Readalots Enhanced Testing

[B Ware]

I think you mean 4th chance according to last post he did.

Post in thread 'Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic'

Sep 27, 2022

Before leaping to assumptions & accusations, it might be prudent to ask @Millard whether the “3 strikes & out” rule was ever an official policy that he’s formally declared on the forum. I honestly don’t know, hence this post.

It’s possible that this wasn’t ever an official declared rule & members have just assumed it was after perma-bans were given to some after 3 temp bans.

@Millard?

Or can anyone link to a post where Millard stated this rule?

Ps: @JabbedUp I agree with you though, Ding Dong is a cunt & a scamming cunt to boot.

It was always that way...

• MisterSuperGod

• 
• 

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.

 

[AlexDavis43]

And we're back to "attempt to get at the roots and find a solution."

Solution to what? How to get everyone 100% on board with mandatory full ET for all sources?

Because that doesn't seem like a compromise or attempt to find a solution; just increasing divisiveness.

This is driving the "with me or against me" nonsense.

 

[Millard]

To the new visitor, it would appear that that sticky thread vendors are "approved.". This is what I thought when I first arrived.

Yeah, I understand why many people might be under that impression when they see banners or sponsors on a steroid-related forum. That's because almost all source forums implicitly or explicitly endorse their sponsors/advertisers. But MESO is different and has always been different in this regard..

MESO has always prioritized transparency and editorial independence in pursuit of its harm reduction goals.

The sponsorship donations do help support the operational costs to keep the forum publicly accessible to everyone with harm reduction as a focus.

But sponsors do NOT influence our content, forum discussions, or moderation decisions.

All sources, including advertisers, are subject to the same standards of transparency, accountability, and public evaluation. There's no escape from scrutiny or criticism.

Sources, including advertisers, can NOT demand the removal of posts, review, criticism, commentary, etc. related to their brand.

MESO has always been very transparent about its sponsorship and its editorial independence. MESO discloses the sponsorship arrangements with banners, tags on threads, and tags on user profiles so that everyone is aware.

Please help dispel any perception by New Members that they are protected from criticism in any way.

 

[Millard]

@Millard what is a source board?

Here is a explanation:

FAQs Thread 'How are "Harm Reduction Forums" different from "Source Forums"?'

Jan 12, 2025

Distinguishing Between "Source Forums" and "Harm Reduction Forums"​

In the online anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) community, forums often serve as hubs for information sharing, advice, and product discussions. However, not all forums are created equal. It is critical to distinguish between "source forums" and "harm reduction forums" to understand their purposes, strengths, and shortcomings.

A source forum primarily operates as a marketplace for AAS suppliers. These platforms focus on promoting certain suppliers while marginalizing others. The "good" or popular sources are...

• MESO-Rx Administrator
• Replies: 4
• Forum: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• 
• 

 

[Millard]

so meso secondarily does not act as a marketplace for AAS suppliers?

this site has banners promoting sources just like other source boards.

you allow sources to bypass the spam all over the board before you advertise yourself in ugl area by supporting for the great cause.

like these has not happened here before?

View attachment 312682

Ok. I see you found the article about Harm Reduction Forums vs Source Forums.

Re: marketplace for AAS suppliers

No, MESO's primary purpose remains harm reduction, transparency, and accountability. When you mention "marketplace", I'm assuming you are referring to interactions like posting prices, discussing sales, or answering customer service questions.

These interactions are important because they indirectly further education by allowing members to evaluate the responsiveness, transparency, and practices of sources. I think this kind of dialogue is useful for members to make informed decisions about product quality and supplier accountability.

Intent is important MESO isn't actively facilitate or promoting transactions. The intent and purpose of allowing such harm reduction, transparency, and education - not to facilitate transactions.

RE: banners on the site like source forums.

The transparency and commitment to editorial independence have set MESO and harm reduction set MESO apart.

Sponsors face the same standards of transparency, accountabiliyt, and public evaluation. There is no means to escape scrutiny or criticism.

Sponsors have no control over forum discussions, reviews, or moderation decisions.

Sponsors can't demand removal of posts, negative reviews, or criticisms.

These are pretty straightforward differences between MESO's harm reduction forum (even with banners) and source forums with banners.

RE: big sources being protected.

No. It doesn't happen.

Every source is equally accountable. MESO allows dominant sources to be scrutinized just as rigorously as any other source with no favoritism. No source is protected.

