True Terpenes VISCOSITY extract liquifier LAB TESTS: Mineral oil but no terps!!

[Weird]

remember none of the product offering of this company is illegal they have access to all resources afforded for everything from product testing for quality control to clinical trials to address health concerns


can't use prohibition as an excuse to lack of resources

 

[MrBungle]

For some reason I remember big tobacco warning us on the dangers of vaping... Were they lying to help their cause, or were they being truthful?

 

[141ironlung]

Following along from Reddit.

Are you saying you would act more harshly toward the OP than True Terpenes if he is a competitor, even if his claims are true and there are no terpenes?

I noticed you wrote about logical fallacies and made fun of some people for misusing them. So I took a few seconds and looked up logical fallacies on Wikipedia. It sounds like you have used red herring, appeal to authority, appeal to accomplishment, appeal to the stone, argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, argument from repetition, ad hominem.

If his claims are true, and he is in the GLG, and is purposely hiding the fact that he is actually one of their competitors, they both are getting kicked out.

If his claims are false, and it's just some guy, then I have no more dogs in the fight, nor time to care.

If his claims are false, and it's a competitor, he will get the same treatment as TT would if they are caught lying.

Feel free to point out any specific fallacy you see. Im not perfect and I'm sure I used a bunch of them. They are commonly used in debate, and the onerous lay with the counter arguer to identify them

Not a big fan of whistle blowers?

So if no terpenes are found you will boot them from your site. But what about your responsibility here? If it's found the OP is correct and there are no terpenes it seems to me you bear a lot of responsibility for spreading fake news and lies. You would be guilty of helping them trick people.

Since you asked, when you refer to your status and who you worked with to show you're correct it's an appeal to authority and appeal to accomplishment fallacies, when you imply True Terpenes would never sell a product without terpenes after you and they claimed it to be 100% terpene isolates it's an argument from incredulity, and when you imply the OP is a competitor of True Terpenes it's a red herring.

 

[Weird]

For some reason I remember big tobacco warning us on the dangers of vaping... Were they lying to help their cause, or were they being truthful?

I believe reality to be that vaping can be a harm reduction method but adulterants and certain carriers can be harmful

better than it was but not where it should be for someone who expects to vape over a lifetime opposed to using it as a taper


big tobacco saw it as a way to increase profits after resisting the model and based on their history and capacity it could be resisting was a way to put off mass adoption of brands outside their holdings until they where ready to command a market share

that is their mo

 

[MrBungle]

I just feel like people went headstrong into this realm without really knowing much about it... everyone loves making money off pre made carts, and the people who use these carts love the convenience and discrete nature of using carts as their means of ingestion...



When I challenged the OP on his proof.. it wasn't to favor TT, it was to show that there wasn't enough evidence, and what was there would be questioned... Now that I see Reddit and other forums are involved, and some very reputable names are getting in on the testing... This is good for the OP's mission... I hope the findings to be 100% what TT claims them to be, not for TT's sake but for the sake of the people who used their product in good faith...

 

[Weird]

I just feel like people went headstrong into this realm without really knowing much about it... everyone loves making money off pre made carts, and the people who use these carts love the convenience and discrete nature of using carts as their means of ingestion...



When I challenged the OP on his proof.. it wasn't to favor TT, it was to show that there wasn't enough evidence, and what was there would be questioned... Now that I see Reddit and other forums are involved, and some very reputable names are getting in on the testing... This is good for the OP's mission... I hope the findings to be 100% what TT claims them to be, not for TT's sake but for the sake of the people who used their product in good faith...

Don't take my critique as nails in a hopeful coffin of TT. I am simply making my point regarding the dangers of consumerism based bias



market demand triggers people to profit so powerfully that it becomes a driving factor in the market not the people they are meant to serve and when those models correct everyone in the chain of causation suffers



integrity pays benefits in the long run, like a proper ipm in an organic garden



Much of our comments are simple conjecture and some are directed at the specific situation at hand but this is a common dynamic in emerging markets which is also where the fat profits lie



they aren't mutually exclusive which is why we are in the situation we are



does that mean we are incapable of directing it without humanitarianism in the forefront of our intent?



see before it was legal being an outlaw wasn't about being criminal it was about preserving consciousness in light of laws that seek to abolish it



it was always a bit more than just a weed and when people are sated by money they seem to forget the facet about this plant that transcends our own fulfillment of self



why take your eyes from the prize for a few dollar signs when they can co-reside?

 

[Weird]

in any market the sum of its value is the whole of its parts and any synergy between then



lack there of takes away from that total market value potential any way you slice it so from a market perspective altruism still makes sense

 

[Ringodoggie]

...altruism still makes sense

Yeah, but lying makes MONEY. And, that's all 99.99% of human's care about. Fuck thy neighbor.

Greed is the worst sin (lust is my favorite). LOL

 

[Badfishy1]

Anybody citing ‘reddit’ as a ‘source’ needs to just stop. If you don’t think plebbit mods are bought and paid for, you are sadly mistaken...

