Holy shit guys, I had tried to stay out of this rather than cause a big ruckus but you guys aren't letting it go. I have been funny and positive trying to let it go but people keep telling me to address this, and in my reply to my kind comments to SS I got called a primadonna.
You've really left me no choice but to reply so here it is, even if it means I won't be selling meth here because not saying anything seems to be doing more harm than I could have ever imagined.
Here is the original statement which was somehow blown out of proportion:
ACT 1
* I've received an 8-ball from Kushi and Hamma' for comparison. I'm not going to make any comment here about their product as that would be tacky and is obviously suspect. Let's just say that I am now aware of what the competition is and am still interested in playing.
Please note I did not say "mine is best" or even imply it. I only said was interested in being in this market.
The reality is know exactly how good mine is and where it rated against Kushi and Hamma because I did my market research before making my first post. I've been researching this market for months. You can ask Sniper, in early January I added him to my review team and I sent him two samples from vendors who did not make the cut in early January. He left a review with high marks on one of these rejected sources. I only used sniper twice because he was preoccupied with other matters that prevented him from being a regular tester. Okay now I've said it, the meth I'm selling is the cleanest and most potent meth on SR. Vendor says his product is the best! Shit now I've done it huh?
Pinkman replied:
So I'm really curious, especially since you don't do it yourself, what objective measure you used that made you think you stack up well or better than the competition?
That one tiny sentence dissects down to all of this:
1) I made a bold claim that my product is better than others
2) I do not do meth
3) Someone who doesn't do meth I am not qualified to judge
4) The only valid judge is an objective one
To address those four claims point by point:
Claim 1: I made a bold claim that my product is better than others
Response: False. Go see the quote above but it is clear as day I did not. Pinkman inferred that I did. Pinkman is not stupid, he distorted the truth to fit his agenda.
Claim 2: I do not do meth
Response: I have intentionally not stated whether I do meth or not because people tend to use that against you in this field. For example if I say "yes I do heroin" it opens the door to "you are using all your product and leaving the customers crap" and other stupid attacks. If I claim that that I do not do heroin it opens the door to "You don't know what you are talking about". My position has therefore been to keep this private. Once gain, Pinkman is not stupid he intentionally created misinformation as a rhetorical tool, and everybody here believed it to be true without actually checking.
Claim 3: Someone who doesn't do meth I am not qualified to judge
Response: Absurd. There are many ways someone can judge, including not limited to asking other experts (I was doing this months ago), objective measurements (yes I have objective tests, no I'm not going to share them because of the spectacle - if you want an idea of my testing methodology look at my posts in other forums.)
Claim 4: The only valid judge is an objective one
Response: This is false, empirical testing is crucial. Objective tests are important too, but let's recall that I am the person who came here carrying that banner and nobody here had ever done any objective tests. Pinkman tried to change the perception to the opposite.
For those that don't know a troll is someone on forums who tries to bait somebody in to being your puppet, saying what you ant them to say.
Pinkman's first post distorted what I said, fabricated a supposed fact about my drug use, created the perception that I am not qualified to make such claims, and then challenged me in a way that if I did not respond it proved his position that I am incorrect about something (ignoring for a moment that the thing I was supposedly incorrect about were words that he put in my mouth). There is no word in existence that better describes what he did than "troll".
ACT 2
I did not call Pinkman a troll at this point, although he was undoubtedly trolling.
Here is my reply to pinkman's trap:
I was referring to product quality actually but I'm not willing to say more because it is treading too close to something I consider tacky. Instead I walked right up to my limit and waved. I'll let you guys can tell each other how good my stuff is when I get around to doing something to entice you in to trying it.
Dissected:
1) I am not willing to say more.
2) Nobody is going to believe what I say anyway so I'll let you guys tell each other
3) When I'm ready to I will do something to entice you to trying it (so that you can do #2)
Pinkman's reply:
Wait. So you understand right that we're not actually asking you to share your conclusions, just the process and metrics by which you determined your conclusions. That is, if you're not actually jerking our chain and this isn't just some marketing gimmick.
You were seeking earlier an objective measure by which to determine product quality. Now suddenly you've settled upon an objective measure that you've now used to size up your competition? 
Well that was improbably quick wasn't it? 
When we dissect this what it is really saying is if I don't reply:
1) I'm jerking your chain
2) This is a marketing gimmick
3) This was too quick for me to determine an objective measure, and therefore I must be lying
Pinkman disrespected me by ignoring my polite refusal to say more and set up a perception where I must respond to his false intepretation of what I said or I am full of shit.
He was trolling in his first post by distorting the truth, putting words in my mouth, and fabricating false statements but I let it slide. But then he disrespected me by ignoring my polite refusal to say more (who here isn't pissed off when you tell somebody no and they don't take no for an answer?), he also said it appears that I was lying ("improbably quick"). Let's keep in mind all this time we are stilltalking about a statement he falsely claims I made. Anybody who does not think THAT was trolling does not know what trolling is.
Someone put words in my mouth, wouldn't take no for an answer, misrepresented what I said to mean something else, tried to coerce me in to making a statement I told him I did not want to make, who created a totalitarian argument by which the only right answer was his. He was trolling, I called him a troll. What's the big deal?
Now let's get down to brass tax: What all of you really want is for me to justify that my product is better than the competition. A few of you have said "we wont believe you anyway - not until someone we trust says it's good". Well guess what, I agree with you and I've been saying it since the start:
I'm not going to make any comment here about their product as that would be tacky and is obviously suspect.
I'll let you guys can tell each other how good my stuff is when I get around to doing something to entice you in to trying it.
So now what? I know how this goes - you want me give away some product to forum members so they can review. I'd be happy to when I'm ready, but I am not ready to yet:
I'll let you guys can tell each other how good my stuff is when I get around to doing something to entice you in to trying it.
Now that we've reviewed what as actually said, rather than what people think was said feel free to tell me what's on your mind, otherwise JP can just take the shame of being called out as a troll and we can move on.
Show Posts
Have a nice day!