We're Bashing SRY this time.

[brentm]

I feel like you're intentionally misconstruing my point and being a little obstinate here. I'm not saying he's a person of high moral character, I'm saying that even the most psychopathic people you can imagine also sometimes tell the truth. Even a pathological liar doesn't lie about everything.

As much as this guy does not seem great, he could also be telling the truth. We don't have enough information to really understand what went on so that's my current stance: I don't know.

I will say that the fact PDTS seems to find his claims credible is enough to give me pause.

Putting your faith in fallible humans is your mistake then. This is why I thought that EWB was damaging his own credibility by vouching for Gibs. Especially after it turned out to be an honest mistake on his part for the vouch, which was later retracted.

Why would the community tolerate "community member vendor impersonation" with malicious intent anymore than we would tolerate "vendor shilling" with profit intent?

I don't disagree that liars can occasionally tell the truth. But the burden of proof is so much higher for someone of low moral integrity.

And I don't find fault in saying "I don't know". But I do find fault in saying "I trust [human X]" and that is enough.

 

[brentm]

Being honest here, not being on PTDS says much more about you than it does about them. Their reputation precedes them for very good, well-earned reasons.

It shouldn't say anything about either to be frank.

And reputation is great. But I have a screenshot from there that includes language that the decision on PTDS was not "100% representative of PTDS, as a whole"

And me being on PTDS doesn't mean they're not valuable or respected either. What I am saying is that anything run by humans is fallible.

What should stand out to you are my actions, such as reaching out to you to ensure you wanted to vouch for someone who I thought didn't deserve your vouch. Reaching out to you after you clearly had no interest in what I was saying or my line of questioning.

 

[nurseratchit]

Good lord, haven't checked in here in a while. This rabid defense of vendors over community members is unfathomable to me. I haven't even gone through this whole thread and I am not going to reargue anyone's case here. But get out of your own echo chambers and be willing to view all the facts instead of just cheering for your 'team' and arguing with each other. The purpose of these communities was to protect end users, not vendors. The only one who stands to lose anything is all of you when you get screwed by a bad vendor and there are plenty of them. Even the more reliable ones are never 100% reliable. Sometimes it's a mistake and sometimes it malicious and sometimes it's just bad business.

 

[nurseratchit]

It shouldn't say anything about either to be frank.

And reputation is great. But I have a screenshot from there that includes language that the decision on PTDS was not "100% representative of PTDS, as a whole"

And me being on PTDS doesn't mean they're not valuable or respected either. What I am saying is that anything run by humans is fallible.

What should stand out to you are my actions, such as reaching out to you to ensure you wanted to vouch for someone who I thought didn't deserve your vouch. Reaching out to you after you clearly had no interest in what I was saying or my line of questioning.

What you have is only part of the story and I'm sure I know who you got it from. Actually the whole modmin team supported the decision but 1 person wanted to talk about it first, but still ultimately supported the decision. One of the mods got hasty and posted the danger tag before there was 100% consensus and he apologized for jumping the gun. That is all.

 

[brentm]

Good lord, haven't checked in here in a while. This rabid defense of vendors over community members is unfathomable to me. I haven't even gone through this whole thread and I am not going to reargue anyone's case here. But get out of your own echo chambers and be willing to view all the facts instead of just cheering for your 'team' and arguing with each other. The purpose of these communities was to protect end users, not vendors. The only one who stands to lose anything is all of you when you get screwed by a bad vendor and there are plenty of them. Even the more reliable ones are never 100% reliable. Sometimes it's a mistake and sometimes it malicious and sometimes it's just bad business.

Stop talking nonsense and post facts if you're telling people to review them.

It's so meso of you to simp for liars and (earmuffs EWB) gaslight people for wanting the truth. Admonishing them for "defending vendors".

How about you for defending liar like Gibs.

You're totally cool with spoofing a vendor account with an agenda to defraud them?

 

[exploitedworkerbee]

You're totally cool with spoofing a vendor account with an agenda to defraud them?

View attachment 4390

That’s definitely the brand of fuckery that’ll damage the accuser’s credibility.

 

[brentm]

That’s definitely the brand of fuckery that’ll damage the accuser’s credibility

It seems like the edge should cut both ways. Spoofing (shilling) or impersonation with intent to defraud shouldn't be tolerated on either side.

 

[exploitedworkerbee]

It seems like the edge should cut both ways. Spoofing or impersonation with intent to defraud shouldn't be tolerated on either side.

For sure it looks like nothing but assholes in this particular situation

 

[brentm]

And for the record I do have questions about SRYLAB with regards to the "counterfeit postage".

For instance, why did SRYLAB "change warehouses" if the labels were printed in China? There could be other reasons but it isn't clear why stating they've changed warehouses was a solution if the labels were purchased and sent along with the drop shipment to the warehouse.

 

[nurseratchit]

The only place selling tirzepatide you can really trust is Eli Lilly. Everyone else is worried about profits.

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

 

[brentm]

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

Irrelevant to the argument.

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

 

[nurseratchit]

Stop talking nonsense and post facts if you're telling people to review them.

It's so meso of you to simp for liars and (earmuffs EWB) gaslight people for wanting the truth. Admonishing them for "defending vendors".

How about you for defending liar like Gibs.

You're totally cool with spoofing a vendor account with an agenda to defraud them?

View attachment 4390

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.

 

[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.