87 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

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.

hmmm, you're right. Its in bylaw A. Which can be modified by a authoritative directoral vote. Obviously leaders are intended to be able to move threads, but it is not clearly stated. Without this authority the forums would be a total disaster.

We're sure to find more errors in the constitution/bylaws as time goes on. The authors weren't gods, and since most of them are still here I'm sure they'll agree. There is a process in place to correct them.

Edited by elrond, 04 January 2009 - 07:43 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

editing contributions where appropriate

moving threads could be implied in "editing". However I agree it should be made clearer.

[thefirstimmortal]

editing contributions where appropriate

moving threads could be implied in "editing". However I agree it should be made clearer.

I think that's stretching it a bit.

[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.

hmmm, you're right. Its in bylaw A. Which can be modified by a authoritative directoral vote. Obviously leaders are intended to be able to move threads, but it is not clearly stated. Without this authority the forums would be a total disaster.

We're sure to find more errors in the constitution/bylaws as time goes on. The authors weren't gods, and since most of them are still here I'm sure they'll agree. There is a process in place to correct them.

I agree, there are errors and things that need to be better defined. Something that we can perhaps debate and fix here in the near future. In the meantime, Crepulance shouldn't be suffering a 3 day ban for his advocacy on the matter of his thread being moved. Let's bring him back without further delay.

[thefirstimmortal]

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.

Mind, under Bylaw C, section 2, don't you have a disclosure to make?

[thefirstimmortal]

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

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

Had Zoolander banned Crepulance prior to moving the threads to the Freedom of Speech area, that would have been one thing. The problem here is that the thread was in the Freedom of Speech Forum at the time Crepulance was banned. Since the thread was in the Freedom of Speech Forum, Crepulance could not at the time be banned. The posting guidlines simply don't apply.

[Mind]

I think that's stretching it a bit.

I don't think it is stretching it one bit. Moving whole threads has been implied and encouraged for the entire life of the forums.

You can argue all the technicalities you want but Crepulance broke the user agreement regarding "no malicius attacks". He called brainbox a puppet and Anthony a moron. He could also be considered a viral marketer with the obvious intention of promoting a product, and the precedence that has been set over the last 3 years is to ban viral marketers (falls under the spamming definition of the user agreement). Under the user agreement, new registrants are made aware that they can be banned "immediately".

I would have sent Crep a warning by PM but I figured it was not worth it since he doesn't respect anyone's privacy. I also was under the impression his warning level was raised at some point during the last couple weeks by one of the Navs, but I am unsure.

3 days is a light ban in my view.

Edited by Mind, 04 January 2009 - 10:44 PM.

[thefirstimmortal]

I don't think it is stretching it one bit. Moving whole threads has been implied and encouraged for the entire life of the forums.

It simply is not implied anywhere in the Constitution. Should it be there, should that be a power that Navigators should have? Absolutely yes, but let’s not pretend that the power is currently there, because it is not.

Elrond said it best, “We're sure to find more errors in the constitution/bylaws as time goes on. The authors weren't gods, and since most of them are still here I'm sure they'll agree. There is a process in place to correct them.” There were several mistakes; there are things that should have been put in that were not. We should review and fix those errors instead of pretending that the errors are not there. I know I can think of several errors I made that should be fixed. I think you know which ones I’m talking about.

You can argue all the technicalities you want but Crepulance broke the user agreement regarding "no malicius attacks". He called brainbox a puppet and Anthony a moron.

If Crepulance had been immediately banned prior to the thread move, I would remain silent on the issue. The problem we have here is that the thread was moved last week; the ban was in the last 24 hours. Once the thread entered the Freedom of Speech forum it became subject to that jurisdiction. The rules are simply different.

I think your problem is that you are under the false impression that I am defending Crepulance, and I am not. I am defending the Constitution. Our Constitution is clear on what you can and cannot do in this matter. It is the rule of law that I am defending here Mind. The thread was in the Freedom of Speech forum, and it well known that the posting guidelines do not apply there. Not only was there no authority to ban Crepulance, it is forbidden by our Constitution to do so. You might think the Constitution and it’s words and effects are “technicalities”, I for one do not. Our Constitution places certain limitations on what can and cannot be done. One of the things that cannot be done is banning someone for practicing free speech in the Free Speech Forum. If Crepulance ban is upheld, we are to learn today that this organizations leaders are free to ignore the written words of its very own Constitution.

