We're Bashing SRY this time.

[nurseratchit]

Irrelevant to the argument.

Where's all these new facts? I'm waiting....

I obviously wasn't talking to you in that comment.

 

[brentm]

I obviously wasn't talking to you in that comment.

Welcome to "not your DMs"

 

[nurseratchit]

Welcome to "not your DMs"

so original

 

[brentm]

Already said I wasn't going to reargue this case and, once again, you have missed the point. I neither know nor defend Gibs. Nor do I defend SRY who has a longer dirty laundry list than just this incident. And Krysia is certainly not the arbiter of truth, nor is she actually and investigator. No one has all the facts except the parties involved. Peppys has since issued a more neutral 'buyer beware' statement acknowledging that all the facts are not known and likely never will be. This is certainly much better than just assuming, based on one screenshot, that because that member lied about that, he lies about everything else.

I do know, from having been a contributing testing member, that PTDS stands by their warning due to more than just this issue, and witnessing the conversation with multiple mods on there who are considered trusted members of the community. One such member posted that he lost nearly 1K to SRY and he walked away from it rather than get doxxed and he's not a shrinking violet. This was all in the now-nuked server and would be against their rules to share screenshots even if I had them.

Anyway, my point was community members should remain skeptical and continue vetting vendors. Past good experience doesn't mean they get a pass for the future. The best way to vet vendors is to keep testing and reporting rather than getting caught up in he-said she-said.

Get off your soapbox. You're really not adding any value to the conversation.

You make accusations that we don't have all the facts, yet you present no new facts. Then when pressed for more facts, you say "I'm not going to reargue the case".

Then you bring up a case of someone who doesn't want to be doxxed but is out 1K. And of course all this information is gone... and if it wasn't you couldn't share it anyway?

You should listen to the nonsense you're peddling here. It's garbage.

 

[keangkong]

Get off your soapbox. You're really not adding any value to the conversation.

You make accusations that we don't have all the facts, yet you present no new facts. Then when pressed for more facts, you say "I'm not going to reargue the case".

Then you bring up a case of someone who doesn't want to be doxxed but is out 1K. And of course all this information is gone... and if it wasn't you couldn't share it anyway?

You should listen to the nonsense you're peddling here. It's garbage.

No one has proven that the folks at SRY are not casting evil spells that caused their accuser, Gibs (I think that's his screen name), to nut up and state offensive and contradictory things. It may well be that SRY is using any evil mind spell that keeps Gibs from presenting proof.

 

[keangkong]

Already said I wasn't going to reargue this case and, once again, you have missed the point. I neither know nor defend Gibs. Nor do I defend SRY who has a longer dirty laundry list than just this incident. And Krysia is certainly not the arbiter of truth, nor is she actually and investigator. No one has all the facts except the parties involved. Peppys has since issued a more neutral 'buyer beware' statement acknowledging that all the facts are not known and likely never will be. This is certainly much better than just assuming, based on one screenshot, that because that member lied about that, he lies about everything else.

I do know, from having been a contributing testing member, that PTDS stands by their warning due to more than just this issue, and witnessing the conversation with multiple mods on there who are considered trusted members of the community. One such member posted that he lost nearly 1K to SRY and he walked away from it rather than get doxxed and he's not a shrinking violet. This was all in the now-nuked server and would be against their rules to share screenshots even if I had them.

Anyway, my point was community members should remain skeptical and continue vetting vendors. Past good experience doesn't mean they get a pass for the future. The best way to vet vendors is to keep testing and reporting rather than getting caught up in he-said she-said.

Krysia

 

[nurseratchit]

Get off your soapbox. You're really not adding any value to the conversation.

You make accusations that we don't have all the facts, yet you present no new facts. Then when pressed for more facts, you say "I'm not going to reargue the case".

Then you bring up a case of someone who doesn't want to be doxxed but is out 1K. And of course all this information is gone... and if it wasn't you couldn't share it anyway?

You should listen to the nonsense you're peddling here. It's garbage.

Where did I make any accusations? Yes, I said "No one has all the facts except the parties involved" which is why I did not present any new facts. Please read so you can troll better. You seem to have a dog in this fight, I don't. Okay, I do have a dog...I want people to stay safe, keep staying skeptical, keep vetting vendors and keep testing their products. But everyone can do whatever the hell they want too.

 

[keangkong]

When a forum makes a rule against citing its work, that tends to undercut its own authority. It's tough to just accept the credibility of the group based upon faith. There have been many facts undercutting Gibs' claims. Yet many folks on this forum claim how can we ever know something. Funny those same folks who comment on the uncertainty of reality had no problem a few days ago making specific, factual allegations against SRY. It's funny how it's supposedly weird that we'd rely on someone like Krysia for opinions on the issue, yet we're supposed to believe the conveyed opinions of folks from PTDS even though they don't want to be quoted. You can call what you're preaching skepticism, but its extreme skepticism towards what's likely true with proclamations of faith in that which is the least likely.

