Thank you. Somehow my earnest discussion on AAS product impurities and improved testing became "heavy metals". Perhaps to "straw man" or simplify the discussion? I can't be sure of the motives.
But you are right I should be more mindful in discussions here. I will try to do better.
More details in these threads
Not just "heavy metals" for the 14,569th time LOL.
I wanted to reply to this, for ages (your reply to my quick welcome back message) so here it comes, now that, for the next few days, I have all the time in the world to do it.
When I saw you post again, I could not believe it and my excited but hasty welcome back note was certainly not as obsequious as it could/should have been.
Yes, I did "go there" with the testing (having first written enhanced, I then changed it, thinking it was a more recognisable term; my bad).
Not just "heavy metals" for the 14,569th time LOL.
Indeed.
So, in a way it was a facetious "simplification", as you say.
But it was not meant in a derisory or disrespectful way, at all.
If it came across that way, considering how brief the message was, I apologise.
Obviously, though, the testing was mentioned for a reason.
I joined here and you left, so I did not get to enjoy you, first time round.
But I did come across your latest posts, at the time, and then went and read many more.
I found a cultured, curious, principled man, passionate about sharing knowledge, in general, but also about discussing harm reduction from a very specific point of view.
Everyone knows the way those discussions were conducted lead to resentment and antagonism.
Many people appreciated and supported you. Just as many were inimical.
I will stand corrected, but my overall impression was that people felt brow beaten by the way the enhanced testing agenda was used, by someone they thought had no skin in the game.
Maybe, the issue was the way it was delivered: members thought the relentless, uncompromising stance was denying space to individuals who refused its premises and were unwilling to engage with it.
Anyone homebrewing, for instance, is just as passionate and excited about it as you are about harm reduction and testing.
But I think they felt disrespected and that you used your "spiel" as a stick.
When one feels intense passion about something, it is easy to overreact or over- reach, so even the best intentions assume a different form.
I do this kind of thing too often, unfortunately.
From my point of view, although I can understand the frustration, I can also see that behind your insistence there was (is) a true passion to reach out and make a change, regardless of the judgment people have of its merits.
It is meant to benefit the community and beyond, it is not a show of empty egotism, which you were accused of.
The deep insights you brought about specific facets of the discussions on anabolics signal how important all this is to you and that it is part of who you are.
But it is not "Readalot" and you are much more than that.
There is so much about you and the big heart you have, they way you have always helped members and their issues with your vast knowledge, without judgement, often the first to intervene and show genuine interest or concern.
When I wrote testing was "old news", I certainly knew that was not the case, but I was also hoping for a renewed approach.
I know, a lol and a single sentence did not say all this.
Lol.
Everyone welcomed you back with open arms and rightly so.
You are an incredible human being and you were missed by many, myself included.
It's brilliant you are back, sharing your magnificent self with us all.