PCT Source?

I can see a little clearer now Rainjack. Good info.

JW

how about a source for nolva pills

[quote]sreisin547 wrote:
As far as the lab info goes, the report was posted…does it say (or can we find out) what lab it was from? If so, contact them yourself and you’ll do much for your reputation here, or even just drop the topic…but by continuing to go on and on like this it just reinforces the view (true or not) that you are doing nothing but covering your interests.[/quote]

There was no report posted here, nor any, on any board. If the report were in fact posted, then I could contact the lab. The fact of the matter is that we’re going on someone’s word.

Why is there no lab test, nor a link, nor a mention of what lab we can verify these claims at? Sketchy, at best.

In this world, there’s only two people I trust; one is me, the other is not him.

[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
sreisin547 wrote:
As far as the lab info goes, the report was posted…does it say (or can we find out) what lab it was from? If so, contact them yourself and you’ll do much for your reputation here, or even just drop the topic…but by continuing to go on and on like this it just reinforces the view (true or not) that you are doing nothing but covering your interests.

There was no report posted here, nor any, on any board. If the report were in fact posted, then I could contact the lab. The fact of the matter is that we’re going on someone’s word.

Why is there no lab test, nor a link, nor a mention of what lab we can verify these claims at? Sketchy, at best.

In this world, there’s only two people I trust; one is me, the other is not him.

[/quote]

Hooker - you trust the money. Period. If I paid you enough, or gave you enough free shit, or gave you free advertising space to pimp yor book, you would trust me as much as you trust lion.

You can’t be a whore and then get upset because you are called one.

As for the lab report. I have asked for it. As for who to trust? Your not exactly standing at the front of that line. But if you pay me, or give me free shit, I’d be willing to move you up.

[quote]sreisin547 wrote:

So you can think deep thoughts about being unemployed?
Sorry, always loved that joke. Seriously though, I think the point that is trying to be made here is that while not receiving money from these people, you ARE being compensated in fact through the items you received free of charge (which have a set monetary value). That will tend to make anything favorable you say about these people seem biased, and anything negative you would say seem more striking…unfortunate as it may be, that’s just the way it is.

As far as the lab info goes, the report was posted…does it say (or can we find out) what lab it was from? If so, contact them yourself and you’ll do much for your reputation here, or even just drop the topic…but by continuing to go on and on like this it just reinforces the view (true or not) that you are doing nothing but covering your interests.[/quote]

I have no vested interest in Lion. He contracted me for some articles (not on research chems, however) recently.

I get or have gotten free/at-cost stuff from him, have worked with/for him in the past (again as an independent contractor, not an employee)…

But lets keep in mind that someone is claiming that there was a lab test done, and has yet to produce it. In fact, he hasn’t even seen the thing.

I see the fact that you guys think I’m saying this for $ or something, but actually, the owner of Lion told me not to bother. I CAN help here…but the claim is that “spidey” has a lab test that nobody has ever seen, and everyone is going to just trust him. Ok…cool…sorry, but I’m not getting on that boat. Lets see the lab test(s).

I’m trying to find out the truth here.

The truth is that nobody here has seen the lab test, and yet it’s being claimed to exist without proof.

I could be the biggest liar in the world, and a puppet for “the man” or whatever…but that still doesn’t change the fact that there is no test being supplied. The claim is that “test A supports claim B” and yet there is no test being shown here. Nor has the person making the claim even seen the “test”.

I have a lab test showing that water isn’t clear, it’s solid red; and it’s not a liquid, it’s a solid at room temperature. I won’t show the test to you though. Just trust me. Oh…and I won’t tell you what lab did it. Just trust me.

Also…of course there’s “human grade IGF”. What do the people in the studies on medline get? Duh. That’s just an ignorant statement to say there’s no such thing as human grade IGF.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Hooker - you trust the money. Period. If I paid you enough, or gave you enough free shit, or gave you free advertising space to pimp yor book, you would trust me as much as you trust lion.

You can’t be a whore and then get upset because you are called one.

[/quote]

So I’m never allowed to get paid or get anything for free, ever, because it makes me untrustworthy.

That’s a very weak position.

It’s the informal fallacy known as “poisoning the well”…you say I’m a bad guy (a whore, with vested interests) and ergo what I say should be discounted.

Formal Description of Poisoning the Well:

This sort of “reasoning” involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This “argument” has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of “reasoning” is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of “reasoning” is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: “Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist.”
Jill: “Yeah.”

During Class:
Prof. Jones: “…and so we see that there was never any ‘Golden Age of Matriarchy’ in 1895 in America.”

After Class:
Bill: “See what I mean?”
Jill: “Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn’t.”

Examples of Poisoning the Well

“Don’t listen to him, he’s a scoundrel.”

“Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart.”

You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend’s boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
A bunch of crap to make him look smart while dodging the issue.
[/quote]

If you are trying to find the lab report, then fine. So am I. I trust what was posted. You don’t. Just like you trust lion and I don’t.

Does that make the report false just because you question the validity of the source? I think the report is true BECAUSE of the source.

You have admitted to taking free shit from lion, as well as taking money from A-R, which coincidently is lions biggest source of customers.

As much as you want to try your old, tired dodge and duck tactics, and use links to prove that I am engaging in some sort of fallical argument - Just know I am not buying it.

You are financially tied to someone I believe to be misleading the public. I am sooooo sorry that you don’t find it serious enough of an issue to do anything more than google fallacies in an attempt to impune my intelligence (which, btw was never a part of the original discussion, yet created by you in an effort to slay it. Strawman anyone?)

You are what you are, Hooker. Embrace it and move on.

Why must you waste your precious time on someone such as me? This has turned into a “Hooker’s credibility, or lack thereof” thread.