Attached Files

•  zbackBill_of_RIGHTS_P2331B.jpg   35.36KB   6 downloads

[Prometheus]

Crepulance broke the user agreement regarding "no malicius attacks". He called brainbox a puppet and Anthony a moron.

Calling someone a puppet and a moron is a malicious attack?

Supposing he said, in place of puppet, "evidently being manipulated by 'X' " or "an undisguised advocate of 'X' "?
In place of moron, "of dubious cognitive capacity"..

Would he have been considered malicious?

If you are going to have RULES, you must DEFINE them and then ensure they are ENFORCED. You must also have rules for the ENFORCERS and ensure they are also enforced. Not telling you how to suck eggs but it appears you don't know how to suck eggs..

[zoolander]

just for the record, I am aware of the policies regarding free speech and none of my moderations actions were attached to posts located in the free speech forum

[niner]

If Crepulance had been immediately banned prior to the thread move, I would remain silent on the issue. The problem we have here is that the thread was moved last week; the ban was in the last 24 hours. Once the thread entered the Freedom of Speech forum it became subject to that jurisdiction. The rules are simply different.

Now that the Free Speech Forum is on the Active Topics list again (assuming that was not an error), are the rules still different? It seems to me that a forum which enjoys the privilege of Active Topics status should adhere to the same posting guidelines as other Active Topics fora. Since that would seem to go against the essence of the Free Speech forum, I'd be in favor of removing it from Active Topics.

[thefirstimmortal]

Crepulance broke the user agreement regarding "no malicius attacks". He called brainbox a puppet and Anthony a moron.

Calling someone a puppet and a moron is a malicious attack?

Supposing he said, in place of puppet, "evidently being manipulated by 'X' " or "an undisguised advocate of 'X' "?
In place of moron, "of dubious cognitive capacity"..

Would he have been considered malicious?

If you are going to have RULES, you must DEFINE them and then ensure they are ENFORCED. You must also have rules for the ENFORCERS and ensure they are also enforced. Not telling you how to suck eggs but it appears you don't know how to suck eggs..

Calling someone a puppet and a moron is a malicious attack, but you cannot be banned in the Freedom of Speech forum for malicious attacks. As such, there was no authority to ban Crep.

[thefirstimmortal]

just for the record, I am aware of the policies regarding free speech and none of my moderations actions were attached to posts located in the free speech forum

Then what was the reason for the ban?

[thefirstimmortal]

If Crepulance had been immediately banned prior to the thread move, I would remain silent on the issue. The problem we have here is that the thread was moved last week; the ban was in the last 24 hours. Once the thread entered the Freedom of Speech forum it became subject to that jurisdiction. The rules are simply different.

Now that the Free Speech Forum is on the Active Topics list again (assuming that was not an error), are the rules still different? It seems to me that a forum which enjoys the privilege of Active Topics status should adhere to the same posting guidelines as other Active Topics fora. Since that would seem to go against the essence of the Free Speech forum, I'd be in favor of removing it from Active Topics.

The whole purpose for the Free Speech Forum was to have a place where there was no power to censor. It was hotly debated between those who favored free speech (mostly members) and those who wanted the power to censor (mostly those who ended up in leadership positions), and the compromise to settle the debate is that we would have the Free speech forum, and that forum would be seperate but equal in function with every repect to the other forums. If it were subject to the posting guidlines, it would not be a free speech zone.

[zoolander]

He was spiralling out of control. He started by posting a longish piece complaining about the treatment of a thread in a forum for resveratrol posts. This is where my moderation started. I become aware of the post because of Crepulance's behaviour i.e multiple posts with caps crying foul play. I notice that he posted private information in the thread so I removed it. Following this the situation just escalated (i'm partly to blame for it as well). The topic went way off track so I either closed it down or moved it to "the Can". Can't remember. Crepulance then started new posts to try and get himself heard. Regardless of being warned and cautioned on several occasions to relax a bit he continued.

