87 replies to this topic

[Crepulance]

Hello fellow members, according to the precedent which Imminst just set, I have no doubts this post too will be immediately pulled. As many of you are aware, I began a thread in which we were hearing both sides from the CEOs of Longevin and RevGen as I have recently been in email contact with Bill Sardi himself. It quickly became one of the extremely active threads on the board within a matter of days, as the subject matter was obviously interesting to many, and was fufilling a lot of curiosities many had about both products. As the thread grew more and more attention, and certain things were being put on the table, Imminst killed the post. There was no warning, no questioning the members. In fact, when the idea was brought up earlier in the thread, everyone in the thread shot the idea down quickly, as they too wanted to continue reading.


Now, I was always fairly aware that the bias of many members on this site was usually leaning to RevGen, which is perfectly fine. However, I never though the website itself was biased. Until now. To pull a thread with so much activity, and so much curiosity, with no apparent reason other than certain aspects of RevGen, and possibly it's CEO, being brought to light. I personally am so convinced there is an illegitimate bias held by the site Imminst.org towards RevGen. It made me fairly nauseaus to see that they did this, I literally was on the verge from retiring from the site (which I'm sure would be a joy to a select few). I was sent an absurd personal message, by Brainbox, one of the navigators, with pure sillyness and irreverance and transparency as to why he pulled it. Towards
the end, certain people started getting defensive and irrational, and Anthony and I imparticular starting having a little heat. Anthony's behaviour started to get out of line, as did mine (but I'm not the CEO of a company), and I can almost hear Anthony whispering to the navigators "pull it now" so as to quickly douse this fire. It wreaks of obviousness, I'll let the readers decide for themselves (should they get to see this post).

I, and others, wanted to hear from the other side, Longevin, which isn't often brought up. Sure there was bickering and some non productive replies, but those are found just as readily in most all other threads. But for the most part, it was curious people with curious questions, and people trying to divulge answers. There was talk of opening a new area just for topics like this, but it was agreed upon majorly to leave the current thread open until that is done. So by Imminst blatantly going against the clear wishes of it's members, wreaks of bias and suspiscion. Instead they said they would move the thread into the "Free Speech" section. The "Free Speech" section?! I've been an active member on these boards for months, and I've never even heard of the Free Speech section. It must be where posts they want to hide, go to die. Any person who googles the topic or even navigates with any interest in Resveratrol, winds up in the current threads which where we all do. When people want answers on Res, they come here, not to Free Speech. So Imminst essentially ushered our thread off into obscurity. The retarded step child in the basement. I'm not lashing out at Imminst, I am just very dissapointed in the behavior since I had never suspected them personally of being biased until now.

Anyway, I will not rant, I just wanted to let the facts be out there, as well as my opinion on them. Imminst, if you truly have nothing to hide, I would hope you'd let this thread live for a week or so to hear some others peoples voices who either support or refute your decision so you can know for the future. I'm sure there will be people who disagree with how I handeled posting it, but for those people, I would be curious as to what you think of the situation itself, and not my tactics used to show it.
There are many old and tired posts that have grown cobwebs on these forums for ages, with no one touching them. Surely they wouldn't negate those and skip straight to one of the newest and most highly active posts in recent days. Allow me to show you some examples that have been around for a loooong time with no urgent need to shut them down, and then you all can tell me why they chose this one.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18185 - Last post Oct 15th 2007 (a total of two replies) - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=14872 - Last post Oct 15th 2007 -NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18152 - Last post Oct 17th 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=15488 - Last post Oct 23rd 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18432- Last post Nov 1st 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18481 - Last post Nov 3rd 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18622 - Last post Nov 15th 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...o...14578&st=90- Last post Nov 17th 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...o...13429&st=30 - Last post Nov 19th 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18387 - Last post Nov 28th 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=19509 - Last post Dec. 7 2007 - NOT PULLED

Now skip forward to a few days ago, with nearing a thousand views in a few days, consistently at the top of the thread list, my thread, which seemed to inadvertantly be causing damage to RevGen -WAS PULLED. Let's see if we can deduce a pattern from the above.

I hope you get my point. This is but a mere handful from 2007, that haven't seen the light of day in over a year. There are many many many many more. For some reason, these weren't pulled with such great urgency.

