone might mistake "creating drama" for "drama queen" and accuse you of using an ad hominem.

BTW, Sworder, I see you've written another worthless essay. I didn't read it. But please keep writing them - it brings me great pleasure knowing the work you put into them is all for nothing.

 

[MindlessWork]

With all due respect Millard, you have done well in making this a great board and we are only trying to help you out here so when trouble starts we deal with it

 

[Millard]

An administrator is not a regular member. You used your power as an administrator to influence the direction of a conversation between two participants, not 'conversations' in general. No threats of repercussions were made or implied, but if that wasn't censorship, why are we having this conversation?

If this is your definition of censorship, then I am guilty. I fully and freely admit that EVERY SINGLE POST I make is intended to influence the direction of the discussion on this forum amongst participants. I thought this was free speech? But by your definition: my free speech = censorship of others.

Every post I make. Every time I agree with a member. Every time I disagree. Every post I like. It's all censorship. Because it is all attempting to influence the direction of the discussion.

Does it matter if my comments are directed to one member, two members, three or everyone? Is it only censorship if it involves two members? But it's free speech if it's directed at more than 2 members?

So, by this definition, the way to eliminate censorship is for me to stop using my "power" to influence any discussion between members. I should stop posting. I should stop expressing my opinion. I should refrain from criticizing two members in a discussion. In other words, I should censor myself.

Censor one member to ensure free speech. Got it.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Every post I make. Every time I agree with a member. Every post I like. It's all censorship. Because it is all attempting to influence the direction of the discussion.

So, by this definition, the way to eliminate censorship is for me to stop using my "power" to influence any discussion between members. I should stop posting. I should stop expressing my opinion. I should refrain from criticizing two members in a discussion. In other words, I should censor myself.

Nice straw man.

When an administrator censures and castigates speech he finds unproductive, it goes beyond mere criticism and disagreement. It's an attempt to use power to control discourse and behavior.

BTW, from your previous post, when you express an opinion, it's to be seen as just an opinion, but when I express an opinion, it's creating drama. Nice double standard.

 

[Millard]

When an administrator censures and castigates speech he finds unproductive, it goes beyond mere criticism and disagreement. It's an attempt to use power to control discourse and behavior.

So censorship = my censure and castigation of unproductive speech (or any type of speech for that matter). Is that an accurate representation of your argument?

Please tell me what "power" I used to censor you?

 

[Gettinbigger76]

I think we are dealing with two highly intelligent individuals who are able to see what the other one is saying, it's the intent that is being questioned. Obviously Millards words are going to have more weight and influence across the board, but that doesn't mean he should be censored himself. There are plenty of members that have stated that the board should be less vulgar and volatile, but unless/until Millard starts deleting/editing posts, his opinions are technically no different than anyone else's. There are vets on here that could sway the same type of vote due to the respect they have earned. I get what CBS's thinking is... It's not about Millard using his powers for good OR bad, it's about them being used at all. The only problem with that is the assumption that Millard is making the statement as an administrator and not as a member with an opinion. (Which is what I took away from it)

Again, I don't think this is an issue of either of you @Millard Baker @CensoredBoardsSuck coming from a bad place, rather 2 individuals coming from 2 different good ones.

 

[tubesox]

Weiner.

 

[Sworder]

Come on sworder name one lab thats all. There is good gear out there iam not saying there isnt.

Name one lab? How can I know of all transactions that has gone on with every lab? I don't, neither do you.

There are plenty of members that have stated that the board should be less vulgar and volatile, but unless/until Millard starts deleting/editing posts, his opinions are technically no different than anyone else's. There are vets on here that could sway the same type of vote due to the respect they have earned. I get what CBS's thinking is...

Millard's words do not hold more weight than anybody else. Millard is posting as a MEMBER and like he said people can ignore what he says or consider the post for what it is worth.

Many others have posted the same thing, the personal attacks and vulgar childish remarks are non-constructive.

Millard suggested having more constructive comments and posts. That's it! CBS's rant is totally out of context. He is feeling embarrassed and trying to save face.

CBS is trying to DEFLECT and THWART this into Millard "using his admin power" which hasn't even happened. CBS will soon stop responding because he cannot back up his statements, which didn't even make sense in the first place. Typically he will resort to personal attacks at this point, but for now I think he will just be quiet to save face as he is obviously severely confused about the situation. Or he may leave a statement "fuck this board, it's obviously being censored" when that has never been the case.

BTW, from your previous post, when you express an opinion, it's to be seen as just an opinion, but when I express an opinion, it's creating drama. Nice double standard.

CBS your post was nonconstructive and you even made it seem like Millard was censoring something which clearly he hasn't. You are creating drama and the sole purpose of the post is just that. Either way, your post is still there and everybody can interpret it the way they want.

Millard can interpret your post however he wants, and you can interpret his post however you want.

Further discussion of the topic will continue to show and provide information to support one side of the argument stronger than the other.

