Readalots Enhanced Testing

[Millard]

I think @Excel.exe is pointing out the fact that the line between source board and harm reduction is quite blurred. I think @Millard is telling the truth that the intent is harm reduction. Now let’s speak plainly then. Is Millard 100% accurate or forthcoming that this is truly harm reduction and members have full control over sources and they are just a necessary vendor, no. It’s a business, he isn’t independently rich and this is a just cause and hobby he’s decided to dedicate his life to, he has business and harm reduction is his intent but he also wants to run a successful business. He needs sources and they will always be here, he hopes members help thin the heard so ones that remain are better and reduce harm and help profits. As members we need sources too unless we are all just going to use the forum to learn how to home brew ourselves and yet then we still need raw sources and distributors. There’s no way around it.

Is Millard all benevolent and altruistic, no. Can we expect him to be, no. He’s running a business that we try to take part in and enjoy and try to make better. Perhaps he and we can be more open and honest about it but we will never have this utopia board so let’s work together to make this one as good as we can.

I appreciate the conciliatory tone. I've done my best to articulate my vision for a harm reduction forum and its fundamental differences from a source forum. The differences are very clear if you read my writings on the topic over the years. It is a very principled approach.

I recognize that in actual practice, many people are actively seeking to turn this forum into a source forum as I've described. The goal for many is to ban sources rather than promote the objective of holding sources accountable in a harm reduction forum. If holding sources accountable results in the sources' departure so be it. However, the endpoint should always be accountability. This is how success should be judged on a harm reduction forum.

There have been some unforeseen challenges where customers join sources to defend them against members trying to hold the sources accountable. This pits members against other members rather than being united to scrutiny source product/practices. This doesn't resemble harm reduction in the slightest.

At the same time, this presents an incredible opportunity for education, to reach out to those members where they are at, and inform them of the risks involved with the products/services they are using. Some will listen. Some will resist. But harm reduction advocates should keep trying.

I recognize this is a lot to ask and I'm sad to see many members give up on the forum. Continually warning consumers and holding sources accountable becomes exhausting when the people you are trying to help regularly reject your message and the sources show little inclination to changing. It is nice to have some measure of success and I understand that seeing a source get banned provides that.

I always hoped people would work with me to improve the harm reduction forum model. There is a lot of polarization and tribalism in modern day discourse. And I shouldn't be surprised that online steroid discussion forums are any different.

I am encouraged as some expressed interest in work for the betterment of MESO and I hope many more will in the future.

 

[FastBun]

And yet you still think Meso isn’t a source board. I remember being that delusional, but in my case I had been a part of this place when it was a far cry from a source board and one day woke up and realized my environment had changed. How many members do you know of that can dox someone and get even one more chance? When was the last time you saw a source banned or perma banned?

I personally believe that all those guys were banned along with BBBG to make way for sponsors as not terribly long after all the guys who held the sources to the fire were gone sponsors appeared. That wouldn’t have went down as easily as it did had those guys been here. I mean, it’s Millard’s board and he can and will do as he wants but trust me there would have been some very opinionated discussions on the matter to say the least.

You guys that weren’t here for it, do you ever think and wonder, what could have fired up all those members enough to get banned? Naps threatened to dox and send hot packs to members. You can’t imagine the shit storm that caused. Truly you can’t because it’s a different breed of members. It was more of a brotherhood then and if a source made a threat to a one of us, oh boy you’re in for it now, here comes all my brothers. FYI…Millard recently said that Naps is actually still a vendor here but has chosen to stay inactive btw.

Anywho, wake up and be aware of your surroundings. Meso is now designed for members to do testing and to leave reviews.

That’s biggest problem… we aren’t united fighting for same cause… we protect sources more than each other… why??? We need guys that know their shit and puts these sources ass to the fire… we don’t have that…perfect example I always bring up I axle… but everytime my comments get buried and he replies w/some slick comment… keeps selling and nothing happens…I’m sure that’s who @narta was reff to… qsc if they doxed someone 3x why are they still being able to source here? @Millard ain’t that part of harm reduction???