 

[Weird]

Yeah, but lying makes MONEY. And, that's all 99.99% of human's care about. Fuck thy neighbor.

Greed is the worst sin (lust is my favorite). LOL

instant gratification doesn't build institutions or generations of worth so just because it is prevalent doesn't mean it has to be pervasive and persuasive

 

[gh0stm0de]

Lets take a closer look at the claim on their site.

they claimed it to be 100% terpene isolates it's an argument from incredulity, and when you imply the OP is a competitor of True Terpenes it's a red herring.

VISCOSITY Extract Liquifier is the original flavorless odorless extract diluent made with a blend of 100% organic terpenes.

It does not contain PG, VG, PEG,

What I am reading is that viscosity does contain terpenes and that the terpenes are 100% organic. I am not reading this to suggest that the formula contains 100% terpenes. However the way it was worded I wouldnt be surprised if they wanted people to interpret that as 100% terpenes.

I keep getting the impression that people believe the formula to be all terpenes. But I do not see TT state that it is all terps unless I missed it.

 

[Sertaiz]

o shit ghost...... thats true.
dunno....

it definitely implies in my mind that its a blend of terps, like when you say olive oil is a blend of olive oil, i figure that means different olive trees, maybe countries of origin, but not any other kind of oil....

 

[141ironlung]

by 141ironlung
Following along from Reddit.

Are you saying you would act more harshly toward the OP than True Terpenes if he is a competitor, even if his claims are true and there are no terpenes?

I noticed you wrote about logical fallacies and made fun of some people for misusing them. So I took a few seconds and looked up logical fallacies on Wikipedia. It sounds like you have used red herring, appeal to authority, appeal to accomplishment, appeal to the stone, argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, argument from repetition, ad hominem.

Future4200
If his claims are true, and he is in the GLG, and is purposely hiding the fact that he is actually one of their competitors, they both are getting kicked out.

If his claims are false, and it's just some guy, then I have no more dogs in the fight, nor time to care.

If his claims are false, and it's a competitor, he will get the same treatment as TT would if they are caught lying.

Feel free to point out any specific fallacy you see. Im not perfect and I'm sure I used a bunch of them. They are commonly used in debate, and the onerous lay with the counter arguer to identify them

Not a big fan of whistle blowers?

So if no terpenes are found you will boot them from your site. But what about your responsibility here? If it's found the OP is correct and there are no terpenes it seems to me you bear a lot of responsibility for spreading fake news and lies. You would be guilty of helping them trick people.

Since you asked, when you refer to your status and who you worked with to show you're correct it's an appeal to authority and appeal to accomplishment fallacies, when you imply True Terpenes would never sell a product without terpenes after you and they claimed it to be 100% terpene isolates it's an argument from incredulity, and when you imply the OP is a competitor of True Terpenes it's a red herring.

Lets take a closer look at the claim on their site.

VISCOSITY Extract Liquifier is the original flavorless odorless extract diluent made with a blend of 100% organic terpenes.

It does not contain PG, VG, PEG,

What I am reading is that viscosity does contain terpenes and that the terpenes are 100% organic. I am not reading this to suggest that the formula contains 100% terpenes. However the way it was worded I wouldnt be surprised if they wanted people to interpret that as 100% terpenes.

I keep getting the impression that people believe the formula to be all terpenes. But I do not see TT state that it is all terps unless I missed it.

Except that True Terpenes official spokesperson on this issue, Future4200, literately wrote: "A diluent made up of isolated terpenes" above Viscosity in post 328.

According to True Terpenes spokesman Future4200, Viscosity is 100% terpene isolates, and nothing else.

Then, if we look at the website you posted, you conveniently left out "or any other non-terpene ingredients". Here's the full text from the website before they changed it last week:

[/quote]It does not contain PG, VG, PEG, MCT, Coconut oil, or any other non-terpene ingredients. [/quote]

And this is what they changed it to after the OP started this thread:

[/quote]It does not contain PG, VG, PEG, MCT, Coconut oil, or any other non-organic ingredients.[/quote]

I would say it's quite clear that Viscosity was marketed as 100% terpene isolates, at least according to True Terpenes official spokesperson Future4200, True Terpenes website text, and the fact they changed the text after this drama started to remove the part about Viscosity having no "non-terpenes ingredients".

This whole discussion seems like a plaintiff's attorney wet dream

 

[141ironlung]

Lets take a closer look at the claim on their site.

What I am reading is that viscosity does contain terpenes and that the terpenes are 100% organic. I am not reading this to suggest that the formula contains 100% terpenes. However the way it was worded I wouldnt be surprised if they wanted people to interpret that as 100% terpenes.

I keep getting the impression that people believe the formula to be all terpenes. But I do not see TT state that it is all terps unless I missed it.