If I get the lab report, I will post it here. I sorry to say that I don’t have the faith that you will do the same.

The most idiotic part about not “trusting my credibility” is that the reason given for not trusting me is because of information I gave out freely.

So…you can trust the information I gave in the beginning of the thread (regarding who I have and have not worked for), yet not at the end?

Rainjack is saying:

“Anthony says he works for XYZ-company. That information is trustworthy and valid.”

“Anthony says this product is good. That information is not trustworthy, because Anthony is not trustworthy. I know Anthony is not trustworthy, because he told us he has worked for a particular company; and I believe him.”

His “proof” for me being a liar is based on the assumed truth of my earlier comments. Proof of me being un-trustworthy is predicated on trusting me when I said I work for the companies involved!

Isn’t that a paradox of sorts? Logically inconsistent?

“I can prove he is a liar, because I trust he is telling the truth…” is what rainjack has essentially said.

I’ll leave this thread with that thought.

Oh…and where are those lab tests? Ha ha…trust whomever you want, but look at the evidence first at least.

I think what is being said here is that you cant be impartial if the company is giving you free shit.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If you are trying to find the lab report, then fine. So am I. [/quote]

I called the owner/admin of several invite boards (some of which you are a member of, some of which you are not). That person has not seen the lab test.

Chaos called me the other night as well, and he’s not seen the test either.

I’ve spoken to several (5?) people on the phone, all of whom own message boards (I think all up, those 5 people are staff on over 30 or 40 different boards), and not one has personally seen this test.

Nice try, ace. Really. Now - let ME explain the situation, fair enough?

You are a smart guy. Real smart. Probably “get your ass kicked in grade school and made you a really bitter adult” smart, but I don’t know that for sure.

I think your credibility is suspect in defense of Lion. You take free stuff from him, and you take money from his biggest source of customers - A-R (steroids.com).

Now - maybe those things have absolutely nothing to do with the situation regarding the ‘bad’ IGF. Maybe they do. It’s your word against mine.

Were you a judge, you would have to recuse yourself form a case involving either Lion or A-R. Were you a CPA - your audit of their companies would be in violation of GAAP.

Why? You give the appearance of having a closer than arm’s length dealings with these guys. You have admitted as much.

It is that appearance of defending your paycheck that hurts your credibility. Whether Lion is crooked or not - your credibility in this matter is suspect.

You wanna fill your pockets up with cash and research chems in exhange for what you do? Fine. This is the USA. It’s what we do. But don’t furrow your brow in manufacured confusion when you are compared to the Labs that did the studies for the tobacco industry. You are just doing what you are getting paid for, right?

Anyhow - back to the real topic at hand. If I can’t find the lab report, I will admit as much, and the original posting wrt Lion’s IGF will be left to stand on its own.

This is simply a matter of who you trust. Iron clad proof is much preferred over heresay, but the magnitude of this particular situation should be noted regardless.

By magnitude, I mean how many folks out there are selling receptor grade, or media grade Long r3 IGF with BSA originating in either Europe, or the East? Can you not see the danger of using BSA? Especially foreign BSA?

If my concerns are misplaced - please correct me. I am deathly affraid of some unsuspecting person injecting themselves with Mad Cow Disease.

Hey, that is all good and fun what you hijackers are talking about, but how about a source for nove pills like dude was saying above…?

[quote]muscle_mike wrote:
Hey, that is all good and fun what you hijackers are talking about, but how about a source for nove pills like dude was saying above…?[/quote]

Dude they already posted links…In the mean time, I’m enjoying the argument.

they only posted links for liquid.

Lets just see the lab report (if one exists) and settle this once and for all.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I think your credibility is suspect in defense of Lion. You take free stuff from him, and you take money from his biggest source of customers - A-R (steroids.com).

Now - maybe those things have absolutely nothing to do with the situation regarding the ‘bad’ IGF. Maybe they do. It’s your word against mine.

This is simply a matter of who you trust. Iron clad proof is much preferred over heresay, but the magnitude of this particular situation should be noted regardless.

[/quote]

Currently, the only evidence presented is heresay. I’m not making a claim, per se, at all- I’m simply saying there’s no proof for your claim. And even worse, you aren’t making a claim either, you are saying you believe another person’s claim, and repeating it.

The claim here is that you believe someone who I don’t.

again… nolva pills source…

[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
The claim here is that you believe someone who I don’t.
[/quote]

I think I have already said that 4 or 5 times. Welcome to the discussion, Hooker.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
The claim here is that you believe someone who I don’t.

I think I have already said that 4 or 5 times. Welcome to the discussion, Hooker.

[/quote]

Right, but I think in fairness, if you can’t find the lab report, you should edit your original post and say “I have seen no proof, although I trust the guy who said this…”

Because it’s more accurate…thats all I’m saying…

That your credibility isn’t on the line here…it’s not about you, per se, but about someone else.

If no lab report ever appears, it shouldn’t damage your credibility, because you never made a claim to have seen it.

[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
The claim here is that you believe someone who I don’t.

I think I have already said that 4 or 5 times. Welcome to the discussion, Hooker.

Right, but I think in fairness, if you can’t find the lab report, you should edit your original post and say “I have seen no proof, although I trust the guy who said this…”

Because it’s more accurate…thats all I’m saying…

That your credibility isn’t on the line here…it’s not about you, per se, but about someone else.

If no lab report ever appears, it shouldn’t damage your credibility, because you never made a claim to have seen it.
[/quote]

I have already said that if a lab report cannot be found I will post that here. I am hearing that the “Lab Report” in question may be nothing more than home assay kit. If that is the case, I am wrong.