This is ludicrous and ridiculous and would hope Brain box will put the thread back up after looking at the incontrovertable evidence. There were a large handful of questions to which members asked me to forward to Bill Sardi to which I was about to reply, but the rug was pulled out from under me and the thread was removed.

Now Brainbox, I do like you, so this isn't a personal attack on you, but simply one on your decision. Sure I agree we were getting a little off topic, and unproductive for a few posts, but that is a navigators job to quell it with a personal message so the thread can continue as happens ALL THE TIME in other threads. To simply remove the thread altogether is extremely suspicious and in my opinion biased. I will for your edification now post Brainbox's personal message to me, and you all can decide for yourself.

<privacy infringement removed>

I will also post a link to the thread where they moved it (which was no easy task to find, even on google). http://www.imminst.o...o...26539&st=30

On another note. Even if there is no public outcry for a reinstatement of the thread until the new format comes into play, I will post a new thread with simply the link to where they have hidden the Original Thread. Whatever their point was in removing it, surely they can find no fault in at least letting people know where it is unless they are further trying to bury it. It seems to me, if it were fair play, they themselves would have posted a link, since people who want to know of Res come to this forum and not Free Speech.


Crep

Edited by zoolander, 04 January 2009 - 05:27 AM.
privacy infringement

[Crepulance]

PS, to further defend Brainbox himself (but not those who guide his hand)... Brainbox, I actually am on your side, and feel for you as it feels to me as someone is forcing your hand in this manner, as you yourself justly championed keeping the thread open. It was (big shocker) Anthony, who originally suggested shutting the thread down, and Maxwatt, the one to quickly want to jump at the opportunity, but Brainbox was a good man and said what needed to be said. I will copy and paste the transaction.

Anthony: I am not sure this is a productive thread anymore drmz since most things had been answered previously and no new information is coming in.

Maxwatt: If that continues to be the case I can lock the topic.

Brainbox: Why non productive? It seems to me that this is an interesting subject with lots of open ends. These kind of subjects get stirred up all the time in the forums. I guess the scientific / emotive ratio is better then 20%, which is not a bad score either. If interpretations are wrong, than that could be easily corrected.

Now how can someone as reasonable as that be the one to pull the plug? Brainbox has always been open minded and seemingly neutral. It leads me to believe the higher powers at imminst forced him to kill the post, as it is completely counterintuitive to his previous beliefs. See for your self and judge for yourself. Brainbox, would love to hear from you in PM if there is something you can't divulge on here due to prying eyes and puppeting hands...


Crep

Hello fellow members, according to the precedent which Imminst just set, I have no doubts this post too will be immediately pulled. As many of you are aware, I began a thread in which we were hearing both sides from the CEOs of Longevin and RevGen as I have recently been in email contact with Bill Sardi himself. It quickly became one of the extremely active threads on the board within a matter of days, as the subject matter was obviously interesting to many, and was fufilling a lot of curiosities many had about both products. As the thread grew more and more attention, and certain things were being put on the table, Imminst killed the post. There was no warning, no questioning the members. In fact, when the idea was brought up earlier in the thread, everyone in the thread shot the idea down quickly, as they too wanted to continue reading.


Now, I was always fairly aware that the bias of many members on this site was usually leaning to RevGen, which is perfectly fine. However, I never though the website itself was biased. Until now. To pull a thread with so much activity, and so much curiosity, with no apparent reason other than certain aspects of RevGen, and possibly it's CEO, being brought to light. I personally am so convinced there is an illegitimate bias held by the site Imminst.org towards RevGen. It made me fairly nauseaus to see that they did this, I literally was on the verge from retiring from the site (which I'm sure would be a joy to a select few). I was sent an absurd personal message, by Brainbox, one of the navigators, with pure sillyness and irreverance and transparency as to why he pulled it. Towards
the end, certain people started getting defensive and irrational, and Anthony and I imparticular starting having a little heat. Anthony's behaviour started to get out of line, as did mine (but I'm not the CEO of a company), and I can almost hear Anthony whispering to the navigators "pull it now" so as to quickly douse this fire. It wreaks of obviousness, I'll let the readers decide for themselves (should they get to see this post).

