TNM7.COM - Home Of The Wrestling Simulator

FORUM HOME > Wrestling > US Independents
Morphoplex

Anubis	Posted on 11/27/05 at 09:33:18 I have a theory that the hundreds of Morphoplex commercials during TNA are one of the things hurting them. I know it's not common for something like that, but given the ridiculous number of commercials coupled with the fact that Morphoplex is seen during every break, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist. Morphoplex is a fraud, plain and simple, beyond a doubt. It's total bullshit. If it actually did what they advertise, they'd be the first, and it would be all over the news as a miracle cure for being overweight. It's not, meaning it is indeed fake and a bunch of fraud. Having TNA people stand up and make testimonials about it being so great (especially the toothpick-like Tracy Brooks, who probably hasn't been on a diet in years; only a moron would believe she actually uses a diet supplement) makes the workers look really fucking bad. Why doesn't the FDA do more to regulate this shit? I'm not a big fan of big brother, but this is different. They're ripping people off.
Unright	Posted on 11/28/05 at 04:52:10 Eh.. It's a little on par with all those Stacker commercials that seemed to play every commercial break on WWE programming.
psz	Posted on 11/28/05 at 05:45:56 All of those products are GENERALLY Ephedra (or similar) suppliments. Ephedra increases heart rate and metabolism, and CAN help in weight reduction, keeping fat off, and getting you into better shape... WHEN USED WITH A PROPER DIET AND EXCERSIZE REGIMENT. They cannot, will no, and do not make you lose fat BY THEMSELVES. They simply make the body burn off excess fat FASTER WHILE EXCERSIZING. MOST of the time the ads for those products either say or write out "When used with a proper diet and excersize program" somewhere, just to cover their arses. Most common side-effects: Insomnia. Since they heart rate and metabolism are sped up, it tends to keep a person awake if taken at night. Think VERY high-doses of caffeine. The reason Ephedra and derrivitives were taken off the market was due to the people who (like idiots) went out in INTENSE heat (100+ degrees) and did HEAVY workouts (Training Camp for various sports) and ended up dying of heat stroke :-P Also, in some southeastern states (Thinking Arizona here), people would smoke ground ephedra to get high (NOT healthy) Sudaphed uses/used a form of pseudoephedrine as one if it's ingredients (adrenaline tends to help clear sinuses temporarilly) When taken properlly, and without misusing/abusing it, it's a perfectly safe, more or less effective ADDITION to a work out schedule. That being said, most Americans are idiots, and think "Ooh, if I pop this pill, I'll lose weight!" and don't bother dieting or excersizing, then get pissed that nothing happened :-P
91	Posted on 11/28/05 at 12:04:08 For once, I have to say it's not just the Americans who are stupid in this department - a friend of mine once told me about his housemate who had been trying to lose weight and she'd gone on the Slim Fast diet. Only thing was, she was taking Slim Fast WITH meals and couldn't understand why she was suddenly putting on more weight.
Anubis	Posted on 11/29/05 at 02:09:22 If you have to work out in addition to using the pills, then there is no way of proving that they do anything. Hence, it is a ripoff. I never said they were dangerous, just that they're a fraud. The FDA needs to start regulating these things to save people's money.
americamamushi	Posted on 11/29/05 at 02:56:18 If you have to work out in addition to using the pills, then there is no way of proving that they do anything. Just because you have to work out and have a good diet as well doesn't mean that there is no way of proving that they do anything. You can determine if it speeds up one's metabolism. That doesn't mean that it really adds that much help or anything, but if they are metabolizers you can definitely medically determine if it increases your metabolism. ... but I still say they are a rip off too ;)
psz	Posted on 11/29/05 at 04:09:03 Yes, they do up the metabolism, which in turn tends to increase energy and burn fat more efficiently... They still need YOU to do something to burn the fat IN THE FIRST place (You can't speed up something that isn't going on, after all ;->)
Anubis	Posted on 11/29/05 at 06:41:13 Except there's no guarantee that it effectively speeds up metabolism. In fact, there's not even any evidence that it does anything. The product claims plenty, but I have yet to see anything verifying it. No other product has ever been successful at this, why would Morphoplex be the first? Plus, enhanced metabolism doesn't always do that much. No reasonable person would ever use this stuff, simply for the fact that the results aren't consistent.
