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

[Brother Nature]

This is an interesting thread, just started following. I have one concern for those involved though, being this company is a legit, legal company (am I correct in that?), has it actually been proven beyond any reasonable (read that as legal) doubt that they deceived the public and put harmful chemicals in their products? The reason I ask is that in the legal world, if this thread has cost the company money and/or their reputation and there isn't any legal proof of what is being accused, they would have a pretty good case for a libel suit against you EN. There's been mention of mention of litigation a few pages back, hopefully that's just talk. Anyways good luck man.

 

[Future4200]

"what looks suspiciously like a cover up"

how is it not a cover up???????

wtf is this wordplay? thought you would kick them out, future4200 is a moneyman........
makin money with the man screwin the fam, let alone the pooch on the porch. dont scorch the fakin bacon you cookin cause yo mamas lookin

They got kicked out, did you not read the rest of that post?

 

[ExtractNinja]

This is an interesting thread, just started following. I have one concern for those involved though, being this company is a legit, legal company (am I correct in that?), has it actually been proven beyond any reasonable (read that as legal) doubt that they deceived the public and put harmful chemicals in their products? The reason I ask is that in the legal world, if this thread has cost the company money and/or their reputation and there isn't any legal proof of what is being accused, they would have a pretty good case for a libel suit against you EN. There's been mention of mention of litigation a few pages back, hopefully that's just talk. Anyways good luck man.

Its just talk. They have no idea who I am unless they run the VPNs I use. There have been soft threats of suing me from the beginning. Im not worried because I havent lied one time so what I wrote isnt defamatory, and I based all my factual claims on 3 lab reports I had done. Cant be labial if what Im doing is whistleblowing facts. Also, I made sure to point out the labs think its mineral oil with some other stuff, and zero terps. Other statements I may have made (not directly about the testing and test results) were opinion, not fact, so again, no defamation.

I think TT salespeople say that just as an excuse for why they cant talk whats really in Viscosity. Its like how Trump claimed all through his 2016 campaign that hes under IRS audit so he cant show tax returns or talk about them...until the Dems get in and force him to show us.

Defamation, Libel, and Slander: Key Elements of a Claim
Learn what a plaintiff needs to prove in order to hold someone liable for defamation.


Defamation, libel, and slander: we have all heard of these legal terms, but what do they actually mean?

In general, a defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that is negligently or intentionally communicated or published to a third party, and that causes injury or damage to the subject of the statement. Libel and slander are different types of defamation. Libel is a written defamatory statement, and slander is an oral defamatory statement. Read on to learn more about the key elements of a defamation claim. (More: Get the Basics on Defamation Law.)

What is a Defamatory Statement?

A statement is defamatory if it tends to hold the plaintiff (the subject of the statement, who is bringing the lawsuit) up to scorn, hatred, ridicule, disgrace, or contempt, in the mind of any considerable and respectable segment of the community.
There are certain types of statements that are automatically considered defamatory in some states. These types of statements are often called defamatory "per se" Statements that are defamatory "per se" include statements that claim that the plaintiff:

• has committed a serious, notorious, or immoral crime
• has an infectious or terrible disease, or
• is incompetent in his job, trade, or profession.

Defamation is a False Statement of Fact, Not Opinion


The most important aspect of a potentially defamatory statement is that it purports to be a statement of fact. Opinions are not defamatory. People have an absolute right to express whatever opinions they like about other people. Let’s look at some examples of facts versus opinions.


“I think that Joe is a jerk,” is an opinion. It’s not a polite opinion, but it is an opinion nonetheless. But “Joe stole $1,000 from his employer” is a statement of fact. If that statement isn’t true, it is defamatory. That is a false statement that clearly can cause injury to Joe. It could get him fired.

But what about something in between these two types of statement? What if someone says, “I think that Joe stole $1,000 from his employer.” If you qualify a statement of fact by saying “I think,” does that always turn a statement of fact into an opinion? The short answer is no. “I think that Joe is a jerk” is a pretty vague statement of opinion. But “I think that Joe stole money from his employer” implies that Joe may very well have stolen some money. The very fact that you said it implies that you may think that he did and that you want others to know that he might have stolen some money.

The bottom line -- depending on who you say it to and how you say it, implying that someone did something bad by phrasing it as an opinion can be defamatory. It's probably best to avoid saying these kinds of "gray area" things if you think that there is the slightest chance that the statement could get around.

The Statement Must Have Been Made to a Third Party

In order for a statement to be defamatory, it must have been made to a third party. A person can’t be defamed by a statement that is said or written only to him or herself.