I, and others, wanted to hear from the other side, Longevin, which isn't often brought up. Sure there was bickering and some non productive replies, but those are found just as readily in most all other threads. But for the most part, it was curious people with curious questions, and people trying to divulge answers. There was talk of opening a new area just for topics like this, but it was agreed upon majorly to leave the current thread open until that is done. So by Imminst blatantly going against the clear wishes of it's members, wreaks of bias and suspiscion. Instead they said they would move the thread into the "Free Speech" section. The "Free Speech" section?! I've been an active member on these boards for months, and I've never even heard of the Free Speech section. It must be where posts they want to hide, go to die. Any person who googles the topic or even navigates with any interest in Resveratrol, winds up in the current threads which where we all do. When people want answers on Res, they come here, not to Free Speech. So Imminst essentially ushered our thread off into obscurity. The retarded step child in the basement. I'm not lashing out at Imminst, I am just very dissapointed in the behavior since I had never suspected them personally of being biased until now.

Anyway, I will not rant, I just wanted to let the facts be out there, as well as my opinion on them. Imminst, if you truly have nothing to hide, I would hope you'd let this thread live for a week or so to hear some others peoples voices who either support or refute your decision so you can know for the future. I'm sure there will be people who disagree with how I handeled posting it, but for those people, I would be curious as to what you think of the situation itself, and not my tactics used to show it.
There are many old and tired posts that have grown cobwebs on these forums for ages, with no one touching them. Surely they wouldn't negate those and skip straight to one of the newest and most highly active posts in recent days. Allow me to show you some examples that have been around for a loooong time with no urgent need to shut them down, and then you all can tell me why they chose this one.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18185 - Last post Oct 15th 2007 (a total of two replies) - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=14872 - Last post Oct 15th 2007 -NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18152 - Last post Oct 17th 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=15488 - Last post Oct 23rd 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18432- Last post Nov 1st 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18481 - Last post Nov 3rd 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18622 - Last post Nov 15th 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...o...14578&st=90- Last post Nov 17th 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...o...13429&st=30 - Last post Nov 19th 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=18387 - Last post Nov 28th 2007 - NOT PULLED
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=19509 - Last post Dec. 7 2007 - NOT PULLED

Now skip forward to a few days ago, with nearing a thousand views in a few days, consistently at the top of the thread list, my thread, which seemed to inadvertantly be causing damage to RevGen -WAS PULLED. Let's see if we can deduce a pattern from the above.

I hope you get my point. This is but a mere handful from 2007, that haven't seen the light of day in over a year. There are many many many many more. For some reason, these weren't pulled with such great urgency.

This is ludicrous and ridiculous and would hope Brain box will put the thread back up after looking at the incontrovertable evidence. There were a large handful of questions to which members asked me to forward to Bill Sardi to which I was about to reply, but the rug was pulled out from under me and the thread was removed.

Now Brainbox, I do like you, so this isn't a personal attack on you, but simply one on your decision. Sure I agree we were getting a little off topic, and unproductive for a few posts, but that is a navigators job to quell it with a personal message so the thread can continue as happens ALL THE TIME in other threads. To simply remove the thread altogether is extremely suspicious and in my opinion biased. I will for your edification now post Brainbox's personal message to me, and you all can decide for yourself.

"Hi Crep,

I moved your sardi thread to free speech.

Why did I do that?

My feeling is that you have a valid point in raising this issue. However, the quality of discussion deteriorated.

We are discussing within leadership how to deal with vendor-vendor discussions (and the inevitable associated polarisation) in the future as you might have seen already.

The reason that no new elements or insights are given in a topic is not a reason for closing since this happens all the time. I did not see any complaints coming from Anthony regarding these other threads.

So, for the sake of neutrality and open mindedness, I would like to see discussions based on scientific facts as much as possible. New discussions about old viewpoints often result in new insights, nothing wrong with that. At least, if the goal is renewing insight and education in stead of protecting business.

Anyway, for such a topic to be taken seriously, don't use ad hominem(-ish) attacks please.

Sincerely,
B.

PS.
Happy new year! "


I will also post a link to the thread where they moved it (which was no easy task to find, even on google). http://www.imminst.o...o...26539&st=30

On another note. Even if there is no public outcry for a reinstatement of the thread until the new format comes into play, I will post a new thread with simply the link to where they have hidden the Original Thread. Whatever their point was in removing it, surely they can find no fault in at least letting people know where it is unless they are further trying to bury it. It seems to me, if it were fair play, they themselves would have posted a link, since people who want to know of Res come to this forum and not Free Speech.