americamamushi	Posted on 11/29/05 at 08:16:59 On 11/29/05 at 06:41:13, Anubis wrote:Except there's no guarantee that it effectively speeds up metabolism. In fact, there's not even any evidence that it does anything. The product claims plenty, but I have yet to see anything verifying it. No other product has ever been successful at this, why would Morphoplex be the first? I was just clerifying that it was indeed possible to tell if one's metabolism changed due to the contents of the suppliment.
Carlzilla	Posted on 11/29/05 at 08:59:07 How is there no guarantee that it speeds up someones metabolism? That's what it's formulated to do, that's like saying that speed (which ephedra has definate and provable chemical ties to) doesn't speed up your metabolism. That's what it does...it speeds up your metabolism, which increases the rate at which your body burns fat...it's scientifically proven facts. Do I think the pills are going to work miracles? Hell no. Do I think the pills help you loose weight if used correctly? Yep, sure do. Are they healthy? Nope...and I do believe the FDA tried to ban ephedra products but it was struck down.
psz	Posted on 11/29/05 at 15:21:51 They did. One of the side affects of having a sped up metab. is that you also tend to burn through body fluids faster... WHich (combined with intense heat and excessive workouts... Such as baseball training camp in Florida in the middle of the summer) make it MUCH easier to suffer heat stroke and die (Re: Earlier this year). Ephedra was completely pulled from the market up until September or October, last I checked (I've seen it back on the shelves since then... MAY have been earlier, but Hurricane Katrina kinda, ya know, made it hard for me to suppliment browse :-P)
Anubis	Posted on 11/29/05 at 22:29:13 I'm just saying there's no proof that it helps you lose weight to any remotely noticable degree.
Captain Tagon	Posted on 11/29/05 at 22:54:10 On 11/29/05 at 22:29:13, Anubis wrote:I'm just saying there's no proof that it helps you lose weight to any remotely noticable degree. I dunno. I think anything that increases your metabolizm is going to make it easier for you to lose weight.
Carlzilla	Posted on 11/30/05 at 07:46:40 On 11/29/05 at 22:54:10, Captain Tagon wrote: I dunno. I think anything that increases your metabolizm is going to make it easier for you to lose weight. Exactly my point. Anubis, you're wrong, deal with it.
Anubis	Posted on 11/30/05 at 09:35:18 Prove it. If it worked like you all claim, wouldn't it be in the media? Wouldn't it be getting props from all over the place? Indeed it would, and yet it isn't, despite the advertising put behind it. That, in fact, proves quite the opposite. Heck, where's the proof that it actually in fact increases metabolism? Sure, the label can claim such a thing, but that doesn't make it true. It's not regulated by the FDA, remember? That means the labels don't the scrutiny they should. Wrong? Not even. I'm 95% certain that I'm 100% right on this. Unless you can show why everyone under the sun doesn't use this when they should (if it worked, everyone would know about it), you've got nothing. There is absolutely no proof that it does anything. No proof it helps lose weight, no proof it actually raises metabolism, no proof of, well, anything. So until you can show me why these little facts don't add up, that makes me more or less right by default. It's a fraud, that much I know. I'm right, deal with it.