Private Figures vs. Public Figures – Negligence vs. Intent

Simply because someone makes a defamatory statement does not automatically mean that the person will be liable for defamation. The person making the statement had to have acted inappropriately in some way. The standard of conduct required to hold a person liable for defamation depends on who was defamed.
If the person defamed was a private person, in most states, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she:

• knew that the statement was false and defamatory, or
• acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement in making the statement, or
• acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement was true or false before making it.

To act in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of a statement means that the person making the statement had serious doubts as to the truth of the statement, but they went ahead and made it anyway.

If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement.
You can see that, ultimately, the difference between defamation of a public figure versus defamation of a private person is that a private person who claims defamation only needs to prove that the defamer acted negligently, while a public figure who claims defamation has to prove that the defamer acted intentionally or recklessly.

A good example of the difference between defaming a public figure versus a private individual is writing about that person in a blog post. If you claim that some private person was convicted of assault and battery twenty years ago, that person is probably going to win a libel case against you. But if you write that your senator was convicted of assault and battery twenty years ago, even if the senator is innocent, he/she would have to prove that you intentionally or recklessly lied. As long as you have some sort of defense -- like you saw that information on a semi-reputable web site, for example -- you have a reasonable chance of defending yourself against a libel claim from a public figure.

Damages for Defamatory Statements

A plaintiff in a defamation case is entitled to receive damages for any actual injuries that he/she incurred as a result of the defamatory statement. This includes lost earnings and lost earning capacity suffered as a result of the statement, as well as pain and suffering, impairment to reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, shame, and disgrace. Learn more about Damages in Personal Injury Cases.

 

[Future4200]

I wouldn't think anything that has beens said or done so far has been grounds for suit against EN

 

[ExtractNinja]

"what looks suspiciously like a cover up"

how is it not a cover up???????

wtf is this wordplay? thought you would kick them out, future4200 is a moneyman........
makin money with the man screwin the fam, let alone the pooch on the porch. dont scorch the fakin bacon you cookin cause yo mamas lookin

they got kicked out, did you not read the rest of that post?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[youtubeif]G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/youtubeif]

You from a few hours ago:

Meeting with my connect at TT is adjourned.

Conclusion: TT is receiving a temporary suspension from the GLG

From Webster's Dictionary:

temporary adjective
tem·​po·​rary | \ ˈtem-pə-ˌrer-ē \

Definition of temporary
: lasting for a limited time

So your going with only a suspension for a company who lies and lies and lies, and then lies more, and then rips people off, and then lies more, all the while likely selling people mineral oil and some other stuff like vegetable oil as a mixture? Wow. You threatened to do much worse to me if I was lying, remember that?

Also, stop claiming its proven there is no mineral oil in Viscosity! You are lying right now over at your site. Go read Gray Wolfs post when the lab talks about hte different kind of mineral oils. Or how about this FFS, where TT directly contradicts your claim about Gray Wofls testing:

 

[ExtractNinja]

Sam thanks you for taking some heat off him TT. Maybe Phylos will let you buy in

Best post in thread. Luv it. LOL. I dont have fond feelings toward sam.

 

[Future4200]

They are out. If they offer a refund for the mislabeled goods, their position in the gang will be up for vote by the gang

 

[Future4200]

"But I saw GWs chromatogram this morning, viscosity isn’t “just mineral oil” either. Its predominantly something else, although there is a small peak that has yet to be identified."

My direct quote from F42k

 

[ExtractNinja]

"But I saw GWs chromatogram this morning, viscosity isn’t “just mineral oil” either. Its predominantly something else, although there is a small peak that has yet to be identified."

My direct quote from F42k

And I never claim it was just mineral oil." your still doing the logical fallacy thing dude, knock it off. That's red herring. And even if its only a little mineral oil thats too fucking much mineral oil! And the same goes for vegetable oil, its a no go product for vaping.

I said many many times the labs found what they think is mineral oil with some other heavy, non-volatile stuff, and zero terps.

All my labs and Gray Wolfs lab said they think they may have found mineral oil. And Gray wolfs lab said may its some heavy vegetable oil or a mix. Here's Gray wolf's lab:

Thank you for your patience! Apologies it has taken so long, but it isn't straightforward and the testing has been donated to the cause as available. At this point, we know what it's not, but not specifically what it is.

To the point, the samples that we tested were not 100% terpenes.

The samples also contain non volatiles.

Our Viscosity samples appears to be a heavy longer chain hydrocarbon like a heavy vegetable oil fraction or a petrochemical mineral oil. Different than the tri-terpene results from a previous test.