 

[T-Bagger]

It is nice to have some measure of success and I understand that seeing a source get banned provides that.

I wasn’t here when it all went down, but is it not true that QSC was banned 3x yet was allowed to remain here? Why would they be given this preferential treatment? I heard they doxed someone and threatened to dox others. Why were they allowed to remain here after that?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

That’s biggest problem… we aren’t united fighting for same cause… we protect sources more than each other… why??

There are people you can not like because of their behavior, constantly quoting themselves from past threads, need for self-glorification, or you just don't like their face.

They lose credibility when it seems like there is another motive.(Loving to hear themself speak, getting praise from people on in Internet cause it's non existent in real life)

When they fight for things, spamming threads with what we would consider nonsense, it gets worse.

Now someone is still linking threads, trying to constantly apologize despite multiple online meltdowns, and he is trying to re-invite old members for God knows what reason.

I never understood the point of linking posts/threads in other forums like this. It just seems ridiculous.

 

[T-Bagger]

There are people you can not like because of their behavior, constantly quoting themselves from past threads, need for self-glorification, or you just don't like their face.

They lose credibility when it seems like there is another motive.(Loving to hear themself speak, getting praise from people on in Internet cause it's non existent in real life)

When they fight for things, spamming threads with what we would consider nonsense, it gets worse.

Now someone is still linking threads, trying to constantly apologize despite multiple online meltdowns, and he is trying to re-invite old members for God knows what reason.

I never understood the point of linking posts/threads in other forums like this. It just seems ridiculous.

Quit the passive aggressive BS and just call me out by name, it’s not that hard!

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Quit the passive aggressive BS and just call me out by name, it’s not that hard!

Ban @T-Bagger #goalof2025

 

[iris]

and he is trying to re-invite old members for God knows what reason

I see it that he tried to connect with somebody that was really trying to bring up issues and doing the right thing.
Having read some of the gentleman's you mention posts, I don't think he had a personal agenda or need of glorification you say Readalot has.
But he was exasperated by the lack of response and being targeted by people that did seem to have an agenda, in terms of that source staying here despite rule breaking.
Unless you think otherwise, that it was right for no ban to be imposed and that he was not acting genuinely.
I see no harm in communicating with somebody that was being a positive influence, here, and that was wronged, to show him sympathy an understanding.
Him being shown appreciation and being asked to return does not aggrieve me.


That you don't like the links to the other forum, ok.
But I thought most of them were posted on this thread.
One can do as they wish, on their own thing, imo. No?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

That you don't like the links to the other forum, ok.
But I thought most of them were posted on this thread.
One can do as they wish, on their own thing, imo. No?

Ultimately. They can do whatever they want. It's a free forum, again. There are plenty of reasons I can just not like someone.

 

[AlexDavis43]

There are people you can not like because of their behavior, constantly quoting themselves from past threads, need for self-glorification, or you just don't like their face.

They lose credibility when it seems like there is another motive.(Loving to hear themself speak, getting praise from people on in Internet cause it's non existent in real life)

When they fight for things, spamming threads with what we would consider nonsense, it gets worse.

Now someone is still linking threads, trying to constantly apologize despite multiple online meltdowns, and he is trying to re-invite old members for God knows what reason.

I never understood the point of linking posts/threads in other forums like this. It just seems ridiculous.

The constant self-quoting and cross-pollinating is weird. Sometimes a reply from the same page is quoted on that page, or on one of their other threads.

To further bump the thread? Ego thing? I don't know. Maybe really gunning for an increase in status label.

You see this kind of behavior on twitter. On there, it's follower count (I guess kinda like that here too in some regards).

 

[iris]

The constant self-quoting and cross-pollinating is weird. Sometimes a reply from the same page is quoted on that page, or on one of their other threads.

To further bump the thread? Ego thing? I don't know. Maybe really gunning for an increase in status label.

You see this kind of behavior on twitter. On there, it's follower count (I guess kinda like that here too in some regards).

You also do not think he was genuinely interested in connecting with someone who had a similar way of seeing things, with regards to a source here.
Nevermind you found it annoying, that's OK.
It was just an ego thing.