americamamushi	Posted on 11/30/05 at 10:52:56 If it worked like you all claim, wouldn't it be in the media? Wouldn't it be getting props from all over the place? Indeed it would, and yet it isn't, despite the advertising put behind it. That, in fact, proves quite the opposite. No, it wouldn't be all over the place because you still have to do work and watch what you eat. Only people that already do casual or competitive bodybuilding, whatever here about all the suppliments up the wazoo because they are the only ones who were actually going to do all the work anyway. Humans, by nature, have evolved to the point sociologically that virtually everyone wants something for nothing and very few people are willing to work for anything/everything. Actually, everyone is like this, without exception I imagine. Sure, people may have things they are passionate about and go at full tilt, but there's always something that someone thinks "That'd be great, but I don't feel like doing all the work to get there." Heck, where's the proof that it actually in fact increases metabolism? Ephedrine (doesn't have to be from ephedra though) is the primary weightloss/metabolizer component in an ECA stack. Ephedrine is thermogenic and helps to slightly raising body temperature and metabolism (roughly 10%). Ephedrine also helps in weight loss because it has an anorectic (appetite suppressant) effect as well. Ephedrine also helps to increase energy. Any "Ephedrine free" stack forumlas apparently have no proof as to their effectiveness, but I don't think every weightloss/bodybuilding drug has a stack forumla. Unless it's hiding somewhere in the ingrediants, Morphoplex doesn't contain ephedrine. It does contain guarana seed extract (stimulant/energy booster), mustard seed (to help counteract appitite reductions/reduce skeletal & muscle pain apparently), Yerba Mate extract (immune system stimulant/weightloss aid), Branced-Chain Amino Acids (fuel source for skeletal muscle/improves utilization of glucose in the body), Black pepper extract (to enhance absorption), Cayenne (stimulant/increases metabolism), Inosine Anhydrous (metabolic activator), Avena Sativa extract (energizer), B12 (formation of red blood cells & helps nervous system), Hoodia gordonii extract (appetite suppressant) Ephedrine information I got from wikipedia. Morphoplex ingrediants are from their website. I didn't cross reference them all... or any of them in wikipedia or anything else. I can't believe I did that much typing. They aren't cure alls for fat people and I personally wouldn't pay money for a work out pill/powder/ect, but generally speaking they aren't complete bubkis. There are enough people that are smart (or at least willing to do the research) that are potential buyers that they're has to be at least some bit of truth to some ingrediant's purpose. Otherwise you'd still have snake oil peddlers at the local mall selling Grandpappy's Fix-er-up-love potion instead of 9 starbucks kiosks.
91	Posted on 11/30/05 at 13:51:47 Personally, I think just 'eating less' is a good way to lose weight.
psz	Posted on 11/30/05 at 16:43:52 Anubis... My co-worker is a former Body For Life finalist... His best friend's ex-wife is a nutritionist... Trust me, Ephedrine/Ephedra/etc all DO increase metabolism. Plain and simple. I'm not going to re-write everything Musashi wrote (on top of the other 20 or 30 lines I COULD) based on the subject, because, well, it's just not worth it :-P Eat Less (or better), and Move Around more to lose weight. Ephedra/Ephedrine/etc just help WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DO THAT (On their own, they just tend to make you "buzzy" and less hungry in the short term, and MORE hungry in the long term)
Captain Tagon	Posted on 11/30/05 at 18:25:59 On 11/30/05 at 13:51:47, 91 wrote:Personally, I think just 'eating less' is a good way to lose weight. Which works until your body decides that it is starving and begins storing up excess body fat.
91	Posted on 11/30/05 at 20:17:23 Eating less as in not having that extra slice of cake with your mid-afternoon snack, or going to the supermarket to buy a healthy slice of fish for dinner rather than going to KFC every night, or walking there instead of getting a taxi. Not eating less as in starving yourself - that for all intensive purposes will cause you to lose weight, but after about a day, the rate in which you lose weight is very small for exactly the reason you put.