I had no choice but to suspend his account for 3 days so that he can calm down. I just didn't trust this guy to behave whilst he was frustrated, of course, he rejoined and started the whole abuse of authority thing. After having to clean up the forums again I suspended his new account.

IMO, the a hell of a lot more involved than just some sort of violation of free speech. Regardless, Creps behaviour on this occasion was far from productive. It's not the first time he has gotten himself in trouble either.

I suggest to ask for a copy of my moderation actions.

[eternaltraveler]

At your request thefirstimmortal I've reinstated creps account. He will be on thin ice for the time being. I've been in comunication with the other navigators and they are willing to try it out.

All this aside I think zoo lander acted entirely appropriately.

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

[thefirstimmortal]

At your request thefirstimmortal I've reinstated creps account. He will be on thin ice for the time being. I've been in comunication with the other navigators and they are willing to try it out.

All this aside I think zoo lander acted entirely appropriately.

Thank You Elrond. I have explained the Freedom of Speech Forum to him. And advised that he would do well to keep his threads there.

[thefirstimmortal]

In the thread
IMMINST: pleased or displeased with it?
I posted the following

Could someone from leadership check to find out if the Freedom Forum has been fully restored and post about it here? Is it a fully functioning forum? Can I stop using my reminder,
POSTED UNDER THE THREAT OF CENSORSHIP
Is it time for me to move my threads to the Freedom Forum?
Or is this a premature celebration on my part?

Can anyone answer this?

[Prometheus]

Crepulance broke the user agreement regarding "no malicius attacks". He called brainbox a puppet and Anthony a moron.

Calling someone a puppet and a moron is a malicious attack?

Supposing he said, in place of puppet, "evidently being manipulated by 'X' " or "an undisguised advocate of 'X' "?
In place of moron, "of dubious cognitive capacity"..

Would he have been considered malicious?

If you are going to have RULES, you must DEFINE them and then ensure they are ENFORCED. You must also have rules for the ENFORCERS and ensure they are also enforced. Not telling you how to suck eggs but it appears you don't know how to suck eggs..

Calling someone a puppet and a moron is a malicious attack, but you cannot be banned in the Freedom of Speech forum for malicious attacks. As such, there was no authority to ban Crep.

Not if such things are self-evident, I'm afraid. Having said that, however, I can state unequivocally that I have no idea what this was all about, and if indeed such things are self-evident

[Crepulance]

Mmmmmmmmmmy it's good to be free.


Crep

[Crepulance]

Alright, have a little catching up to do. And will do so without malicious attack.

Let's start with Mind. Mind, in regards to the following claim you made about me...

"He could also be considered a viral marketer with the obvious intention of promoting a product, and the precedence that has been set over the last 3 years is to ban viral marketers (falls under the spamming definition of the user agreement). Under the user agreement, new registrants are made aware that they can be banned "immediately".

...could you please post ANY posts made by myself in which I was marketing a product? I believe you cannot since I am not. Those are pretty certain sounding allegations, and I would like to see any certain sounding concrete backing to the claims, and not just interpretations of me wanting to hear from both sides. Also, in Anthony's, and now apparently your opinion, I am biased and somehow marketing another product. Why is it that you neglect to mention that I've advocated for RevGen plenty on these threads, have helped Anthony with some product development ideas (responsible for his nitro caps), and am currently taking RevGen myself. Why are those facts conveniently left out of the accusations?

Also, everyone seems to continue to not be able to answer my following point, and I would like one if you can produce one. How is consistently and unfoundedly calling me a shill (as Anthony continues to do) and you yourself unfoundedly calling me a "viral marketer" not considered a malicious attack of character? I believe calling someone a shill and a viral marketer is MUCH more of a malicious and defamatory attack on character than calling someone a moron (though I too should not have done that). Anthony incessantly calls me a shill, why is that slanderous behavior never penalized? Would love to finally get a response on the matter.

Good to be back. Thanks for the great dilligence and help in the matter Firstimmortal. Cheers.

Crep

I think that's stretching it a bit.

I don't think it is stretching it one bit. Moving whole threads has been implied and encouraged for the entire life of the forums.

