XENO PHARMACEUTICALS Domestic Source

[biggerben69]

Well you're entitled to your opinion, im not having him do anything, but if you would like to believe that i cant stop you.

I only gave the information that was requested regarding my handle. I didnt hint at anything i answered a question.

I asked this on ugbb as well but didnt recieve a response, you keep claiming you "know" my handle and you stated it was @SpartacusOmega but you havent produced any type of evidence linking me to him, which you should have more than a decent amount of since your claiming to know?

You both come off as pretentious assholes. I'm not launching an investigation.
Evidence? It's a dull ache in my atrophied left nut. My body and it's
physiological response to different stimuli is something I've come to have a firm grasp of.
Evidence? Hmmm...if you were important enough or if I had the urge to do anything besides what I'm doing at this very moment and beyond concerning you, I would.
An analogy would perhaps be something like comparing the burden of truth necessary for a verdict in a criminal case as opposed to a civil proceeding.
A lab or person of significance would be the criminal proceeding and if I were to post all over every board I could log onto that strango gear was actually Chanel Body spray in vials with no hormone. Having the reputation the man has I'd prepare as if I was prosecuting a death penalty case with the burden of proof being all mine.
You, xeno/spartaca omega are the civil case where I seek judgement in the form of recompense after I decided your service not as advertised when my morning reading cannot commence until you arrive at 7:40 and I am used to starting at 7:30 and you sold me on delivering at daybreak. You say it just isn't true...I say it is. I bring 3 witnesses comprised of 3 young ladies that are regular overnight guests. They testify that with my old service they would fetch the paper for me off the front porch at 7am. You say they are obviously dick drunk and would say anything I tell them to. There it is. I'm paid. You're embarrassed and out of business.

 

[1fnprick]

What's up Ben my brother!
If I had the test I would have no problem sending it.

 

[Xeno Pharmaceuticals]

You both come off as pretentious assholes. I'm not launching an investigation.
Evidence? It's a dull ache in my atrophied left nut. My body and it's
physiological response to different stimuli is something I've come to have a firm grasp of.
Evidence? Hmmm...if you were important enough or if I had the urge to do anything besides what I'm doing at this very moment and beyond concerning you, I would.
An analogy would perhaps be something like comparing the burden of truth necessary for a verdict in a criminal case as opposed to a civil proceeding.
A lab or person of significance would be the criminal proceeding and if I were to post all over every board I could log onto that strango gear was actually Chanel Body spray in vials with no hormone. Having the reputation the man has I'd prepare as if I was prosecuting a death penalty case with the burden of proof being all mine.
You, xeno/spartaca omega are the civil case where I seek judgement in the form of recompense after I decided your service not as advertised when my morning reading cannot commence until you arrive at 7:40 and I am used to starting at 7:30 and you sold me on delivering at daybreak. You say it just isn't true...I say it is. I bring 3 witnesses comprised of 3 young ladies that are regular overnight guests. They testify that with my old service they would fetch the paper for me off the front porch at 7am. You say they are obviously dick drunk and would say anything I tell them to. There it is. I'm paid. You're embarrassed and out of business.

Its fine that you might not care to investigate but that doesnt mean you get to lie and say "I know" in order to make accusations based upon that claim when in-fact you far from know.

Like you said you didnt care to investigate. Its pretty easy to type "i think" "i bet" "im pretty sure" or "i have an ache in my nuts" but instead you chose "I know" multiple times even, to make it seem as though you had some type of evidence, which you've just admitted you don't

Saying "i know" is a precise and definitive claim always implying there is overwhelming evidence to substantiate it, especially when attempting to discredit someone.

There are only three options upon addmision of not actually knowing after saying you in-fact did,
1. You lied
2. You truly think your guess is fact
3. Its been established with both boards that when bb69 says "i know" it does not mean he knows, it could mean "i guess" and he elected to say "i know" in place of "i guess" this time.

2. and 3. should obviously be thrown out but ill let you answer.

Don't belittle the whole thing and then go with 3. by implying "you didnt mean you really knew", that will look worse.

A lie to the people might be in the name of the people with all of the good intentions in the world, but a lie is a lie and that should be taken seriously, especially when people trust you to get their information from.

Hope we can end this
XENO

 

[dbolman]

Its fine that you might not care to investigate but that doesnt mean you get to lie and say "I know" in order to make accusations based upon that claim when in-fact you far from know.

Like you said you didnt care to investigate. Its pretty easy to type "i think" "i bet" "im pretty sure" or "i have an ache in my nuts" but instead you chose "I know" multiple times even, to make it seem as though you had some type of evidence, which you've just admitted you don't

Saying "i know" is a precise and definitive claim always implying there is overwhelming evidence to substantiate it, especially when attempting to discredit someone.

There are only three options upon addmision of not actually knowing after saying you in-fact did,
1. You lied
2. You truly think your guess is fact
3. Its been established with both boards that when bb69 says "i know" it does not mean he knows, it could mean "i guess" and he elected to say "i know" in place of "i guess" this time.