If your agenda is to hold sources fully accountable, then you won't be disappointed that is the explicit objective of MESO's harm reduction forum.

If your agenda is to eliminate and ban sources, read the following to obtain a better understanding of what this forum is about:

FAQs Thread 'How are "Harm Reduction Forums" different from "Source Forums"?'

Jan 12, 2025

Distinguishing Between "Source Forums" and "Harm Reduction Forums"​

In the online anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) community, forums often serve as hubs for information sharing, advice, and product discussions. However, not all forums are created equal. It is critical to distinguish between "source forums" and "harm reduction forums" to understand their purposes, strengths, and shortcomings.

A source forum primarily operates as a marketplace for AAS suppliers. These platforms focus on promoting certain suppliers while marginalizing others. The "good" or popular sources are...

• MESO-Rx Administrator
• Replies: 4
• Forum: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• 
• 

 

[Excel.exe]

No, MESO's primary purpose remains harm reduction, transparency, and accountability. When you mention "marketplace", I'm assuming you are referring to interactions like posting prices, discussing sales, or answering customer service questions.

These interactions are important because they indirectly further education by allowing members to evaluate the responsiveness, transparency, and practices of sources. I think this kind of dialogue is useful for members to make informed decisions about product quality and supplier accountability.

 

[Millard]

I’ll be real honest here. Seeing that the only real thing that has came from ET testing thus far was that it made floaters not only acceptable but a premium product was disheartening.

I know you don't believe this.
The value of sterility test (for example) is undeniable in terms of harm reduction.

What should be reject in the strongest possible terms is a source who misuses test results to claim their products are despite visible evidence to the contrary like floaters.

The fact that anyone tried to make this claim should be strongly rejected.

Yet the potential for misuse shouldn't diminish the value of the test itself.

 

[Millard]

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.

I just saw this. I am a little surprised and disappointed. You could have mentioned this in one of our private messages over the past couple years. At any rate, better late than never. I will address your concerns at a later date.

 

[musclesiege]

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.

 

[Excel.exe]

I think @Excel.exe is pointing out the fact that the line between source board and harm reduction is quite blurred.

i consider this website a source board with a harm reduction sticker applied to it just like those peptides selling and applying the "not for human use. only for research" sticker.

 

[UncleBuns]

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.

Maybe voters with a higher forum status get more weight in the tally? Also in order to vote you have to have a certain length of time and level of participation in the forum to weed out paid votes and "junk" voters.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Sounds to me like no utopia is meant to exist. Apparently I'm catching up on years of drama in one thread:

1.) QSC is apparently the big bad wolf that got away with murder (?)

2.) A bunch of guys I'm not aware of got banned(?) for speaking there minds (?)

3.) The guys who are mad about 1 + 2 apparently want the same fate to happen to Readalot because the son of a bitch won't shut up and fuck off already.

AlexDavis is correct about the "us against them" mentality...that was kinda the thing I was hoping to avoid since it seemed like we all agreed (or said we did) that more testing was a good thing. (I never claimed to think it had to be Readalot's system...and I don't think even he did).

Either way, this has all been illuminating.

I'll fuck off now...but I'm gonna keep my ball and complimentary key chain MESO mailed me when I signed up.

P.S. I'm a fucking hemorrhoid so I'll be as subtle as one and still around. You fucks really need to learn how to actually say the things you mean if you're not happy about something. Deuces.

 

[Excel.exe]

Maybe voters with a higher forum status get more weight in the tally?

so back to giving power to a group of people?

 

[UncleBuns]

so back to giving power to a group of people?

The power still is in the hands of members. If people criticize and no one buys from them they go away. They aren't banned, it's just a waste of their time coming here so they just stop posting. It works. It's happened multiple times in the last year. On other boards, if they were preferred by the board owners or paid enough money, they would get shill comments to boost, negative and criticizing comments would be deleted and those members banned, and they would get promoted even if they were crap. That doesn't happen here.

Meso is not perfect, but it's a lot better than other boards I've seen. Not sure why you're on one about Meso right now. Criticizing the board or the way things are is reasonable and should be done but the opinions you're expressing here are a bit extreme. Nothing wrong with finding and pointing out flaws but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[readalot]

AlexDavis is correct about the "us against them" mentality...that was kinda the thing I was hoping to avoid since it seemed like we all agreed (or said we did) that more testing was a good thing. (I never claimed to think it had to be Readalot's system...and I don't think even he did).