That's the beauty of this board and that's further proof of freedom of speech and lack of censorship.

 

[tubesox]

Weiner.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

So censorship = my censure and castigation of unproductive speech (or any type of speech for that matter). Is that an accurate representation of your argument?

Please tell me what "power" I used to censor you?

I think I see where you're going with this. You're going to argue that my censure and castigation of the speech of others is also censorship. It's a fair point but I'm not an admin. I have no power to wield if I so choose.

The power is the power you have backing up everything you say as an administrator. If I refuse to restrict the speech that you find unacceptable, you could ban me. You didn't say would, nor did you imply you would, but the potential is still there. Members are powerless, you are omnipotent. That creates a huge power imbalance, and with any power imbalance comes a certain amount of intimidation. It's not intentional, it just is. I don't know if you're even aware of it. But it does make your statements, including your censure and castigation, authoritative. Perhaps that's the reason several members stepped forward to tell you that you went about this the wrong way.

Your original statement:

But please spare the members the bullshit of your continued name-calling and rehashing of the topic in every other thread.

The use of the word 'please' doesn't make that statement anything less than a demand - a demand from the administrator. It was an intimidating post even if that wasn't your intent.

We can go back and forth on this all night and end up nowhere. You said you didn't try to censor me. I have no reason to doubt your word so I'll concede that you didn't. But I'm telling you I know what censorship feels like and that was it. Now, you can either accept that I felt you tried to censor me or not. In the end, it makes no difference to me because you cannot deny my feelings. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Sworder]

Edit: Also, you have "no power" is absolutely false. There is tons of power in being an "awesome member" and having a group of friends back you up. Look at the Labmax sales and money thrown down the drain because of you and Brutus' POWER. You have power believe it or not. You are just using it the wrong way and making yourself look bad.

The power is the power you have backing up everything you say as an administrator. If I refuse to restrict the speech that you find unacceptable, you could ban me. You didn't say would, nor did you imply you would, but the potential is still there. Members are powerless, you are omnipotent. That creates a huge power imbalance, and with any power imbalance comes a certain amount of intimidation. It's not intentional, it just is. I don't know if you're even aware of it. But it does make your statements, including your censure and castigation, authoritative. Perhaps that's the reason several members stepped forward to tell you that you went about this the wrong way.

Every time a member gets banned Millard is ALWAYS questioned of why. He receives the largest scrutiny if somebody is banned. But again, this isn't even related to your point.
Millard's question was what has he censored and you refuted with "nothing, but you could"

The use of the word 'please' doesn't make that statement anything less than a demand - a demand from the administrator. It was an intimidating post even if that wasn't your intent.

Hahahahahaha, SELF PROCLAIMED badass and you have brutus next door who is an ex-scammer and criminal(by his own words) is intimidated by an administrator that posts as a member stating "please."
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FUCKING STOP CBS!!!! LOL STOP! @Brutus, you scared too of the computer screen and the word "please?"

We can go back and forth on this all night and end up nowhere. You said you didn't try to censor me. I have no reason to doubt your word so I'll concede that you didn't. But I'm telling you I know what censorship feels like and that was it. Now, you can either accept that I felt you tried to censor me or not. In the end, it makes no difference to me because you cannot deny my feelings. I hope that makes sense.

HAHAHHAHAHHA WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING????

Sorry but this is just too funny and ridiculous for me not to comment about. Also, "pretty please" would be less intimidating for future reference Millard lol.

 

[Sworder]

I also wanted to add, keep in mind how even when somebody deletes their own post Millard gets called and asked what happened.

 

[Millard]

I think I see where you're going with this. You're going to argue that my censure and castigation of the speech of others is also censorship.

No, I'm not. I genuinely wanted to know if this was an accurate representation of your position:

Censorship = my censure and castigation of unproductive speech (or any type of speech for that matter)

The power is the power you have backing up everything you say as an administrator. If I refuse to restrict the speech that you find unacceptable, you could ban me. You didn't say would, nor did you imply you would, but the potential is still there.

The potential for censorship is not censorship.

Earlier you made this claim:

Authority used to impose censorship is even more sinister than deleting posts.

It didn't make sense to me. Are you saying the potential for censorship is worse than actually censorship? How can that be?

The potential for censorship always exists - everywhere. But it is not the same as censorship.

We can go back and forth on this all night and end up nowhere. You said you didn't try to censor me. I have no reason to doubt your word so I'll concede that you didn't. But I'm telling you I know what censorship feels like and that was it. Now, you can either accept that I felt you tried to censor me or not. In the end, it makes no difference to me because you cannot deny my feelings. I hope that makes sense.

Did you really fear I would ban you or delete your posts? Is that why you felt censored? If so, I can't deny your feelings. But I am surprised you of all people would feel this way.

I don't think it is as ambiguous or relative as you suggest. Either you were censored or you were not.