2. and 3. should obviously be thrown out but ill let you answer.

Don't belittle the whole thing and then go with 3. by implying "you didnt mean you really knew", that will look worse.

A lie to the people might be in the name of the people with all of the good intentions in the world, but a lie is a lie and that should be taken seriously, especially when people trust you to get their information from.

Hope we can end this
XENO

Stretch? Is that you? Haven't seen you in a while bud.

 

[retpsd]

Saying "i know" is a precise and definitive claim always implying there is overwhelming evidence to substantiate it, especially when attempting to discredit someone.
XENO

Is that because BB69 needs to be "100% confident" when he says "I know"....ah WAIT, he should have said "I'm "100% confident"....that would have permitted him to use the "Xeno intrinsic to human" loophole.....or is that only applicable to a Xeno spin?

I'm sure you'll explain to all of us the proper difference in saying "I know" verses "I'm 100% confident" as well as their proper usage in self-validation as apposed to discrediting others....you condescending, double talking ass clown.

 

[MindlessWork]

Its fine that you might not care to investigate but that doesnt mean you get to lie and say "I know" in order to make accusations based upon that claim when in-fact you far from know.

Like you said you didnt care to investigate. Its pretty easy to type "i think" "i bet" "im pretty sure" or "i have an ache in my nuts" but instead you chose "I know" multiple times even, to make it seem as though you had some type of evidence, which you've just admitted you don't

Saying "i know" is a precise and definitive claim always implying there is overwhelming evidence to substantiate it, especially when attempting to discredit someone.

There are only three options upon addmision of not actually knowing after saying you in-fact did,
1. You lied
2. You truly think your guess is fact
3. Its been established with both boards that when bb69 says "i know" it does not mean he knows, it could mean "i guess" and he elected to say "i know" in place of "i guess" this time.

2. and 3. should obviously be thrown out but ill let you answer.

Don't belittle the whole thing and then go with 3. by implying "you didnt mean you really knew", that will look worse.

A lie to the people might be in the name of the people with all of the good intentions in the world, but a lie is a lie and that should be taken seriously, especially when people trust you to get their information from.

Hope we can end this
XENO

Damn that took a lot of guts to post. Getting feisty are we, Xeno? BB69 is a respected vet here and he knows how people like you roll.

 

[Xeno Pharmaceuticals]

Is that because BB69 needs to be "100% confident" when he says "I know"....ah WAIT, he should have said "I'm "100% confident"....that would have permitted him to use the "Xeno intrinsic to human" loophole.....or is that only applicable to a Xeno spin?

I'm sure you'll explain to all of us the proper difference in saying "I know" verses "I'm 100% confident" as well as their proper usage in self-validation as apposed to discrediting others....you condescending, double talking ass clown.

No i never said you need to be 100% confident when saying "i know"

I said you should have "overwhelming evidence", or hell at least an ounce of evidence? He wasnt even near knowing, he admitted such and you all know that he said he did.

Is that not a lie?

 

[Big_paul]

Still twisting the fail safe linear cash flow theory, huh?

Lmao

 

[Docd187123]

No i never said you need to be 100% confident when saying "i know"

I said you should have "overwhelming evidence", or hell at least an ounce of evidence. He wasnt even near knowing and he admitted such and you all know that he said he did.

Is that not a lie?

How is it you're spitting out semantics over Ben's post saying "he knows" who you are and ask for evidence when you state "I can say with 100% confidence that will never happen" regarding someone getting injured by your gear? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either stand by your comment and cease using the semantics over Ben's post or if you want to stick to semantics on Ben's post then you must also apply it to yours n

 

[retpsd]

How is it you're spitting out semantics over Ben's post saying "he knows" who you are and ask for evidence when you state "I can say with 100% confidence that will never happen" regarding someone getting injured by your gear? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either stand by your comment and cease using the semantics over Ben's post or if you want to stick to semantics on Ben's post then you must also apply it to yours n

Ex-fucking-actly!
Spot on sir!

 

[Xeno Pharmaceuticals]

How is it you're spitting out semantics over Ben's post saying "he knows" who you are and ask for evidence when you state "I can say with 100% confidence that will never happen" regarding someone getting injured by your gear? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either stand by your comment and cease using the semantics over Ben's post or if you want to stick to semantics on Ben's post then you must also apply it to yours n

You're right I shouldnt have said 100% or never but i was not intending it as a lie. It really was a figure of speech becuase i know thats impossible, just like everyone else.

Ben did intend to decieve people into thinking he had evidence at first, thats obvious and thats not semantics.

Saying you know when all you have is a terrible guess, thats deceptive.

 

[Docd187123]

You're right I shouldnt have said 100% or never but i was not intending it as a lie. It really was a figure of speech becuase i know thats impossible, just like everyone else.

Ben did intend to decieve people into thinking he had evidence at first, thats obvious and thats not semantics.

Applying your same logic, Ben did not intend to deceive ppl. He said he knows who you are as a figure of speech.