 

[zpped]

When a forum makes a rule against citing its work, that tends to undercut its own authority. It's tough to just accept the credibility of the group based upon faith. There have been many facts undercutting Gibs' claims. Yet many folks on this forum claim how can we ever know something. Funny those same folks who comment on the uncertainty of reality had no problem a few days ago making specific, factual allegations against SRY. It's funny how it's supposedly weird that we'd rely on someone like Krysia for opinions on the issue, yet we're supposed to believe the conveyed opinions of folks from PTDS even though they don't want to be quoted. You can call what you're preaching skepticism, but its extreme skepticism towards what's likely true with proclamations of faith in that which is the least likely.

Not screenshotting internal conversations is a very common rule. Anyone is free to join the group it's really not that hard to get access.

As for why trusting one person over another, that's just how trust and reputation work.

 

[keangkong]

You think the vendors aren't making a profit?! Last time I checked, QSC had over 7million in their BTC wallet.

I'm aware that anyone who is selling peptides is concerned about making a profit. There are folks involved in discussing peptides who spent money on helping us discuss them, but none of them are selling things. I don't have anything against a vendor for making a profit. That's what vendors do. Although I'm not in sales, when I work, I get paid. While it's usual to know who has a profit motive, the fact that someone has one does not mean that the person is not doing useful work. I could shop at a nonprofit collective. Instead I'm likely to buy at Amazon. QSC aims to make a profit. So does SRY. As does Amolist and Walgreens, which has sold me Zepbound. Saying that SRY aims to make a profit doesn't tend to prove them unreliable. In some ways, the whole way we buy seems shady. We often pay in crypto. We have no good way of forcing the return of our money if scammed. Yet these same facts, which are known to most buyers, force sellers to behave responsibility so that people won't say bad things about them on forums. SRY appears to have many people saying bad things about SRY based upon things that seem quite unlikely to have happened. (I will not argue about the fentanyl allegations; although I bought from SRY after those allegations were made public, I believe that not buying for SRY based upon those is a valid reason. My heart wouldn't be into trying to change someone's mind on the issue.)

 

[penewbie]

I can always rely on some completely meaningless vendor drama to provide me some entertainment on a Saturday morning.

 

[brentm]

. You seem to have a dog in this fight, I don't.

I don't have a dog in this fight. If I did it would simply be seeking the truth.

In the name of full disclosure, I've used SRYLAB in the past. However my most recent orders have been from other vendors. Specifically Tuk and Sig Aud... before that it was GYC. And I also recently ordered from QSC just to sample the goods and try them out.

My last and most recent order from SRY was in September.

Thanks for all your old and tired warnings about "vetting vendors and keeping them honest".

However, unlike yourself. I'm not willing to compromise my own integrity in the name of "keeping them honest". Your version of keeping them honest sounds slanderous and libel.

 

[exploitedworkerbee]

When a forum makes a rule against citing its work, that tends to undercut its own authority. It's tough to just accept the credibility of the group based upon faith. There have been many facts undercutting Gibs' claims. Yet many folks on this forum claim how can we ever know something. Funny those same folks who comment on the uncertainty of reality had no problem a few days ago making specific, factual allegations against SRY. It's funny how it's supposedly weird that we'd rely on someone like Krysia for opinions on the issue, yet we're supposed to believe the conveyed opinions of folks from PTDS even though they don't want to be quoted. You can call what you're preaching skepticism, but it’s extreme skepticism towards what's likely true with proclamations of faith in that which is the least likely.

i look at this all through a lens of credibility. I don’t know gibs so can’t really say much about their credibility, although masquerading as a vendor for whatever reason doesn’t predispose me to much trust. Krysia is no vendor simp, she has a track record of really digging into these types of questions and coming to a fair determination. PTDS, I can say the most about because I have personally been involved in designating the “buyer beware” tag. It was always, without exception, reserved for severe wrongdoing such as theft from customers or established patterns of poor quality. Sry as a vendor has had plenty of demonstrated issues and has an obvious agenda since they profit from the outcome of this conversation, so not a particularly credible source.

In a world where we don’t have direct personal access to all the facts, we have to choose our surrogates based on how close they are to the situation and what their incentives might be. You can go ahead and choose SRY for whatever reason you want, but if more credible sources who stand to gain or lose nothing from the outcome have seen the source material and made a determination, i am inclined to go that direction.

 

[keangkong]

This rabid defense of vendors over community members is unfathomable to me.