Anubis	Posted on 11/30/05 at 23:07:30 americanmusashi, after reading all those ingredients, I noticed many of them had nutritional value outside the "work out to lose weight" category. Again, if it actually succeeds at all of that, wouldn't there be more notoriety? I mean, it sounds like more than just a "weight loss pill" based on the ingredients you listed. Perhaps they "exaggerate"? On 11/30/05 at 16:43:52, psz wrote:Anubis... My co-worker is a former Body For Life finalist... His best friend's ex-wife is a nutritionist... Trust me, Ephedrine/Ephedra/etc all DO increase metabolism. Plain and simple. I'm not going to re-write everything Musashi wrote (on top of the other 20 or 30 lines I COULD) based on the subject, because, well, it's just not worth it :-P Eat Less (or better), and Move Around more to lose weight. Ephedra/Ephedrine/etc just help WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DO THAT (On their own, they just tend to make you "buzzy" and less hungry in the short term, and MORE hungry in the long term) I'm not arguing about those chemicals increasing metabolism, I'm arguing whether the product in question does. Yeah, the label says it contains all these things, but that doesn't mean the product does contain all those things. It's not regulated, remember? This is why is SHOULD be regulated, in fact. Or, let's say it does contain everything claimed: who's to say how much of each is therein? Who's to say if the amount is enough to do anything? If the amounts are really low, then you'll see absolutely no difference. Oh, and from the people I've spoken with at health clubs (personal trainers and such), all those products are a waste of money. One reason is because proper diet can give you damn near all of those, or at least equivilant substitutes. Another reason is because, surprise, they aren't proven to actually have an even remotely noticable effect. You can quote chemical facts all day long, but in the end, the only thing that matters is: does it actually work? The answer here is "no". That's pretty much the answer on all the "special pills" like Morphoplex. Are there helpful chemicals? Yes. Thing is, they're not usually advertised all over the place, and you need to talk to people "in the know" to learn more. This just isn't one of them. I mean, think about it. Why do they put the "you must still exercise yada yada yada" in such painfully small print that I can barely see on my 60 inch television despite having 20/20 vision? There's a reason they put it in such small print. They need it to avoid false advertisement lawsuits, but they'd rather you not know about it, that's why. Hence, it's a fraud. If they were legit, they would tell you everything up-front without trying to hide it in the fine print.
Carlzilla	Posted on 12/01/05 at 06:20:09 I see your typing...but all it translates to is... I'm Anubis, and I'm never wrong! I'm pretty sure that even if it isn't regulated that they aren't allowed to lie on the product labels, as that again would violate the truth in advertising laws, not to mention raise very serious health risk issues that could lead to very expensive potential lawsuits...you get my point. Seriously, you've have a single, cyclical, argument that you keep rehashing in more or less words. An argument that you haven't given any background to, while your opponents have clearly researched their positions. Give it a break dude.
psz	Posted on 12/01/05 at 06:46:44 Last I checked, by law, you cannot label a product as having X if it doesn't. Two reasons: 1, fale advertising (duh), and 2, potential for allergic reactions/reactions with other things (which is why you also can't NOT list most ingredients.) Regulated or not, you can't claim that something has 100% daily requirement of Vitamin B if it has none. Some things are considered "Flavouring" or "Spices" or "Colouring" etc don't need to be listed individually, especially if it's VERY low doses
Captain Tagon	Posted on 12/01/05 at 20:57:03 On 12/01/05 at 06:20:09, Carlzilla wrote:I see your typing...but all it translates to is... I'm Anubis, and I'm never wrong! I'm pretty sure that even if it isn't regulated that they aren't allowed to lie on the product labels, as that again would violate the truth in advertising laws, not to mention raise very serious health risk issues that could lead to very expensive potential lawsuits...you get my point. Seriously, you've have a single, cyclical, argument that you keep rehashing in more or less words. An argument that you haven't given any background to, while your opponents have clearly researched their positions. Give it a break dude. Quoted for truth. And for Cthulhu.