Or using the other side of the argument, Ben did try to deceive ppl but so did you by throwing the 100% claim out there hinting at it could never happen.

You're changing your logic depending on who is talking. Not kosher

 

[insertnamehere]

You see @Xeno Pharmaceuticals , I'm not the only one observing you twist and turn your statements to fit your agenda.

 

[Xeno Pharmaceuticals]

Applying your same logic, Ben did not intend to deceive ppl. He said he knows who you are as a figure of speech.

Or using the other side of the argument, Ben did try to deceive ppl but so did you by throwing the 100% claim out there hinting at it could never happen.

You're changing your logic depending on who is talking. Not kosher

Im not changing logic, 100% is always a figure of speech when there is clear room for human error. "i know" is not always a figure of speech especially in the context in which it was used and thus the difference.

"i know" always implies some form of evidence and usually a lot of it.

You seem like your pretty good at reading a situation so ill ask your opinion.

If ben says he knows my other handle and proceeds to bash that handle, i ask him for evidence he then dodges the question, several days later he says he knows a second time on a seperate board and i ask for evidence again, he provides none.

What was ben's intention and was he being deceptive?

I think he wanted to make it look as if he had evidence to back up his claim and used his status to his advantage knowing everyone would believe him outright. He could have easily said "i think becuase" instead he said "i know" and left it at that.

 

[iintensity]

Its fine that you might not care to investigate but that doesnt mean you get to lie and say "I know" in order to make accusations based upon that claim when in-fact you far from know.

Like you said you didnt care to investigate. Its pretty easy to type "i think" "i bet" "im pretty sure" or "i have an ache in my nuts" but instead you chose "I know" multiple times even, to make it seem as though you had some type of evidence, which you've just admitted you don't

Saying "i know" is a precise and definitive claim always implying there is overwhelming evidence to substantiate it, especially when attempting to discredit someone.

There are only three options upon addmision of not actually knowing after saying you in-fact did,
1. You lied
2. You truly think your guess is fact
3. Its been established with both boards that when bb69 says "i know" it does not mean he knows, it could mean "i guess" and he elected to say "i know" in place of "i guess" this time.

2. and 3. should obviously be thrown out but ill let you answer.

Don't belittle the whole thing and then go with 3. by implying "you didnt mean you really knew", that will look worse.

A lie to the people might be in the name of the people with all of the good intentions in the world, but a lie is a lie and that should be taken seriously, especially when people trust you to get their information from.

Hope we can end this
XENO

Im not changing logic, 100% is always a figure of speech when there is clear room for human error. "i know" is not always a figure of speech especially in the context in which it was used and thus the difference.

"i know" always implies some form of evidence and usually a lot of it.

You seem like your pretty good at reading a situation so ill ask your opinion.

If ben says he knows my other handle and proceeds to bash that handle, i ask him for evidence he then dodges the question, several days later he says he knows a second time on a seperate board and i ask for evidence again, he provides none.

What was ben's intention and was he being deceptive?

I think he wanted to make it look as if he had evidence to back up his claim and used his status to his advantage knowing everyone would believe him outright. He could have easily said "i think becuase" instead he said "i know" and left it at that.

I give your essays a "D-". I'll give you a pass for the effort.

 

[Xeno Pharmaceuticals]

I give your essays a "D-". I'll give you a pass for the effort.

I wasn't even expecting to pass haha thanks man.

(This is sincere btw)

 

[biggerben69]

I don't and didn't intend to deceive. If you aren't the nobody i say you are then you are someone just as non important here and in the Community.
You walk outside and you are run down dead nothing is different here. Nobody cares if your xeno or omega or whomever.
Strango dies there is a buzz. Same with yours truly. I may send you a bill for showing up as i am doing. The same rules that apply to xeno do not apply to me. Fair or not it's how it is. I've earned it.

 

[Xeno Pharmaceuticals]

I don't and didn't intend to deceive. If you aren't the nobody i say you are then you are someone just as non important here and in the Community.
You walk outside and you are run down dead nothing is different here. Nobody cares if your xeno or omega or whomever.
Strango dies there is a buzz. Same with yours truly. I may send you a bill for showing up as i am doing. The same rules that apply to xeno do not apply to me. Fair or not it's how it is. I've earned it.

Thats dangerous territory but if anyone can earn that right i agree it would be you. I just dont think anyone can or should.

Let me just state i dont think you are a "liar" persay but if its something you feel is for the good of the community you will bend the truth and like i said above no matter who it is thats dangerous when accepted.

 

[biggerben69]

You wont tell us who you are because you will leave us owing members money. You heard it here first or last....whatever. You want to be anonymous "just in case."

 

[biggerben69]

Thats dangerous territory but if anyone can earn that right i agree it would be you. I just dont think anyone can or should.

Many feel that way...means very little. My real ID is knowm by most everyone that needs to ....probably 100 members here could tell you my name...my addresss and what i drive, no. I change bi monthly.