Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic

[gobig2]

Wow huge dif in getting a list via email vs whatsapp... Email took days Whatsapp took minutes

 

[egruberman]

I've never used primobolan in my life, I'm curious to see if it's superior to masteron or the same

Primo is a suicide AI, which I think is more predictable once one understands how their body response. Mast is a SERM, works for some, less for others and to me seems less predictable in dose response with regard to how it controls e2. Primo is theoretically more anabolic.

There are people with a lot more experience than me that prefer mast, though. For either compound there seems to be a lot of individual variation and one needs to figure out how their body reacts to it.

 

[MadaFacor]

I wish QSC made some liquid orals. Perhaps some liquid orals using Orasweet in, like maybe 100ml plastic bottles. We could dose them with an oral syringe. If QSC made liquid orals, he'd sell a ton as some of us don't always want to mess with purchasing raws.

Your wish might come true. Tracy has been hinting at new releases that will make QSC a one stop shop.

 

[Darkesthour]

Placed a order, paid, and sent confirmation Jan 29:

People who placed orders around the same time have y’all got any updates? Or tracking?

Not trying to sound impatient: this was just a large order and would like to know if anyone around that time has updates

Or if Tracy could chime in on any orders previous to that date have also yet to ship

-thanks

 

[LooseGoose]

I couldn't disagree more. In the world of legitimate international commerce, the vendor would treat you the exact same way.

We call the rules that govern shipments of goods "Incoterms", and it determines who is responsible for the goods at what point in the chain of custody from shipper to receiver.

By foregoing shipping insurance, you willfully selected CPT terms -- in other words, once the goods were tendered to the carrier, QSC's responsibility ended.

QSC explicitly offered DAP terms via reship insurance, which you declined, so in fact it is you who is now repudiating your negotiated contract. QSC fully and faithfully executed their obligations.

Don't accept risk of loss that you aren't prepared to bear. Consider it an expensive lesson for your business.

I appreciate your perspective, but I believe there are some misconceptions that need to be addressed regarding the shipping terms and the vendor's responsibility in this situation.

While it's true that international commerce operates under various terms and conditions, such as Incoterms, it's important to note that the specific terms agreed upon between the vendor and the customer should be clear and communicated effectively. In the case of QSC, there was no mention of DAP (Delivered at Place) terms in the original communication from Tracy.

While opting out of shipping insurance may imply a certain level of risk acceptance on the part of the customer, it does not absolve the vendor of their responsibility to provide satisfactory service and assistance. Even without insurance, customers should still expect transparency, accountability, and respect from the company.

The issue here extends beyond just the rejection of the shipment by customs. It's about the overall lack of communication, responsiveness, and support from QSC when faced with such challenges. It's about treating customers with respect and addressing their concerns in a professional manner, regardless of the circumstances.

Suggesting that customers should simply accept the loss as an "expensive lesson" overlooks the legitimate frustrations and expectations of customers. Businesses thrive on customer satisfaction and loyalty, and it's in their best interest to ensure that customers feel valued and supported throughout the transaction process.

International commerce may indeed operate under specific terms and conditions, it's essential for vendors like QSC to uphold their end of the deal and provide reliable service and support to their customers. Dismissing legitimate concerns as a mere contractual matter overlooks the broader principles of customer service and accountability. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[DinoBB76]

Placed a order, paid, and sent confirmation Jan 29:

People who placed orders around the same time have y’all got any updates?

Not trying to sound impatient: this was just a large order and would like to know if anyone around that time has updates

Or if Tracy could chime in on any orders previous to that date have also yet to ship

-thanks

if you ordered from China, shipments start on February 20th, I'm waiting for a track for a European order placed about 2 weeks ago, written on WhatsApp 3 days ago but nothing for now, in this period you need to have a little patience, Tracy said who from Monday will have the support of some assistants

 

[egruberman]

Placed a order, paid, and sent confirmation Jan 29:

Lots of people placed orders. Some received product, some didn't. Lots of domestic US orders were reported to have arrived in a timely fashion, For International orders, there was that whole holiday that China had that folks seem to be oblivious to.

 

[egruberman]

I appreciate your perspective, but I believe there are some misconceptions that need to be addressed regarding the shipping terms and the vendor's responsibility in this situation.