It doesn't match the standards for Isopar H or M mineral oils commonly used in the food and fragrance industry, or any other standard loaded in my labs GC/MS.

Viscosity eludes before those two mineral oils, but does overlap some at the base. The peaks also look similar, but the Viscosity peak has fewer minor fractional peaks.

There are also other standard mineral oils (C, E, G, & L) and a custom mix might not meet any standards, so we weren't able to exclude mineral oil as a possibility, .

Also, how is this post of your aging Future? You claimed you replicated the tests and came to different conclusions. Different from mine, Gray Wofls, Old Golds? All of ours agree.


https://future4200.com/t/true-terpenes/12544/97

Hmmm an anonymous Internet guy, or a long standing friendship with a very reputable, GMP certified company? Why would I choose one over the other?

Gray Wolf and I are personal friends, and we have also been in contact multiple times about this.

I posted my first batch of test results (Edit: The ones provided by True Terpenes to establish a baseline for their claims), refuting your claims, and have submitted samples to an additional lab for verification. All (Edit: The samples I had my friend order) samples were anonymously acquired from various locations.

I’m not “taking their word for it”, I replicated the tests and found different conclusions. I then toured their facility. If you think it’s just a walk in the park to swap out some mineral oil for registered products in a food grade, GMP certified facility, then I have to question how much experience you have with GMP facilities.

Thus far, we are taking your word for it afa you being honest about any of this.

 

[Brother Nature]

All good mate. Was just voicing a concern, glad you take the time to have good opsec. I think what is being done here is important for the emerging industry, if this company is really as dishonest as stated I wouldn't put it past them to be litigious as well.


Back to the popcorn...

 

[JimBro710]

I knew this company was trash when I saw their blackface commercial a few weeks back.

https://youtu.be/3ojlK99z-sk

[YOUTUBEIF]https://youtu.be/3ojlK99z-sk
[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[Gray Wolf]

I started out nice to TT and Future. But they werent so nice to me. Then I realized they were not going to give honest and real answers, and I also realized its a waste of time to kill them with kindness.

The reason many people think you are on their side is you keep giving them the benefit of the doubt. Even now you are. You bend over backwards to find ways to make excuses for them. And yet you treated me totally the opposite.

I think you are fair and honest. But you do seem to be on TTs and Futures side, or at lest you dont seem unbiased, because you keep trying to throw them a life line. Even after all this evidence and their actions you still try to find ways to let tehm off the hook. Why do you assume TT is not rotten to the core?

[FONT=&quot]If your perception is truly that you started out nice to TT and Future, you are a moron and this conversation is over. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are clearly blind to the fact that it was you that I tossed the lifeline to, not TT, and it was through me that you realized the progress you are dancing for joy over and TT is ostensibly lamenting. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt, including you, until the data shows otherwise. That doesn't mean I'm simple minded or blind, and it doesn’t mean that I don’t hold people accountable. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I’ve clearly stated more than once in this thread that those guilty of malfeasance should be taken to task, and I believe my obtaining and posting the test results demonstrate that I haven’t cut TT any slack. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It would also appear that once the test results from a neutral source were in, Future didn't cut them any slack either.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I'm offended by the way you treat people, and your continued attacks on the messengers has reached the limits of my good will. Since you can’t seem to grasp my message about the way you are treating people, I am not going to help you anymore.[/FONT]

 

[Old Gold]

My sample was from Lot #18081002.

 

[ExtractNinja]

[FONT=&quot]If your perception is truly that you started out nice to TT and Future, you are a moron and this conversation is over. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are clearly blind to the fact that it was you that I tossed the lifeline to, not TT, and it was through me that you realized the progress you are dancing for joy over and TT is ostensibly lamenting. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt, including you, until the data shows otherwise. That doesn't mean I'm simple minded or blind, and it doesn’t mean that I don’t hold people accountable. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I’ve clearly stated more than once in this thread that those guilty of malfeasance should be taken to task, and I believe my obtaining and posting the test results demonstrate that I haven’t cut TT any slack. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It would also appear that once the test results from a neutral source were in, Future didn't cut them any slack either.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I'm offended by the way you treat people, and your continued attacks on the messengers has reached the limits of my good will. Since you can’t seem to grasp my message about the way you are treating people, I am not going to help you anymore.[/FONT]

Its my understanding you are helping people, not me. You just cant stand to have someone disagree. But that doesnt matter. After our first few interactions I took your work here as an attempt to disprove, not prove me. And so do many people.