You can argue all the technicalities you want but Crepulance broke the user agreement regarding "no malicius attacks". He called brainbox a puppet and Anthony a moron. He could also be considered a viral marketer with the obvious intention of promoting a product, and the precedence that has been set over the last 3 years is to ban viral marketers (falls under the spamming definition of the user agreement). Under the user agreement, new registrants are made aware that they can be banned "immediately".

I would have sent Crep a warning by PM but I figured it was not worth it since he doesn't respect anyone's privacy. I also was under the impression his warning level was raised at some point during the last couple weeks by one of the Navs, but I am unsure.

3 days is a light ban in my view.

Edited by Crepulance, 05 January 2009 - 10:54 AM.

[Crepulance]

I'm not sure if it was removed or if you didn't see it, but I responded once again defending your character, I know you had said you were partly on my side. I was saying I didn't appreciate the action taken by whomever executed it.

And though puppet may have been a hyperbole and sharp word to use, it was not meant as an insult to you. It was referencing the fact that one minute you were strongly advocating keeping the thread between Anthony and Bill open and in place, and the next minute I get a message from you saying it was moved. You can see how one could infer that the same person who a moment earlier said one thing and now was doing something completely opposite, may have had someone in their ear or was possibly under duress from peers. But I can assure you the insult (though shouldn't have been said) was directed to whomever made the decision and not to you. And if there was no one pushing for the move, and the decision was made on your own, then it confuses me how someone who said 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. " Would now be the same person to then turn immediately around and move the exact same forum elsewhere. If I am wrong, I would like for you to clarify.


Cheers

Crep

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.

[Crepulance]

Of course I was crying foul play, because there was foul play. Pointing out flaws in a system's governance is not means to suspend a member. Me posting private information was already discussed, it was a rule I was unaware of, and I said as much. You aknowledged that above and said it was okay, just not to do it in the future, so to bring it up now for cause does not hold merit. As for the escalation, it was me calling you out on your actions. And you said yourself, you partook in the escalation, so why suspend me without suspending yourself as well for instigating? I started a new post because you were deleting every injustice I brought to light, of course I will post them so it is heard. Of course I will find a way to circumvent your unfounded and improper actions. Anyway, I will drop the matter as it is now resolved, I simply wanted to respond to what I have not been able to for the past day.

As to everything else, well, I simply can't say it better than Firstimmortal did.

Cheers
Crep

He was spiralling out of control. He started by posting a longish piece complaining about the treatment of a thread in a forum for resveratrol posts. This is where my moderation started. I become aware of the post because of Crepulance's behaviour i.e multiple posts with caps crying foul play. I notice that he posted private information in the thread so I removed it. Following this the situation just escalated (i'm partly to blame for it as well). The topic went way off track so I either closed it down or moved it to "the Can". Can't remember. Crepulance then started new posts to try and get himself heard. Regardless of being warned and cautioned on several occasions to relax a bit he continued.

I had no choice but to suspend his account for 3 days so that he can calm down. I just didn't trust this guy to behave whilst he was frustrated, of course, he rejoined and started the whole abuse of authority thing. After having to clean up the forums again I suspended his new account.

IMO, the a hell of a lot more involved than just some sort of violation of free speech. Regardless, Creps behaviour on this occasion was far from productive. It's not the first time he has gotten himself in trouble either.

I suggest to ask for a copy of my moderation actions.

Edited by Crepulance, 05 January 2009 - 11:25 AM.

[Crepulance]

Mind, I and the readers can infer from your silence on the matter that you calling me a "viral marketer" was completely unfounded, innapropriate and wrong. If you disagree, please respond to my below comment and post anywhere in any thread where I've marketed any product. Thanks


Crep

Alright, have a little catching up to do. And will do so without malicious attack.

Let's start with Mind. Mind, in regards to the following claim you made about me...

"He could also be considered a viral marketer with the obvious intention of promoting a product, and the precedence that has been set over the last 3 years is to ban viral marketers (falls under the spamming definition of the user agreement). Under the user agreement, new registrants are made aware that they can be banned "immediately".