Can you fuck off with this ChatGPT word salad, please? We're all sick of you shitting up this thread with it.

 

[baxter0312]

I appreciate your perspective, but I believe there are some misconceptions that need to be addressed regarding the shipping terms and the vendor's responsibility in this situation.

While it's true that international commerce operates under various terms and conditions, such as Incoterms, it's important to note that the specific terms agreed upon between the vendor and the customer should be clear and communicated effectively. In the case of QSC, there was no mention of DAP (Delivered at Place) terms in the original communication from Tracy.

While opting out of shipping insurance may imply a certain level of risk acceptance on the part of the customer, it does not absolve the vendor of their responsibility to provide satisfactory service and assistance. Even without insurance, customers should still expect transparency, accountability, and respect from the company.

The issue here extends beyond just the rejection of the shipment by customs. It's about the overall lack of communication, responsiveness, and support from QSC when faced with such challenges. It's about treating customers with respect and addressing their concerns in a professional manner, regardless of the circumstances.

Suggesting that customers should simply accept the loss as an "expensive lesson" overlooks the legitimate frustrations and expectations of customers. Businesses thrive on customer satisfaction and loyalty, and it's in their best interest to ensure that customers feel valued and supported throughout the transaction process.

International commerce may indeed operate under specific terms and conditions, it's essential for vendors like QSC to uphold their end of the deal and provide reliable service and support to their customers. Dismissing legitimate concerns as a mere contractual matter overlooks the broader principles of customer service and accountability. Thank you for your understanding.

Just take the next flight to China and punch him in the face.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

some kind of exit scam

I'm not gonna lie. Anytime I place an order more than 5k I always think to myself... "This is the day I get scammed".


These thoughts have gone on for atleast 10-15 orders over the past 1.5 years lol

 

[gburdell]

Just take the next flight to China and punch him in the face.

For real.

I do a lot of international commerce. There's a lot of money involved, we have lawyers review everything. It's all legal. But that's work; thankfully I've found a way through life where I can fund a significant drug habit without having to deal in them. Maybe you're in the same boat, maybe not.

Regardless, this is not any of that. As laid out in the thousands of posts here, QSC comes through, though sometimes they don't, and sometimes their products are fucked up. Laws and customs of international commerce do not apply here.

Get insurance, or don't, it's just a calculation based on the risk you can/wish to absorb.

If you don't want to insure, which is wholly reasonable if it fits into your risk model, then do at least split your shipments up inter and intra-vendor. Make probabilities, statistics, and expectation your friend.

Lottery tickets are a tax on those who are bad at math.

GPB

 

[peteyb786]

Ordered 2/20
Paid 2/21
Tracking 2/22
Expected delivery 2/26
Domestic USA Order

Y’all just gotta be patient.
Not once did I text after 2/21 asking for tracking, just had to wait

Ordered from who? Tracy?

 

[Ambiguous]

Still waiting on a response

But “1” on kit box would refer to my 1st item ordered?

For example:
order:
2 x Terza 10mg
2x Sema 5mg

We are confident “1” would refer to terza?

 

[HydrillaGorilla]

Fight! Fight! Fight! Keep going guys I’m kicking back with my bowl of popcorn.

I threw down the gauntlet and he's definitely not going to accept the challenge. One thing is for sure though the Tren and Anadrol were fucking peaking last night!!

 

[FusionT3]

I appreciate your perspective, but I believe there are some misconceptions that need to be addressed regarding the shipping terms and the vendor's responsibility in this situation.

While it's true that international commerce operates under various terms and conditions, such as Incoterms, it's important to note that the specific terms agreed upon between the vendor and the customer should be clear and communicated effectively. In the case of QSC, there was no mention of DAP (Delivered at Place) terms in the original communication from Tracy.

While opting out of shipping insurance may imply a certain level of risk acceptance on the part of the customer, it does not absolve the vendor of their responsibility to provide satisfactory service and assistance. Even without insurance, customers should still expect transparency, accountability, and respect from the company.

The issue here extends beyond just the rejection of the shipment by customs. It's about the overall lack of communication, responsiveness, and support from QSC when faced with such challenges. It's about treating customers with respect and addressing their concerns in a professional manner, regardless of the circumstances.