Except that True Terpenes official spokesperson on this issue, Future4200, literately wrote: "A diluent made up of isolated terpenes" above Viscosity in post 328. So, according to True Terpenes spokesman Future4200, Viscosity is 100% terpene isolates, and nothing else.

Then, if we look at the website you posted, you conveniently left out "or any other non-terpene ingredients". Here's the full text from the website before they changed it last week:

It does not contain PG, VG, PEG, MCT, Coconut oil, or any other non-terpene ingredients.

And this is what they changed it to after the OP started this thread:

It does not contain PG, VG, PEG, MCT, Coconut oil, or any other non-organic ingredients.

I would say it's quite clear that Viscosity was marketed as 100% terpene isolates, at least according to True Terpenes official spokesperson Future4200, True Terpenes website text, and the fact they changed the text after this drama started to remove the part about Viscosity having no "non-terpenes ingredients".

This whole discussion seems like a plaintiff's attorney wet dream

 

[dank.frank]

Anybody citing ‘reddit’ as a ‘source’ needs to just stop. If you don’t think plebbit mods are bought and paid for, you are sadly mistaken...

They are not citing reddit as a source, they are saying they are redditors and are participating in this conversation on ICmag, because of the overlap on the reddit thread.

I for one am thrilled to see the integration of these two communities. While I don't use reddit - ICmag is my social media - it contains one of the largest user bases on the interwebs and it's awesome for that group to become aware of this site.

It could be a game changer for many that browse there.

What I am reading is that viscosity does contain terpenes and that the terpenes are 100% organic.

I was going to go down that rabbit hole earlier but deleted the post because I felt I was being pedantic again...but...since you mentioned it.

100% organic - but they have no organic certification.

That means, they are using the term, to refer to "carbon base compounds" - ie in the chemistry sense and not in the way that 99.9% of the general consumer base would understand the usage of a terminology that has become synonymous with a particular method of crop production.

*It would seem* this is also an attempt at being intentionally misleading on the part of TT as well.

Now, if they are in fact plant based terpenes derived from 100% organic produced sources - then by default - it tells you there is something else in the mix besides the terpenes that prevents them from getting an organic certification for the product.

Why wouldn't they pursue the extra label bling and up the value of their product by being registered organic?

That to me, signaled another red flag in this debacle, but I didn't want to stray too far off course and clutter it any worse.

Worst thing this company ever did was allow themselves to be scrutinized to such a high degree. Every word they have printed is now under a microscope. Talk about a marketing departments NIGHTMARE.



dank.Frank

 

[slant.i]

According to MagisterChemist over on f4200, TT original statement was:
"made from a blend of 100% organic terpenes. It does not contain PG, VG, PEG, MCT, Coconut oil, or any other non-terpene ingredients. No shenanigans, wordplay, marketing gimmicks, or Tom-foolery. Seriously, we only use terpenes."

So clearly there is some shenanigans, wordplay, marketing gimmicks, and tom-foolery going on here. And the rest of the statement now looks highly questionable as well.

What a surprise.. you can't trust a marketer even when they tell you that you can...

 

[CannaRed]

Except that True Terpenes official spokesperson on this issue, Future4200, literately wrote: "A diluent made up of isolated terpenes" above Viscosity in post 328. So, according to True Terpenes spokesman Future4200, Viscosity is 100% terpene isolates, and nothing else.

Then, if we look at the website you posted, you conveniently left out "or any other non-terpene ingredients". Here's the full text from the website before they changed it last week:
And this is what they changed it to after the OP started this thread:
I would say it's quite clear that Viscosity was marketed as 100% terpene isolates, at least according to True Terpenes official spokesperson Future4200, True Terpenes website text, and the fact they changed the text after this drama started to remove the part about Viscosity having no "non-terpenes ingredients".

This whole discussion seems like a plaintiff's attorney wet dream

I went to their site and couple days ago and took a screenshot in case they decided to change it.
Guess I was too late, and didn't even notice they already had.
Slick and shady.

 

[Ringodoggie]

Somebody, get a rope.

 

[Gry]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ringodoggie again.

 

[gh0stm0de]

Then, if we look at the website you posted, you conveniently left out "or any other non-terpene ingredients". Here's the full text from the website before they changed it last week:

It does not contain PG, VG, PEG, MCT, Coconut oil, or any other non-terpene ingredients.

And this is what they changed it to after the OP started this thread:

It does not contain PG, VG, PEG, MCT, Coconut oil, or any other non-organic ingredients.

I posted today. You state this change, which is extremely shady change of wording, occured a week ago.

But you lost me when you state I conveniently left something out to that you clearly understand wasn't on the page at time that I quoted it. So what's with that "conveniently" garbage, I can't quote what isn't there. I have nothing to do with any players here and am hoping that those testing viscosity will shed light on the truth.

If I took it the wrong way, my apologies, but I damn sure don't appreciate the way your comment seems to imply that I had some intent to misrepresent anything at all.