I have always complimented you but also called you out when I thought it necessary. And you did the same to me. Even steven.


If you want to take your ball and go home OK. But that doesnt help people now does it? Thats the only reason Im here.

 

[Two12sKnockin]

Its my understanding you are helping people, not me.

Go read over this cesspool of a thread again. If YOU dont fall into the same category as PEOPLE in this context, then which category do you fall in? I feel like you are telling on yourself regarding your ulterior motive. Or what WAS your goal if not to "help people" as you yourself stated?

You just cant stand to have someone disagree. But that doesnt matter.

so you want to talk down on the guy who truly made this happen for you? Cite with quotations to prove your point at the very least.

After our first few interactions I took your work here as an attempt to disprove, not prove me.

you are performing mental gymnastics here. Do you consider yourself to be a sociopath? GW was extremely classy throughout this whole exchange to say the very least. I am convinced that he was impartial as he presented himself

And so do many people.

Who are you speaking for? Doubt if ANYONE GENUINELY doubts the manner with which GW conducted himself here.

But that doesnt help people now does it? Thats the only reason Im here.

Oh so you ARE here to help people. What a guy.


You are as manipulative as a used car salesman who moonlights as an Instagram influencer

Even if your mineral oil claim IS true, you still reek with the stench of dishonesty

 

[zanog]

I seen this thread yesterday, just popped before my thread when I created it. If I have seen it when it was created I would posted something like this:

Unfortunately I have a lot of experience with dishonest, criminally negligent companies etc. Not on this field thou. I that moment you got the first lab results back and concluded that the claim must be false, even there was the possibility of harmful component, right then you should have contacted a law firm because if you think about all the money they made off this they will absolutely fight with anything they have, their only way to go (they always lose more than they gained before if they take responsibility and prison becomes a possibility). I will refrain from examples of today politics, but yeah. A lawyer would immediately say: this is a class action case, also they would have started to collect evidence and records publicly available, when you did blew the whistle you made them start preparing for defense and start to get rid of evidence, without it that firm could work for months without them knowing and file afterwards, that is preferable.

I think all of their stuff formulated in china and they might not even testing them, cause this would make the highest profit margin. You can even make OEM deals with these manufacturers for packaging.

Actually a class action suite can even change laws in the long term, making regulations a lot stricter, like ingredients has to be published regular checks etc.

I'm not an expert on chemistry, I just like weed and I did not read the whole thread.

Oh, and reparations for their good name is not that easy (the threat with legal action by them: they have to prove that your comments did hurt their business, their lawyer would advise against threatening, because that will really hurt them in court later, if it is proven they knew what are they selling... and it will be harder to lie about certain things, claiming innocence or some accidental mix up in one batch.

 

[zanog]

I can't edit my post above this one, my first sentence is screwed up: When I created my post I saw this one pop up above it.

Extractninja: Just a question you will be asked to answer anyway is why are you hiding your identity? I can imagine a lot of plausible answer to that, but also can't conclude that you are impartial either. No offense, staying objective is the most important always,I should have read this whole thread, but I don't have time.

I didn't want to judge early, but I think you are right and honest, cause of the profit is a large motivator on their part, so it is making a lot of sense.

All I'm saying they have to have the opportunity to face their accuser too, so someone who has the from the same batch and can reveal their identity should take your place and start legal action.

 

[zanog]

Apparently being too high fucks my typing and my English is rusty, I am really sorry about that. How can I edit my posts to correct typos and stuff?

 

[CannaRed]

I can't edit my post above this one, my first sentence is screwed up: When I created my post I saw this one pop up above it.

Extractninja: Just a question you will be asked to answer anyway is why are you hiding your identity? I can imagine a lot of plausible answer to that, but also can't conclude that you are impartial either. No offense, staying objective is the most important always,I should have read this whole thread, but I don't have time.

I didn't want to judge early, but I think you are right and honest, cause of the profit is a large motivator on their part, so it is making a lot of sense.

All I'm saying they have to have the opportunity to face their accuser too, so someone who has the from the same batch and can reveal their identity should take your place and start legal action.

This is supposed to be an anonymous site. Many of us are still in prohibitionland. Not sure about ninja. But I definitely understand staying anonymous, especially now with litigation talk.

I could be wrong, but the litigation talk didn't start until test results releasedd?

Seems like that's shady too, but I know nothing about law.

 

[Gray Wolf]

My sample was from Lot #18081002.

My first two lots were 18110109 and 19021210. I wasn't given the lot numbers on the second two.