Either way, this has all been illuminating.

I'll fuck off now...but I'm gonna keep my ball and complimentary key chain MESO mailed me when I signed up.

Me too. MESO is fortunate to have you here.

Thanks again @Dirthand. Godspeed to you both.

 

[Excel.exe]

The power still is in the hands of members.

giving it to

voters with a higher forum status get more weight in the tally

versus members is not the same thing.

 

[AlexDavis43]

Reminder: sources can send their best products for testing and sell you whatever they want. That's a kick in the nuts but shouldn't be ignored.

Members have asked sources to reimburse blind customer testing. Sources are free to set limits as there are risks there too.

People have always been encouraged to do any of their own testing that they deem important for their personal risk tolerance.

 

[narta]

So it's not a Source Forum, not a Harm Reduction forum but a Harm Report forum.

Because in my book, Harm Reduction means how to decrease negative consequences from the use of, in our case, gear. Common sense dictates that if there is harm, we should be able to remove the root of the harm. And we simply can't

We can report, discuss our thoughts and voice our opinions and that's it.


P.S. All this legal tiptoeing, maybe necessary, but it's ridiculous from my pov. I would be more than eager to publicly help if there was a statement like "You know guys, because I want the money, I ain't gonna interact with any source in any way because my lawyer said me to do so. Sources are untouchable and can continue to exist no matter what. It is what it is and deal with it". I would be ok with that, it would clear the air of any misconception of what is what.

 

[Millard]

So it's not a Source Forum, not a Harm Reduction forum but a Harm Report forum.

Because in my book, Harm Reduction means how to decrease negative consequences from the use of, in our case, gear. Common sense dictates that if there is harm, we should be able to remove the root of the harm. And we simply can't

We can report, discuss our thoughts and voice our opinions and that's it.


P.S. All this legal tiptoeing, maybe necessary, but it's ridiculous from my pov. I would be more than eager to publicly help if there was a statement like "You know guys, because I want the money, I ain't gonna interact with any source in any way because my lawyer said me to do so. Sources are untouchable and can continue to exist no matter what. It is what it is and deal with it". I would be ok with that, it would clear the air of any misconception of what is what.

This is actually a good question. All sources introduce harm. So, let's prohibit them, right? I don't think prohibition is the best approach.

The reason that MESO allows sources to participate is because harm reduction requires accountability and transparency. Prohibiting sources might seem like a good idea but it creates an environment where harmful practices go unchecked. If they are not on MESO, it's not like the harm disappeared. The sources just migrated to a (protected) source forum where they can escape the accountability that is forced upon them here.

By allowing members to engage with sources, MESO ensures the sources are subject to scrutiny and public evaluation, which leads the community to identify safer options and avoid dangerous products/practices.

This open dialogue with sources facilitates education and informed decision-making. It is a more effective strategy than prohibition, which in actual practice has sent them to protected source forums where they are out of reach for oversight.

Quite honestly, if the sources are not here, their customers are not here, and the chance to educate/warn customers and hold sources accountable largely disappear which is a missed opportunity for harm reduction advocates.

All this legal tiptoeing, maybe necessary, but it's ridiculous from my pov. I would be more than eager to publicly help if there was a statement like "You know guys, because I want the money, I ain't gonna interact with any source in any way because my lawyer said me to do so. Sources are untouchable and can continue to exist no matter what. It is what it is and deal with it". I would be ok with that, it would clear the air of any misconception of what is what.

The neutrality from MESO Administration is essential to preventing conflicts of interest that present themselves in a sponsor-supported revenue model.

This sponsorship model is designed to fund MESO harm reduction efforts without compromising its independence. Obviouslyk, sponsors receive visibility through banners and sticky threads, but this does not shield them from scrutiny and accountability.

The purpose of MESO maintaining neutrality is to ensure the discussions are unbiased and driven by community member input.

MESO has always been transparent about this.

I don't know if neutrality helps mitigate legal liability. It's not implemented for this reason.

I do know that neutrality is both essential and an ethical prerequisite in a sponsor-supported revenue model.

 

[T-Bagger]

Maybe voters with a higher forum status get more weight in the tally? Also in order to vote you have to have a certain length of time and level of participation in the forum to weed out paid votes and "junk" voters.

Not an entirely bad idea, but I see people here for not even a year already at WKM status while long time vets with quality posts and information through their tenure here, share the same status.