...could you please post ANY posts made by myself in which I was marketing a product? I believe you cannot since I am not. Those are pretty certain sounding allegations, and I would like to see any certain sounding concrete backing to the claims, and not just interpretations of me wanting to hear from both sides. Also, in Anthony's, and now apparently your opinion, I am biased and somehow marketing another product. Why is it that you neglect to mention that I've advocated for RevGen plenty on these threads, have helped Anthony with some product development ideas (responsible for his nitro caps), and am currently taking RevGen myself. Why are those facts conveniently left out of the accusations?

Also, everyone seems to continue to not be able to answer my following point, and I would like one if you can produce one. How is consistently and unfoundedly calling me a shill (as Anthony continues to do) and you yourself unfoundedly calling me a "viral marketer" not considered a malicious attack of character? I believe calling someone a shill and a viral marketer is MUCH more of a malicious and defamatory attack on character than calling someone a moron (though I too should not have done that). Anthony incessantly calls me a shill, why is that slanderous behavior never penalized? Would love to finally get a response on the matter.

Good to be back. Thanks for the great dilligence and help in the matter Firstimmortal. Cheers.

Crep

I think that's stretching it a bit.

I don't think it is stretching it one bit. Moving whole threads has been implied and encouraged for the entire life of the forums.

You can argue all the technicalities you want but Crepulance broke the user agreement regarding "no malicius attacks". He called brainbox a puppet and Anthony a moron. He could also be considered a viral marketer with the obvious intention of promoting a product, and the precedence that has been set over the last 3 years is to ban viral marketers (falls under the spamming definition of the user agreement). Under the user agreement, new registrants are made aware that they can be banned "immediately".

I would have sent Crep a warning by PM but I figured it was not worth it since he doesn't respect anyone's privacy. I also was under the impression his warning level was raised at some point during the last couple weeks by one of the Navs, but I am unsure.

3 days is a light ban in my view.

[zoolander]

Mind, I and the readers can infer from your silence on the matter that you calling me a "viral marketer" was completely unfounded, innapropriate and wrong

The motivation of viral marketers is often to covertly insert a viral replicating message into a large social network with directly identifying their motive. It's very difficult to spot viral marketers because the effectiveness of their campaigns are often inversely related to their connection to a commercial interest i.e dissociation.

So...re. being unfounded.....in these situations it's sometimes more beneficial to go out on a limb and attempt to call out a viral marketer to protect the further dissemination of a viral message. Hey, maybe one or two people with be offended as a result, but the message with be plain and simple. We do not tolerate viral marketing. If you're not a viral marketer then what's the fuss? Re. being inappropriate and wrong, you're not calling the shots here Crep. Regardless of your view, which I am more than happy to listen to, I feel confident that the actions of those in positions of authority at the institute are geared towards moving the mission forward and to uphold the conditions as outline in the constitution to the best of their ability.

[Prometheus]

I feel confident that the actions of those in positions of authority at the institute are geared towards moving the mission forward and to uphold the conditions as outline in the constitution to the best of their ability.

was that a despatch to werribee?

[thefirstimmortal]

Mind, I and the readers can infer from your silence on the matter that you calling me a "viral marketer" was completely unfounded, innapropriate and wrong

The motivation of viral marketers is often to covertly insert a viral replicating message into a large social network with directly identifying their motive. It's very difficult to spot viral marketers because the effectiveness of their campaigns are often inversely related to their connection to a commercial interest i.e dissociation.

So...re. being unfounded.....in these situations it's sometimes more beneficial to go out on a limb and attempt to call out a viral marketer to protect the further dissemination of a viral message. Hey, maybe one or two people with be offended as a result, but the message with be plain and simple. We do not tolerate viral marketing. If you're not a viral marketer then what's the fuss? Re. being inappropriate and wrong, you're not calling the shots here Crep. Regardless of your view, which I am more than happy to listen to, I feel confident that the actions of those in positions of authority at the institute are geared towards moving the mission forward and to uphold the conditions as outline in the constitution to the best of their ability.

What is the difference between viral marketing and oh let's say Mind promoting Juvess facial cream? I mean, doesn't Mind get a cut off the revenue stream from the banner ad? Not that there is any thing wrong with that of course.