Crep

[eternaltraveler]

Umm let me get this straight. you are saying imminst has censored your thread because it was moved to a part of the forum where we don't have the authority to censor or moderate in anyway... Nor will we move your link to that thread from here. I don't know if the move was appropriate, but posts with the kind of ad hominem attacks you spewed forth are not acceptable behavior elsewhere on this site.

Edited by elrond, 04 January 2009 - 06:14 PM.
cleaned up blackberry post

[niner]

Seems like a lot of accusations, Crep. You've been accusing us of bias for weeks now, and now you are calling Brainbox a "puppet". It's pretty clear why the thread was moved to Free Speech, to whit:

Anthony,
You sir, are a moron.[/quote]

That's a violation of the rules of conduct at the Institute, and is reason enough to outright delete the offending thread. The fact that it got moved to Free Speech is fairly mild. ImmInst is not a free service for people to post offensive stuff. No one has a "right" to post whatever they want here, particularly people who are not even paying members. If you stick to well researched facts and leave out the accusations and ad hominems, you will find that your posts are most welcome here.

• Back to top

[thefirstimmortal]

Crepulance, I will help you out with this tomorrow.

William Constitution O'Rights

[thefirstimmortal]

Crepulance, Do me favor. Hold off on posting another post about this until you see my next post. I'll address this first thing in the morning.

[zoolander]

posting the details of private messages (PMs) without prior premission from the other party is a breach of privacy Crep.

I know you understand this

Brainbox, would love to hear from you in PM if there is something you can't divulge on here due to prying eyes and puppeting hands...

Please refrain from posting private information into public forums

Edited by zoolander, 04 January 2009 - 05:36 AM.

[thefirstimmortal]

While I'm working on that post for you tomorrow Crep, for your reading pleasure...

"Free" The Free Speech Forum!, "Guess Whose Back"
http://www.imminst.o...o...c=22849&hl=

[thefirstimmortal]

Till tomorrow...
Goodnight everyone.

Attached Files

•  24.gif   272bytes   6 downloads

[Crepulance]

I'm sorry niner, am I supposed to believe that calling someone a moron is less offensive than Anthony calling me a shill for months? Another lovely biased cherry pick. It's funny how the only people responding negatively are navigators, imagine that. To get your facts straight, I have not been accusing Imminst of being biased, I have been saying a lot of its members have been. Today is the first day I began to think the site itself is biased. As to moving such an active thread because someone called someone a moron is ludicrous. Are you really leading me to believe that out of all the hundereds of posts out there that haven't been moved, none of them have someone calling someone a schoolyard name insult? I know it's not the best or most productive thing to do, but don't be so proposterous as to imply that that is the reason such an active thread was removed.


Crep

Seems like a lot of accusations, Crep. You've been accusing us of bias for weeks now, and now you are calling Brainbox a "puppet". It's pretty clear why the thread was moved to Free Speech, to whit:

(Crepulance
)Anthony,
You sir, are a moron.

That's a violation of the rules of conduct at the Institute, and is reason enough to outright delete the offending thread. The fact that it got moved to Free Speech is fairly mild. ImmInst is not a free service for people to post offensive stuff. No one has a "right" to post whatever they want here, particularly people who are not even paying members. If you stick to well researched facts and leave out the accusations and ad hominems, you will find that your posts are most welcome here.

[Crepulance]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying. You buried it into obscurity. Because a thread that was getting tons of replies and views EVERY SINGLE DAY, now hasn't had a SINGLE reply in an ENTIRE WEEK since you moved it into imagination land. Would LOVE to hear your smug response to that one. And the only reason there was a reply after a WEEK was because I just posted the link TODAY. Had I not, it would have vanished as seems to have been the plan.


Crep

Umm let me get this straight. you are saying imminst has censored your thread because it was moved to a part of the forum where we don't have the authority to censor or moderate in anyway... Nor will we move your link to that thread from here. I don't know if the move was appropriate, but posts with the kind of ad homin attacks you spewed foryth are not acceptable behavior elsewhere on this site.

[Crepulance]

At no point did any of you Navigators who are now out in droves at once contact me to warn me about using Ad Hominem or curb my conduct, I'm sure you didn't send anything to Anthony or others either. you simply evaporated the thread. That's not how its supposed to work, and you know that, and that draws serious suspicions.