Anubis	Posted on 12/01/05 at 21:21:07 Except if it simple lists it like such: Chemical A, Chemical B, Chemical C, etc., and not with the percentages and amounts (most of the supplements don't give a lot of info in the way of amounts), then they don't have to lie about what's in it, you just don't know how much is in it. Very rarely have I seem any supplments (and I've seen plenty) give the details as to "how much". Besides, you still haven't proven anything. You explain the science, but the science isn't the result, it's the "how it should be". If Morphoplex worked, it would be the first diet pill to do so, and it would be extremely popular. Given that it isn't all that popular, I think that speaks volumes. Besides, any fitness trainer will tell you not to take those heavily advertised health supplements that sound like miracle cures under any circumstances. So I have the results and the professionals on my side, and you have science based on ingredients and not exact amounts of everything (along with no knowledge as to how much is required in the first place). That gives me the stronger position. Of course, given that every idiot knows not to trust these things, I think you are just arguing with me to argue and not because you actual believe the garbage you're trying to say. That, of course ,just goes to prove that you won't give me credit on anything regardless whether or not I'm right. You people need to grow up and get in the real world.
americamamushi	Posted on 12/02/05 at 00:05:52 Yup, that's right, we're just fucking around with you to get you all riled up again. That's what we live for. We sit at our computer 24 hours a day saying to ourselves "What can we argue with Anubis about today?" I give the fuck up. Anubis is right. Anubis is always right. If Anubis said the sky was green, by god the sky would instantly turn green. None of us are ever right and we're all bumbling idiots with little bits of drool dribbling out of the corners of our mouths that can't program our digital watches. We're dumb. You're smart. We're wrong. You're right. You win. I don't care anymore.
Rick Garrard	Posted on 12/02/05 at 02:45:34 And to think, I was under the impression that a "morphoplex" was a suplex done by some guy named Morph. And it's not a "diet pill" it's a "dietary supplement".
Anubis	Posted on 12/02/05 at 06:25:08 On 12/02/05 at 00:05:52, americamamushi wrote:We're dumb. You're smart. We're wrong. You're right. You win. I don't care anymore. Not dumb, antagonistic. There's a difference. What else am I supposed to think, pray tell? I've spoken to plenty of freaking people about working out and exercise and the like, and you people are the FIRST AND ONLY to actually advocate one of these. The first and only. Even fitness trainers say "don't waste your time or money with that junk". Well, unless they're the ones selling it, but can you say "conflict of interest"? Most don't, they only sell the known and legitimate stuff, not the overly advertised products with a lot of fine print like Morphoplex. I would dare say Stacker 2 belongs in there as well. Want a good comparison? Slim Fast (proven track record) and the diet pill/dietary supplement of your choice (which doctors and fitness trainers tell people to avoid). So what am I supposed to think when you guys come firing back with exactly the opposite point, given the nature of your disliking of me?
americamamushi	Posted on 12/02/05 at 08:11:53 nobody is advocating anything. All we are saying is that the suppliments DO something that CAN help in the burning off of fatty tissue in your body. Nobody said "Hey kid, go pop some pills 'cause you'll be like Hulk Hogan." Also, don't compare slimfast to Morphoplex. They are two different things. The pills are made to help give you energy to burn fat and help build muscle. Slimfast isn't designed to help you build muscle. It's meal replacement to help shed pounds. Morphoplex is aimed at people who want to be buff and stuff (and incidently don't care about how they get there) while slimfast is for normal people, who don't care about having a six pack so much as just reaching and maintaining a healthy weight. People take morphoplex etc. to build muscle, people take slimfast to lose weight. Not dumb, antagonistic. There's a difference. I'm not even going to bother. I'm seriously and honestly done trying to converse with you. Maybe you think I'm over reacting, and I probably am, but I've got a lot of shit going on right now and considering what I have to put up with I think I've done a pretty good job of not snapping at anyone anywhere in my life. It's just not worth it to get into it with someone who doesn't even seem to want to listen or consider what anyone else says. I'm just done. No this does not warrant you starting a flame war or threatening to. I don't hate you, I'm just saying I'm done. It's not worth the mental energy anymore. Like I said before you win. Anubis defeated americamamushi via submission in 00:11:17 Rating: ** 1/4 Click here to see highlights.