Edited by thefirstimmortal, 08 January 2009 - 07:50 PM.

[Shepard]

What is the difference between viral marketing and oh let's say Mind promoting Juvess facial cream?

I think we all know the difference between approved advertisers and viral marketers.

Cash money, baby.

[Mind]

Anyone who knows the history of Imminst knows that we have had big trouble with viral marketers in the past. That is why I kept the discussion going about how to deal with retail product discussions. These things always end up in flame wars and someone crying foul and are a big waste of time. Anyone who has been around at the Institute for a while knows this.

As for viral marketing Crep, you started a couple of threads about emails from one manufacturer while accusing the Institute of being a tool of another.

Hello Bill, I seem to be the sole person on the Imminst boards bringing up Longevinex nowadays.

Hey all, has anyone switched from Longevin to RevGen or vice versa

Whereas RevGen is just res. I know you can just add those supplements seperately, but for those who don't have a complex regimen, as most on these forums do, it's kinda nice to take one all encompassing pill instead of four.

I simply don't feel as good as I did when I took Longevi so I'm trying to find out why.

personal email from Bill Sardi

From Longevin site.

Plus posting press releases from one of the retailers.

All put together it looks suspicious. It is enough to trip my warning alarm. If you are honestly not trying to virally market any products you could start discussions about different resv formulations without mentioning the specific producers/retailers. Keeping the forums as neutral as possible is the goal, in order to preserve a significant revenue stream for the Institute. If any marketer is allowed to make any statements (viral or otherwise) anywhere in the forums, then there is no reason for any company to buy ad space. And if you think we don't need the revenue stream think again. It accounts for about 50% of Imminst income and is the reason we are able to provide scholarships, TFI matching fund, conferences, a paid staff of 1, etc... If someone is willing to hand over a six figure sum, or go on a massive (successful) funding drive, then perhaps we could stop using ads. There might be some other solutions as well and I am always open to hearing these (as has been discussed in the "how to handle" thread).

Until then, if the Institute wants to remain viable, we need to try our best to maintain neutrality in the forums.

On the topic of Juvess, they pay for their ad space. As Cnorwood will attest, he started an account called "juvess support" to answer questions and promote the product in the forums. I politely asked him to stop (and this would be a perfect example of having a side area, off active topics, for board reps). A similar thing happened with Anthony, as he will attest. It is impossible for me to cull every retail reference from the forums, but at least it has been kept to a minimum.

[Crepulance]

So you're essentially saying I'm a viral marketer because I've used the word Longevin 7 times. And to show how your examples are scraping for nothing, you stated "Hey all, has anyone switched from Longevin to RevGen or vice versa" as an example of viral marketing. I would like to know how in ANY way that is biased. Both products were mentioned for comparison in the same sentence. By using this as your excuse relegates you to saying just by saying the word "longevin" it is viral marketing, regardless of what other companies I say in the same sentence. By your logic, I also viral marketed for RevGen in that same exact sentence. Do you not see the inanity of that?? You can now understand my suspicion. The first question shows no bias at all, it is simple fact. I am one of the few people on here that brings up longevine in an attempt to compare it to RevGen. Please specifically explain how that in any way is biased or viral. Third quote, it is a question. You are going to vilify anyone who asks a question with the word longevin in it? I believe THAT is shill-like behavior, to dissuade such actions. Fourth quote, is fact. I don't feel as good as when I took it, so am trying to find out why. You happened to leave out me posting, I will add quercetin and vit D to my RevGen to try and get the same effects. How is that viral marketing. And the last one was me telling the post where I got the info, I don't understand how you can possibly include something like that. To me it seems the only reason is because the well ran dry. NONE of these are founded or justified to call someone a shill or viral marketer. You were not able to find anything where I laud Longevin blatantly and "bash" revgen. So you provided these meek, nothing questions/statements that in NO way implicate me in any shady activity. I would like and believe am deserved an apology from you. If your definition of being a shill or viral marketer is mentioning any other brand name than the banner which hangs over imminst, I think you have some rewriting to do. Tell me how the following quote I said about RevGen is viral marketing for Longevin. I'd be delighted to hear a response to this...