I do not know his intentions but that is the way I want to look at it and I am only referring to posting links from the other forum (so what you call cross pollinating), with the response from the member who had decided to leave Meso.

 

[Stealth500]

don't like their face.

 

[Millard]

I personally believe that all those guys were banned along with BBBG to make way for sponsors as not terribly long after all the guys who held the sources to the fire were gone sponsors appeared.

This is blatantly and indisputably false. Why would anyone say this especially you?

The sponsor-supported revenue model was in place for over 20 years prior to that incident. The sponsors were already there for literally decades. They didn't suddenly appear.

I wasn't sure how to react or respond and still am not. This one of those things so obviously untrue that everyone should know it, especially you. I don't want to assume the worst regarding your motives. So I will just ask you.

But maybe it is just an honest mistake on your part?

Maybe someone else told you this and you believed it?

Maybe you really did think this was true?

I find your false statement extremely disappointing. You are someone that is respected and has a lot of influence in the community. Misstatements like this are readily believed by your followers. And the misinformation is not easily corrected even with a retraction.

 

[Millard]

I wasn’t here when it all went down, but is it not true that QSC was banned 3x yet was allowed to remain here? Why would they be given this preferential treatment? I heard they doxed someone and threatened to dox others. Why were they allowed to remain here after that?

As far as the hard rule that 3 temporary bans automatically result in a permanent ban is concerned, the so-called "3 strikes and you're out" rule was used as a guide for an extended period.

MESO departed from this guidance starting maybe 5+ years ago for various reasons but in no small part due to the tendency of many members to seek getting sources banned rather than holding them accountable.

In addition, the addition of numerous restrictions upon sources in recent years -- no active hyperlinks, posting outside Underground/Analytics subforum, no promotional/marketing banners/graphics, no pricelists -- resulted in a lot of bans for administrative reasons and not necessarily product/service accountability.

QSC was not the first and not the only one to have 3 or more bans. There was no preferential treatment. Why would there be?

As far as doxxing is concerned, this is a serious issue.

I consider any posting of unredacted tracking information as unacceptable due to the location information contained within. This isn't always obvious to many members or sources.

They don't consider to disclosure of things like the country they live or state/province/region, or even the city as worrisome. It may not be close to the seriousness of publicly posting name and address details. It still should not be done.

The posting of tracking information happens far too often. Maybe there is no intention to doxx but the end result is the same - private information about a member has been disclosed.

Even customers regularly do this - probably at least 25-50 in the last year alone. The reveal location data about source operations. And more concerning, they voluntarily disclose personal info about themselves.

I think most sources probably share tracking information as a means of providing customer service. Yet it doesn't really matter as it still shows utter disregard for consumer privacy. And several have been banned for this.

Sometimes sources make their intentions known with explicit threats of doxxing with tracking information.

Actual disclosure of personal information, whether doxxing or not, may be worse than a mere threat. However, an unrealized threat can cause harm too.

The purpose of the threat is often to suppress and discourage members from speaking out and criticizing a source. It is one of many ways sources seek to suppress public criticism.

In general, sources are are only temporarily banned for posting tracking information. The permanent bans are reserved from those who show a pattern of repeatedly breaking the rules especially after being warned or those who fully doxx members with name/address details.

 

[Millard]

Let the community to cast a vote on banning a vendor or not, if he engages in harm behavior, like floaters, false advertising (underdosed gear, mixed up apis etc), shilling via alt accounts, dealing high abuse potential substances like narcotics and does nothing to correct it.

Fair enough. Maybe THAT is what we need Millard's opinion on (though I'm sure there are pitfalls..I guess democracy is what I was raised on...lol).

I do think that the active banishment still runs antithetical to what Millard had stated as a vision (which I realize perhaps leaves others to wonder about financial incentives etc...)

Or perhaps even a separate thread to discuss the merits of actively voting or banning and pitfalls etc.

I guess my thought has always been less regulation, the better (at least when it comes to the government). But we can't get bogged down in my lowly opinion as one man.