Suggesting that customers should simply accept the loss as an "expensive lesson" overlooks the legitimate frustrations and expectations of customers. Businesses thrive on customer satisfaction and loyalty, and it's in their best interest to ensure that customers feel valued and supported throughout the transaction process.

International commerce may indeed operate under specific terms and conditions, it's essential for vendors like QSC to uphold their end of the deal and provide reliable service and support to their customers. Dismissing legitimate concerns as a mere contractual matter overlooks the broader principles of customer service and accountability. Thank you for your understanding.

Just f off like you said you were going to bro. Tired of these crying babies that dont own up to their decisions life. You know clearly what insurance means and if you dont then you have bigger issues.

 

[baxter0312]

I appreciate your perspective, but I believe there are some misconceptions that need to be addressed regarding the shipping terms and the vendor's responsibility in this situation.

While it's true that international commerce operates under various terms and conditions, such as Incoterms, it's important to note that the specific terms agreed upon between the vendor and the customer should be clear and communicated effectively. In the case of QSC, there was no mention of DAP (Delivered at Place) terms in the original communication from Tracy.

While opting out of shipping insurance may imply a certain level of risk acceptance on the part of the customer, it does not absolve the vendor of their responsibility to provide satisfactory service and assistance. Even without insurance, customers should still expect transparency, accountability, and respect from the company.

The issue here extends beyond just the rejection of the shipment by customs. It's about the overall lack of communication, responsiveness, and support from QSC when faced with such challenges. It's about treating customers with respect and addressing their concerns in a professional manner, regardless of the circumstances.

Suggesting that customers should simply accept the loss as an "expensive lesson" overlooks the legitimate frustrations and expectations of customers. Businesses thrive on customer satisfaction and loyalty, and it's in their best interest to ensure that customers feel valued and supported throughout the transaction process.

International commerce may indeed operate under specific terms and conditions, it's essential for vendors like QSC to uphold their end of the deal and provide reliable service and support to their customers. Dismissing legitimate concerns as a mere contractual matter overlooks the broader principles of customer service and accountability. Thank you for your understanding.

Also the way you write sounds like a powerpoint presentation.

 

[kain]

Also the way you write sounds like a powerpoint presentation.

Sounds like LooseGoose asked ChatGPT to type a response lol

 

[gx52a]

I appreciate your perspective, but I believe there are some misconceptions that need to be addressed regarding the shipping terms and the vendor's responsibility in this situation.

While it's true that international commerce operates under various terms and conditions, such as Incoterms, it's important to note that the specific terms agreed upon between the vendor and the customer should be clear and communicated effectively. In the case of QSC, there was no mention of DAP (Delivered at Place) terms in the original communication from Tracy.

While opting out of shipping insurance may imply a certain level of risk acceptance on the part of the customer, it does not absolve the vendor of their responsibility to provide satisfactory service and assistance. Even without insurance, customers should still expect transparency, accountability, and respect from the company.

The issue here extends beyond just the rejection of the shipment by customs. It's about the overall lack of communication, responsiveness, and support from QSC when faced with such challenges. It's about treating customers with respect and addressing their concerns in a professional manner, regardless of the circumstances.

Suggesting that customers should simply accept the loss as an "expensive lesson" overlooks the legitimate frustrations and expectations of customers. Businesses thrive on customer satisfaction and loyalty, and it's in their best interest to ensure that customers feel valued and supported throughout the transaction process.

International commerce may indeed operate under specific terms and conditions, it's essential for vendors like QSC to uphold their end of the deal and provide reliable service and support to their customers. Dismissing legitimate concerns as a mere contractual matter overlooks the broader principles of customer service and accountability. Thank you for your understanding.

That's a lot of fucking words just to say that Tracy hurt your feelings.

In the world of legitimate international commerce, the solution is to "stop being a little bitch". You may be unfamiliar with this concept, maybe ask ChatGPT for some pointers.

 

[gx52a]

Laws and customs of international commerce do not apply here.

Are you suggesting that if Tracy screws me I can't sue QSC to make them send me the illegal drugs? This is distressing.

 

[Ambiguous]

Still waiting on a response

But “1” on kit box would refer to my 1st item ordered?

For example:
order:
2 x Terza 10mg
2x Sema 5mg

We are confident “1” would refer to terza?

I’m gtg— got a response