Crep

Seems like a lot of accusations, Crep. You've been accusing us of bias for weeks now, and now you are calling Brainbox a "puppet". It's pretty clear why the thread was moved to Free Speech, to whit:


Anthony,
You sir, are a moron.

That's a violation of the rules of conduct at the Institute, and is reason enough to outright delete the offending thread. The fact that it got moved to Free Speech is fairly mild. ImmInst is not a free service for people to post offensive stuff. No one has a "right" to post whatever they want here, particularly people who are not even paying members. If you stick to well researched facts and leave out the accusations and ad hominems, you will find that your posts are most welcome here.

[Crepulance]

Zoolander, I didn't know.


Crep

posting the details of private messages (PMs) without prior premission from the other party is a breach of privacy Crep.

I know you understand this

Brainbox, would love to hear from you in PM if there is something you can't divulge on here due to prying eyes and puppeting hands...

Please refrain from posting private information into public forums

[Crepulance]

Listen, my goal here is not to bash Imminst all day, I wanted to post the information and let the public decide. I think Imminst is a good site, I'm a member, and it serves as a good gathering. But this act or anything like it was NOT something I've experienced here before. And with the given evidence, and it being a break in pattern from my normal dealings with an otherwise impartial Imminst, my suspicions are arroused greatly. My goal is not now to turn this thread itself into another battleground, I wanted to post my thoughts and let others post theres. If at any point we all agree to, I'm more than happy to stop talking about it.


Crep

[Crepulance]

Holy crap firstimmortal, I'm reading your stuff right now. Incredible, verrrrrry interesting. Will finish reading and get back to you...



Crep

[zoolander]

well now you do so please do not do it again Crep. Fortunately for me I spotted it as a result of your overt attempts to get everyone's attention i.e. use of caps and so on.

Look on the bright side Crep, free speech is unmoderated therefore you can continue to be condescending and call people names without clocking up any more warnings.

[Crepulance]

Bravo First. Way to take them to task.



Crep

[Crepulance]

And you can continue to push the truth into the desert for no one to see.

I would like all other Navigators and leaders to take note that one of your fellow Navigators, Zoolander, has called me condescending. That is a blatant and clear attack on my character and is Ad Hominem at its core definition. Which according to your rules by which you have removed my previous thread, should not be allowed. I would appreciate Zoolander to recieve a warning, and a PM confirmation to me that one has been given.


Crep

well now you do so please do not do it again Crep. Fortunately for me I spotted it as a result of your overt attempts to get everyone's attention i.e. use of caps and so on.

Look on the bright side Crep, free speech is unmoderated therefore you can continue to be condescending and call people names without clocking up any more warnings.

Edited by Crepulance, 04 January 2009 - 07:04 AM.

[zoolander]

for reference "condescending" is an adjective (i.e. descriptive) and in this sense use to describe an action for example, showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority or more specifically, calling another member a pregnant incestual ritalin smoking 12 year old. I think that it's fair to assume that referring to as condescending based on this example is just.

I thought you would have understood that Crep considering it's generally your m.o. You know to call it how you see it.

Nothing personal though. Just descriptive.

[Crepulanse]

You appear to conveniently neglect to mention the tone in which you presented your "descriptive" remark "Look on the bright side Crep, free speech is unmoderated therefore you can continue to be condescending and call people names without clocking up any more warnings." I believe that is what we call a "jab". For a moderator your tone and conduct with members seems to be anything but <i>moderate. </i>As for my remark you referenced, that remark was taken down by an administrator, so by you bringing it back verbatim, means you went through the trouble of tracking it down, or committed it to memory. Either way, you are now<i> reintroducing </i>something one of your peers wished to remove from the boards. Now who's being inflammatory? I personally am glad to see it brought back to light, and would say it again ten times. But since you chose to bring it up out of removal, I am allowed to put it into context so as to curb your spin. Suspire said she was the girl at school who said I belonged on the short bus, and I said she actually might be because the girl who said that to me was a pregnant incestual ritalin smoking 12 year old. Sorry to point out to our viewers that the remark you unearthed was actually a retort to an aggressive comment made to me, I know you cherry picked your editting there for the sake of context working out in your favor. It's a good thing I have a keyboard. I'm sure the person who decided to put the kabash on that argument between suspire and I sure are glad you brought it back up. You are a true moderator.