Sad thing is, the true community that would want them gone would be out voted, as already experienced. The shills and the little Reddit punks and all the cheap gear lovers shut down the voices of those who wished to run off the likes of QSC.

I think @T-Bagger identifies the big problem with the democratic "let's decide who to vote off the island" approach. The source with the largest market share and most customers on the forum would probably end up winning.

Based on what I've seen, the parasocial relationships between customers and sources could undermine harm reduction if it came to a democratic vote. These relationships create biases that prioritize their loyalty to the source over objective accountability.

Are the true advocates of harm reduction outnumbered on this forum at this point in time?

Probably true given what goes on in some of the most popular source threads. It seems like there is an obvious divide between those loyal to the principles of harm reduction and those loyal to specific sources.

So, this is one reason I disagree with the "voting off the island" approach as the best way to manage source (mis)behavior).

But even if the parasocial relationships and undisclosed agendas were not an issue. I don't this the "voting off the island" approach is best.

Sure, it seems like a straightforward way to foster accountability and harm reduction. But I think it is more counterproductive than helpful.

I've been saying repeatedly that MESO is a harm reduction forum and not a source forum. I've done my best to explain this distinction.

Transparency is a cornerstone of harm reduction.

And the best way to transparently monitor sources is to keep them visible even if it means taking the "controversial" step of allowing bad sources to remain in the community. It ensures that their actions are exposed to public scrutiny and their actions/products/services can be continually evaluated the community.

The bad sources don't disappear when you vote them off the island. They go to source forums where they are protected from criticism - and their customers follow them there where they are censored for criticizing or otherwise holding the sources accountable.

Better to keep them on MESO where they will never be protected from criticism and customers will always be free to criticize.

 

[BigTomJ]

Are the true advocates of harm reduction outnumbered on this forum at this point in time?

yes, without a doubt.
Probably 10/1

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

yes, without a doubt.
Probably 10/1

agreed

 

[bigMoJo]

Are the true advocates of harm reduction outnumbered on this forum at this point in time?

yes, without a doubt.
Probably 10/1

If we look at it in the most practical sense... it's not about harm reduction... it's about "price reduction."

The majority who would vote against harm reduction would do so really because of the incredibly low prices of products. Not just oils, but the vast selection of all the other low-priced raws, hGH & powders.

GLP's are an entirely new and giant market now. Their cost at the pharmacy and legal clinics is 10 to 20 times that of UGL, vs 2 to 3 times UGL when comparing TRT clinics and oils.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

If we look at it in the most practical sense... it's not about harm reduction... it's about "price reduction."

The majority who would vote against harm reduction would do so really because of the incredibly low prices of products. Not just oils, but the vast selection of all the other low-priced raws, hGH & powders.

GLP's are an entirely new and giant market now. Their cost at the pharmacy and legal clinics is 10 to 20 times that of UGL, vs 2 to 3 times UGL when comparing TRT clinics and oils.

Not only that. I truly believe GLP drugs can help majority of people's health out t there

 

[Liter O' Test]

If we look at it in the most practical sense... it's not about harm reduction... it's about "price reduction."

The majority who would vote against harm reduction would do so really because of the incredibly low prices of products. Not just oils, but the vast selection of all the other low-priced raws, hGH & powders.

GLP's are an entirely new and giant market now. Their cost at the pharmacy and legal clinics is 10 to 20 times that of UGL, vs 2 to 3 times UGL when comparing TRT clinics and oils.

no, people keep repeating that people want the cheapest stuff, like thats some excuse or reason, but thats just repeating a shill talking point and has nothing to do with testing.

the only reason harm reduction is outnumbered is because millard doesn't ban the shills, and there are 80 iq people that identify with the shills, or are catfished by the shills.

 

[Ateam2023]

Not only that. I truly believe GLP drugs can help majority of people's health out t there

i agree , if only they could "prescribe" glp drugs "for obese" people specifically, instead of most insurance companies not covering those type of drugs for that specific condition, it would help more people in the grand scheme of "a healthier world" and not a bunch of "Fat Karen soccer moms" running around in leggins,,,,,,