Crep: "Anthony, my question to you is, why don't you just individually nitrogen pack each pill like Longevin. It seems like you would have the market more cornered. You have larger doses, cheaper prices, and proven effectiveness with data to back it up. Even if just for a placebo effect, unless it's unbearably expensive."

Anthony: "So the question in my head now becomes: Should we produce these capsules for folks that don't care about due-diligence and price them higher? I currently see everyone, (including myself) pay for stuff at a greater expense because of brand names (Sony), new technology (Honda Hybrid), or have a history of incredible durability (Glock) without much due-diligence on my part because of articles and marketing. So I fall victim of (lack of time/lazyness) to some of this myself. I will consider this Crep, and call up Pfizer for another quote. (Yes, we considered this last year, but found they could not produce a 500mg res capsule, and dropped the marketing idea.) If you see this happen Crep in the next half of the year, take heart, it was because of this forum post.
A

Now Mind, would care to explain how that exchange was shill marketing for Longevin, if anything it was marketing for RevGen. Or do we neglect the fact that I'm responsible for Anthony's nitro caps...


Or the following "those in the 'know' will likely head towards RevGenetics" - That sounds TOTALLY Longevin biased...

Or the following... "You're right, and it seems I'm more likely to switch (to RevGen) as I'm getting more educated. -Again...SOOO biased towards Longevin.

Or the following... "Anthony, you're noble for sticking to the facts instead of marketing, but since res is at it's conception, if you choose to, now would be a good time to hop on the marketing train. Toot toot! -Such biased and viral advice!!!

I could go on and on, point being, you picked a handful of sentences where I said the word Longevin, and decided not to point out that I said just as much good as RevGen. Which equates me to FAIR AND BALANCED. Actually, according to the context of our given quotes, unkowingly, I would think I was leaning towards RevGen. I'm not however, I'm split in the middle until further information is seen. But I do now hope to receive an apology from you if the sentences you posted were your source for alleging I am a viral marketer, it holds no water.


Cheers,

Crep

Anyone who knows the history of Imminst knows that we have had big trouble with viral marketers in the past. That is why I kept the discussion going about how to deal with retail product discussions. These things always end up in flame wars and someone crying foul and are a big waste of time. Anyone who has been around at the Institute for a while knows this.

As for viral marketing Crep, you started a couple of threads about emails from one manufacturer while accusing the Institute of being a tool of another.

Hello Bill, I seem to be the sole person on the Imminst boards bringing up Longevinex nowadays.

Hey all, has anyone switched from Longevin to RevGen or vice versa

Whereas RevGen is just res. I know you can just add those supplements seperately, but for those who don't have a complex regimen, as most on these forums do, it's kinda nice to take one all encompassing pill instead of four.

I simply don't feel as good as I did when I took Longevi so I'm trying to find out why.

personal email from Bill Sardi

From Longevin site.

Plus posting press releases from one of the retailers.

All put together it looks suspicious. It is enough to trip my warning alarm. If you are honestly not trying to virally market any products you could start discussions about different resv formulations without mentioning the specific producers/retailers. Keeping the forums as neutral as possible is the goal, in order to preserve a significant revenue stream for the Institute. If any marketer is allowed to make any statements (viral or otherwise) anywhere in the forums, then there is no reason for any company to buy ad space. And if you think we don't need the revenue stream think again. It accounts for about 50% of Imminst income and is the reason we are able to provide scholarships, TFI matching fund, conferences, a paid staff of 1, etc... If someone is willing to hand over a six figure sum, or go on a massive (successful) funding drive, then perhaps we could stop using ads. There might be some other solutions as well and I am always open to hearing these (as has been discussed in the "how to handle" thread).

Until then, if the Institute wants to remain viable, we need to try our best to maintain neutrality in the forums.

On the topic of Juvess, they pay for their ad space. As Cnorwood will attest, he started an account called "juvess support" to answer questions and promote the product in the forums. I politely asked him to stop (and this would be a perfect example of having a side area, off active topics, for board reps). A similar thing happened with Anthony, as he will attest. It is impossible for me to cull every retail reference from the forums, but at least it has been kept to a minimum.