<br><br><br>Crep<br></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana; font-size: 11px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: pre-wrap; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><br>

<br>for reference "condescending" is an adjective (i.e. descriptive) and in this sense use to describe an action for example, showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority or more specifically, calling another member a pregnant incestual ritalin smoking 12 year old. I think that it's fair to assume that referring to as condescending based on this example is just.<br><br>I thought you would have understood that Crep considering it's generally your m.o. You know to call it how you see it.<br><br>Nothing personal though. Just descriptive.<br>

<br></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br><br>

<br>for reference "condescending" is an adjective (i.e. descriptive) and in this sense use to describe an action for example, showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority or more specifically, calling another member a pregnant incestual ritalin smoking 12 year old. I think that it's fair to assume that referring to as condescending based on this example is just.<br><br>I thought you would have understood that Crep considering it's generally your m.o. You know to call it how you see it.<br><br>Nothing personal though. Just descriptive.<br>

<br><br><br>

for reference "condescending" is an adjective (i.e. descriptive) and in this sense use to describe an action for example, showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority or more specifically, calling another member a pregnant incestual ritalin smoking 12 year old. I think that it's fair to assume that referring to as condescending based on this example is just.

I thought you would have understood that Crep considering it's generally your m.o. You know to call it how you see it.

Nothing personal though. Just descriptive.

Edited by Crepulanse, 04 January 2009 - 08:54 AM.

[Prometheus]

Ahh... a picture of the pinnacle of productivity...

Zoolander, as a scientist, aren't you overqualified to be running around after cheeky members? Surely ImmInst can find something more ..commensurate to your abilities..

Edited by Dr Manhattan, 04 January 2009 - 11:03 AM.

[zoolander]

Yes. I'm a bit over it. The Members around here would be better off if I focused my attention on the science.

[Mind]

At no point did any of you Navigators who are now out in droves at once contact me to warn me about using Ad Hominem or curb my conduct, I'm sure you didn't send anything to Anthony or others either. you simply evaporated the thread. That's not how its supposed to work, and you know that, and that draws serious suspicions.

You are now warned. You have been let-off easy for weeks now. No more. Stop attacking people or you will be banned again.

Also, as far as I am aware, at no point has Anthony asked for any special treatment or moderation actions.

All Navigators have the ability to suspend a user of these forums and as far as I can see, Zoolander acted appropriately.

And this is precisely why we need to keep retail product discussions in a different area. Like I said in another thread:

Here at the Institute we have tried to keep the forums focused on the science and not the individual retail products, because discussions about different products/companies invariably devolve into hissy fits and flame wars. We have had our share.

And yet another.

Edited by Mind, 04 January 2009 - 12:54 PM.

[thefirstimmortal]

8:17 Good morning. Up a little early, I think it's going to be a busy day. Have a few thing to review and will be back.

Attached Files

•  04.gif   275bytes   6 downloads

[Mind]

The thread that was accused of being "pulled" was simply moved to the free speech forum - see here.

In fact, I think this was a suggested way of handling things - suggested by the thefirstimmortal.

I hope you still approve thefirstimmortal.

Edited by Mind, 04 January 2009 - 01:25 PM.

[thefirstimmortal]

Now, I was always fairly aware that the bias of many members on this site was usually leaning to RevGen, which is perfectly fine.

Before I continue Crepulance, I think I have a duty to disclose that Anthony is a friend of mine. Also, if you are not aware, Anthony through he company Revgenetics generously donates a portion of his revenue on his sales of Resvetrol to my efforts to battle my cancer.

I don’t believe that will bias anything I have to say on the matter, especially the matter at hand before us now, but I thought this disclosure should be know to you.

[thefirstimmortal]

Your relevant comments Crepulance,

Instead they said they would move the thread into the "Free Speech" section. The "Free Speech" section?! I've been an active member on these boards for months, and I've never even heard of the Free Speech section. It must be where posts they want to hide, go to die. Any person who googles the topic or even navigates with any interest in Resveratrol, winds up in the current threads which where we all do. When people want answers on Res, they come here, not to Free Speech. So Imminst essentially ushered our thread off into obscurity. The retarded step child in the basement.