It is not a question of 'accepting your feelings of censorship' vs. 'rejecting your feelings of censorship' because I can't deny your feelings. The question is 'does feeling censored = being censored?'

If you genuinely believe that censorship was imposed, please provide direction on how this can be remedied.

If I restrict my speech and refrain from making observations, comments and criticisms as I did in this particular instance, would it feel less censored?

But if it is the potential for censorship that is the real concern, then it exists with or without my participation in the forum. So what can be done?

 

[I_know_nothing]

Did you read my earlier posts about him running a log for every ugl that would give him free gear for years here at meso?
I didn't think so. There are some who would never Learn. He is a slick writer(talker).I guess it makes him right all the time Or just a slick.
Did you know he ran a log for few of the ugl's that went belly up here?

didn't know that, but let's think about something for a second...

we have several members who say "all UGLs will eventually scam", so then theoretically no matter what sworder runs from a UGL, they will all go belly up, wouldn't they? i think this could be an argument for correlation vs causation. i think the message you may be saying is "sworder has run logs on UGL's that fuck people", i dont think he's necessarily related i.e. sworder running the logs and the UGL"s going "belly up" is just a correlation and not a causation. so then you have to accept either 2 initial assumptions: 1. all UGLs go belly up, 2. not all UGLs go belly up.

in assumption 1, of course sworder runs logs for UGL's that go belly up, they all do! so now the message "dont run logs on UGL's that fuck people...i.e. all UGLs" so let's all just run "private labs". that adds little value when every single member is running private labs. suddenly, new labs are tested and old UGLs are kept in check. with no one running logs and running reports, UGLs are going to get away with shit.

in assumption 2, sworder's point exactly, not all UGLs fuck people.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

The potential for censorship is not censorship.

By potential, I meant the potential to ban a member for refusing to self-censor is always looming in the background, even though banning is/was unlikely.

It didn't make sense to me. Are you saying the potential for censorship is worse than actually censorship? How can that be?

No, that was regarding my comment that "Authority used to impose censorship is even more sinister than deleting posts." What I meant was using authority to scold members (to make them acquiesce to any admin demand) is worse than just censoring the member by deleting their posts because they're being forced to participate in their own censorship.

The potential for censorship always exists - everywhere. But it is not the same as censorship.

Agreed.

Did you really fear I would ban you or delete your posts? Is that why you felt censored? If so, I can't deny your feelings. But I am surprised you of all people would feel this way.

No, of course not. You asked what power you used to censor and I was trying to show how an admin could use power - intentionally or not - to censor or force self-censorship, and how the power imbalance can lead to a sense or feeling of intimidation. Nothing more. You seemed unaware that admin power could be perceived as threatening without actually threatening someone.

I don't think it is as ambiguous or relative as you suggest. Either you were censored or you were not.

I wasn't censored, it looked like you were asking me to self-censor. You said you weren't and I've accepted that.

It is not a question of accepting your feelings of censorship vs. rejecting your feelings of censorship because I can't deny your feelings. The question is does feeling censored = being censored.

No.

If I restrict my speech and refrain from making observations, comments and criticisms as I did in this particular instance, would it feel less censored?

You have a right to voice your observations, comments and criticisms - I'm not disputing that. I wouldn't even want you to do that. In this particular instance, your observations, comments and criticisms felt like a demand to immediately cease the speech you found unproductive. I see now that that wasn't the case but that's how it felt at the time. Spend enough time in the underground and every post starts to look like an attack. That's how I took your post.

I tried to use qualifiers in my OP like "I believe," "I now see," etc. etc. to avoid giving the impression that Meso WAS using censorship, but looking back at the post, it was ambiguous enough that my comments could be seen as an accusation. That wasn't my intent and for that I apologize. I was simply trying to express how and why I felt like I was being asked to self-censor. I don't know if any of this makes sense but the bottom line is that you didn't censor me and I didn't censor myself because you didn't ask even though I wouldn't have self-censored myself anyway, because Meso is an uncensored forum where everyone hates censorship including me and you. No one was censored.

 

[Kinikuman]

I tried to use qualifiers in my OP like "I believe," "I now see," etc. etc. to avoid giving the impression that Meso WAS using censorship, but looking back at the post, it was ambiguous enough that my comments could be seen as an accusation. That wasn't my intent and for that I apologize. I was simply trying to express how and why I felt like I was being asked to self-censor. I don't know if any of this makes sense but the bottom line is that you didn't censor me and I didn't censor myself because you didn't ask even though I wouldn't have self-censored myself anyway, because Meso is an uncensored forum where everyone hates censorship including me and you. No one was censored.

That sounded a lot like President Merkin Muffley talking to Premier Kissov...

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

That sounded a lot like President Merkin Muffley talking to Premier Kissov...

I watched Dr. Strangelove again the other night.

 

[Kinikuman]

I watched Dr. Strangelove again the other night.

Watch your precious fluids... Loss of essence can have potentially serious ramifications.

P.O.E.