No, not really. Because as much as I and others trust you, we can't take anyone at their word no matter who it is, thats the whole reason for this testing I started and spent a lot of money on.
Ummmm, if you pay for the test as you've stated you would, I don't see how me not revealing proprietary secrets keep you from doing so???????????????
I am only the (trusted?) 3rd party disinterested certified chain of custody mule, not a messenger.
As long as you are truthful in doing so, there is no need for me doing so that I can see.
I will repeat that people have the right to know if TT is lying to them about what they are buying.
Truth in advertising is the law of the land. When you look at an ingredient list and it says spices and natural flavors, are they not typically talking about terpenes and terpenoids?
What I can say is if any tests come out different than mine, like showing a lot of terps, that test is suspicious because all three of mine have shown zero terps. The great thing is we dont have to rely any one persons testing alone, not mine, Old Golds, Futures. We need to see them in aggregate, so we can know if someone is pulling a fast one.
Dissimilar test results will certainly highlight a problem, but a little early to be beating that horse, until the actual empirical test results suggests that it is a problem.
Looking at it from a process standpoint, rather than a personal integrity issue among us'n testers, is there any other way we could get dissimilar results?
IE: One for instance would be, "What if random lots of mispackaged and labeled material were supplied by a TT vendor and their sin was not catching it?"
Another might be, is this a small enough event to have been sabotage?
Suffice to say that if the results come back different, that it opens a window to back track and determine why the results are different.
I wasnt saying we need a new defintion. Im saying we should define them as they are already defined, for everyone to see so were on the same page, because its pretty clear TT is trying to play word games now.
Both my samples of Viscosity state on the labels:
Viscosity Extract Liquifier is a natural and organic blend of virtually odorless and flavorless terpenes. It does not contain PG, VG, PEG, MCT, coconut oil or other non-terpene ingredients.
That is the standard against which they will be judged.
And I want to make sure that TT cant say something is a terp when it isn't, like those alkanes I listed which aren't terps but are in Viscosity.
I am using standard definitions as previously discussed.
Please dont take my posts to you as an offense or something. I just want this to be fully legit and to be trustable. And the only way for that to happen is transparnecy. Like I wrote before, in my opinion at the very least everyone who gets testing done should post the lab's conclusion. It's not enough to give a summary of what the lab said if the lab wrote a report.
OK im going back on vacation until eveyones test results come in.
Future4200 is now down. Related?
Future4200 is now down. Related?
Future is back up. It was just server maintenance.
Someone should start a gofundme for gray
Has any crazy bastid here added drops of mineral oil to shatter if for nothing else to see if consistency matched in a real world test? As many ppl are paying for tests, let’s pass the hat around and raise money for the brave soul willing to add mineral oil and vape it for human testing. (Kidding). But if you thought that sounded bad, what do you call all the people currently vaping viscosity??? HUMAN TEST SUBJECTS.