On another note. Even if there is no public outcry for a reinstatement of the thread until the new format comes into play, I will post a new thread with simply the link to where they have hidden the Original Thread. Whatever their point was in removing it, surely they can find no fault in at least letting people know where it is unless they are further trying to bury it. It seems to me, if it were fair play, they themselves would have posted a link, since people who want to know of Res come to this forum and not Free Speech.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying. You buried it into obscurity. Because a thread that was getting tons of replies and views EVERY SINGLE DAY, now hasn't had a SINGLE reply in an ENTIRE WEEK since you moved it into imagination land. Would LOVE to hear your smug response to that one. And the only reason there was a reply after a WEEK was because I just posted the link TODAY. Had I not, it would have vanished as seems to have been the plan.


And you can continue to push the truth into the desert for no one to see.

I am very familiar with the thread; I was following it although I posted no replies.

It is my belief that the Freedom of Speech Forum was restored to the active topics list just about 2 days ago, I write the following under that assumption. If I am in error, someone feel free to correct me.

The thread at issue was a very active thread, and then it all of a sudden disappeared from the Active topics list. I assume that it was moved last week to the Freedom of Speech Area where it was no longer showing up. The Freedom of Speech site now appears to be fixed, and the thread is now currently active again.

Crepulance arguments above however held merit until a few days ago. They may not today because the forum is currently fixed, but for much of the last week it was not and so his claims are not totally without merit.

Zoolander suspended Crepulance for three days. Aside from the issue of “posting the details of private messages”, I see nothing in the current post that rises to the level of a 3 day suspension. I think the suspension is unwarranted under the present circumstances, since Crepulance was advocating a claim that held merit until recently.


Since the Forum is now fixed, perhaps we should opt for a more peaceful resolution of this situation. Why don’t we immediately and without delay lift Crepulance suspension? For one, I would like to hear how he feels about having the thread moved to the Freedom of Speech area now that it does show up on the active topics list. Can we take the electronic muzzle off?

[Brainbox]

Crep, you're delusional regarding my position. I can move my hands very well on my own without the "guidance".

If you did read my PM, you could have seen that I'm partly on your side regarding an open discussion about resveratrol. But it's your behaviour that is disabling your initiative, not the initiative itself.

By this personal attack, without sending me a PM first to be able to clarify the matter in a civilised way, you definitive lost a person who has some understanding of your position and who would have otherwise provided you with some form of help.

[thefirstimmortal]

Seems like a lot of accusations, Crep. You've been accusing us of bias for weeks now, and now you are calling Brainbox a "puppet". It's pretty clear why the thread was moved to Free Speech, to whit:

Crepulance
+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crepulance
)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anthony,
You sir, are a moron.

That's a violation of the rules of conduct at the Institute, and is reason enough to outright delete the offending thread.

This is not so.

Zoolander had no Constitutional Authority to take the action he did and clearly overstepped his authority in this matter.

Our Constitution is clear on the matter. Under Bylaw A you will find ImmInst User Agreement & Disclaimer outlining what authority there is and is not on this matter. And our Constitution states the following, "Authority: ImmInst Leadership has the authority to edit, move or remove any post which does not follow Posting Guidelines."

Note, he only had the authority to edit, move or remove the offending post, no authority is given to move the thread.

In fact, Zoolander having overstepped his authority in this matter puts him in direct violation of Bylaw C, ImmInst Leadership Positions section 4, which states in part "It is contingent upon the acceptance of the appointment of Advisors, Navigators, and Spokespersons—or upon acceptance of the election of Directors—to enter into an agreement to abide by the regulations of the ImmInst Constitution,..."

Please also note that under Bylaw C, Section 4 Navigators, 1. Responsibility, no such authority exists. That section reads "Navigators moderate individual electronic forum(s) on ImmInst's website. Moderation includes the starting and closing of discussions, editing contributions where appropriate and helping inexperienced contributors and members.

[thefirstimmortal]

The thread that was accused of being "pulled" was simply moved to the free speech forum - see here.

In fact, I think this was a suggested way of handling things - suggested by the thefirstimmortal.

I hope you still approve thefirstimmortal.

I believe this is the best way to resolve these issues. I thought that's how we set things up, but after reading the Constitution I am to find that this isn't the case. Perhaps that's something that should be made clearer.