[quote]rainjack wrote:
Prisoner#22 wrote:
I realise you don’t like me, and this is personal for you, but bashing the taper will get you nowhere.
It is actually firmly grounded in science. If you recall I backed up all my claims with peer reviewed work more than a year ago.
So frankly just leave it alone now. Demeaning me and trying to demean it as not being based on science is a total fallacy. -and that is why I get piss sometime, because I have had these debates and aguments a hundred times, spend many hours on the computer over this, yet people still try every couple of months or so to attack it, using the very same arguments already used and defeated.
Just wish people would accept things and let them be.
Show me where I knocked the taper. You have no real proof behind you, yet you want everyone to accept your idea as gospel.
Even if it is grounded in science - you are acting exactly like Hooker. Back it up with more than anecdotal evidence, and I will change my tune. You can’t and you know it, yet you go on like you have discovered a new cure for cancer. That is what I don’t like. Your attitude in defending the taper is what I have been posting about. You call anyone that doubts you ignorant. I have a problem with that.
If you want to engage in discussion, that is one thing. But to get on here and act as if everyone is an idiot that doesn’t agree with you…well…
Act like you have a new idea - that’s fine. But don’t mistake your idea for being a new truth. It is an idea. Some might say it is a good idea. But it is only an idea.
[/quote]
how can I be acting like Anthony Roberts? It’s not like I am defending a book I wrote. My motivation for defending the protocol is to ensure that as many people as possible are not brainwashed into trying some of the stupid protocols that ignorant people are regurgitation over and over again, that just plainly do not work.
I laid down the scientific findings that backed what I was saying. This is now the third time I have stated this, yet you fail to acknowledge this. Even though you yourself read it.
And as for calling people ignorant, yes, if they don’t take the time to do the research and read my explainations and science behind the the protocol, before critisizing, then yes, by all means they are ignorant. Alot of people on here just shoot critizism from the hip. There are actually members on here trying to learn, and figure out what is the best way to go about doing things. For them I say listen to me and you won’t go wrong. So far I have been here a fairly decent length of time, and helped more people on here then you will ever in your life time and all have been gratefull for my help. I asked for nothing in return.
BTW:
An Idea is any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.
That’s what the test taper was.
I have gone beyond that, as I have laid out the research, developed and refined a protocol that is governed by the research to follow, and tested it myself, as have others test it.
Granted there is no way of putting it through the rigors of a University study, but that is the reality of using schedual performance enhancing drugs. No study would be ethically feasable to produce.
Nobody so far who has used my protocol yet has disagreed with anything I said or predicted would happen, Not a single person. That counts for a lot. It has been out for longer than a year now. You think if I wasn’t right about what I had said, that someone would have said something.
heck someone even already produced bloodwork to prove things a couple of months back. Guess you missed that too.
And yeah you ridicule it, call it a cure for cancer. I wouldn’t equate it to that, but it is a big deal to those of us comming off gear, who in the past dreaded doing so, and had no clue as to a firm protocol how to do so.