I'm a lawyer. Every now and then I heard about a lawyer getting into trouble with State Bar disciplinary authorities. When I read the disciplinary opinions, my own opinion is usually the same: I'm glad the lawyer got into trouble, either suspended or disbarred. I know, at least where I practice, that lawyers almost never get into trouble with the State Bar unless they deserve it. Why am I bringing this up? Well, I don't feel an obligation to defend shady lawyers just because I'm a lawyer. I'm not all about defending people who are supposedly like me. I prefer people act with integrity. When vendors do shady things, I'll be glad to criticize. However, when community members who happen to live closer to me than the vendors do shady things, I'll criticize them also. From what I've observed in peptide forums generally is that folks are quite quick to blame vendors. That's to a large degree a good thing. We have to trust them since we have don't have any real means to force them to behave ethically. At the same time, it's time to acknowledge that the major vendors that we deal with over and over again generally have pretty good track records. This whole hot packet story never made any logical sense. Why would a company interested in making money be selling grey market items go out of its way to get someone into a tiny amount of trouble knowing that the likely consequence would be tons of bad publicity? It never made any sense. SRY wants to make money. SRY wants to make profits. A company so motivated would not send a hot packe.t

 

[keangkong]

i look at this all through a lens of credibility. I don’t know gibs so can’t really say much about their credibility, although masquerading as a vendor for whatever reason doesn’t predispose me to much trust. Krysia is no vendor simp, she has a track record of really digging into these types of questions and coming to a fair determination. PTDS, I can say the most about because I have personally been involved in designating the “buyer beware” tag. It was always, without exception, reserved for severe wrongdoing such as theft from customers or established patterns of poor quality. Sry as a vendor has had plenty of demonstrated issues and has an obvious agenda since they profit from the outcome of this conversation, so not a particularly credible source.

In a world where we don’t have direct personal access to all the facts, we have to choose our surrogates based on how close they are to the situation and what their incentives might be. You can go ahead and choose SRY for whatever reason you want, but if more credible sources who stand to gain or lose nothing from the outcome have seen the source material and made a determination, i am inclined to go that direction.

It's good that we discussed these matters. When people discuss things, they often won't agree about everything. Thank you for your work moderating this forum and for your contributions.

 

[nurseratchit]

In some ways, the whole way we buy seems shady. We often pay in crypto. We have no good way of forcing the return of our money if scammed.

Of course it's shady, it's the black market. Again, I'm not defending anyone here and hope people will do what they need to do to protect themselves and others.

 

[keangkong]

Not screenshotting internal conversations is a very common rule. Anyone is free to join the group it's really not that hard to get access.

As for why trusting one person over another, that's just how trust and reputation work.

If I understand correctly, I can't currently join. I don't think I agree with the position of the current mods, but if I had the opportunity, I'd read what they had to say about things. It's not uncommon for me to change my opinion when I hear someone else's argument.

 

[keangkong]

I don't have a dog in this fight. If I did it would simply be seeking the truth.

In the name of full disclosure, I've used SRYLAB in the past. However my most recent orders have been from other vendors. Specifically Tuk and Sig Aud... before that it was GYC. And I also recently ordered from QSC just to sample the goods and try them out.

My last and most recent order from SRY was in September.

Thanks for all your old and tired warnings about "vetting vendors and keeping them honest".

However, unlike yourself. I'm not willing to compromise my own integrity in the name of "keeping them honest". Your version of keeping them honest sounds slanderous and libel.

I believe this site is good about keeping people who are vendors from impersonating people who are not. That means that pretty much all the opinions on this issue are coming from people who are advocating what they believe. To be clear, my opinion on what likely happened is pretty close to that advocated by brentm. However, it's not like the folks who disagree are sitting at home saying: "I know SRY didn't do this hot packet thing, but I'm going to argue that they did." People are advocating their point of view because that is what they genuinely believe.

 

[nurseratchit]

I don't have a dog in this fight. If I did it would simply be seeking the truth.

In the name of full disclosure, I've used SRYLAB in the past. However my most recent orders have been from other vendors. Specifically Tuk and Sig Aud... before that it was GYC. And I also recently ordered from QSC just to sample the goods and try them out.

My last and most recent order from SRY was in September.

Thanks for all your old and tired warnings about "vetting vendors and keeping them honest".

However, unlike yourself. I'm not willing to compromise my own integrity in the name of "keeping them honest". Your version of keeping them honest sounds slanderous and libel.

What slander or libel have I committed? Again learn how to read and digest what I have said rather than just coming to "own" me or whatever it is you think you're doing. I get my old and tired warnings from the founder of this forums @ZippityDooDah. https://glp1forum.com/threads/important-disclaimer.901/

I would suggest you go back and read historical posts and see how quickly things change in this world. But I'm sure you'll just come back here with what you think is a clever rebuttal instead.

 

[zpped]

If I understand correctly, I can't currently join. I don't think I agree with the position of the current mods, but if I had the opportunity, I'd read what they had to say about things. It's not uncommon for me to change my opinion when I hear someone else's argument.

At this particular moment new members are delayed for obvious reasons. But anyone can go over to peppys and jump through a couple simple hoops to get an invite.