91	Posted on 12/02/05 at 15:38:24 As much as ** 1/4?
Rick Garrard	Posted on 12/02/05 at 15:41:15 TNM was being generous it was at best a * squash, but more realistically a DUD.
Captain Tagon	Posted on 12/02/05 at 17:01:12 On 12/02/05 at 06:25:08, Anubis wrote: Not dumb, antagonistic. There's a difference. What else am I supposed to think, pray tell? I've spoken to plenty of freaking people about working out and exercise and the like, and you people are the FIRST AND ONLY to actually advocate one of these. The first and only. Even fitness trainers say "don't waste your time or money with that junk". Well, unless they're the ones selling it, but can you say "conflict of interest"? Most don't, they only sell the known and legitimate stuff, not the overly advertised products with a lot of fine print like Morphoplex. I would dare say Stacker 2 belongs in there as well. Want a good comparison? Slim Fast (proven track record) and the diet pill/dietary supplement of your choice (which doctors and fitness trainers tell people to avoid). So what am I supposed to think when you guys come firing back with exactly the opposite point, given the nature of your disliking of me? I think you're missing the point of why they don't recommend it. It isn't that it doesn't work, it is that long term speeding up your metabolism like that isn't really a good idea. Sure, taking the pills can increase your ability to lose weight and maybe gain some muscle mass WHILE dieting and working out, better than dieting and working out alone, but long-term health wise it isn't a good thing. That is the reason most of these "miracle" drugs aren't being pushed by real health fanatics, not because they don't do what they say.
Anubis	Posted on 12/02/05 at 22:41:01 I only flame people who insult me, not people who just don't feel like arguing anymore. If I did, that would just make me a troll, something I'm not. I'll ignore the sarcastic comments from the people who posted after you. @Captain Tagon: At least you persented a counterpoint in a respectable manner, and made your points clear. I don't necessarily believe it, but at least you did it the right way. I still believe the product is fraudulant, and until it can be proven through factual use to the contrary, there's not much you can say to convince me. There just isn't any, you know, proof.
psz	Posted on 12/03/05 at 06:31:37 Proof has been given. Go read up on the ingredients list again, and study what it all does individually as well as in combination. You'll see that they DO speed the metabolism, and they DO tend to burn fat more efficiently. Saying that you don't believe that the product is listing actual ingredients is just, well, childish. Whether a product is regulated outright by the FDA or not, does NOT mean they can put anything they want on the ingredient list. There ARE still laws regarding that. Considering that mislabling ingredient lists could lead to DEATH in some cases (allergic reactions, mixed chemicals, etc), it would not only lead to MASSIVE lawsuits, it would also be outright stupid from a sales standpoint (Who wants to be known as the company that kills it's customers? Tobacco companies need not apply :-P)
Snabbit888	Posted on 12/03/05 at 06:46:15 On 12/03/05 at 06:31:37, psz wrote:Proof has been given. Go read up on the ingredients list again, and study what it all does individually as well as in combination. You'll see that they DO speed the metabolism, and they DO tend to burn fat more efficiently. Saying that you don't believe that the product is listing actual ingredients is just, well, childish. Whether a product is regulated outright by the FDA or not, does NOT mean they can put anything they want on the ingredient list. There ARE still laws regarding that. Considering that mislabling ingredient lists could lead to DEATH in some cases (allergic reactions, mixed chemicals, etc), it would not only lead to MASSIVE lawsuits, it would also be outright stupid from a sales standpoint (Who wants to be known as the company that kills it's customers? Tobacco companies need not apply :-P) Yes, buuuuuuuuuuuuuut.... puts on a shirt with Anubis' face on it Anubis was right
Anubis	Posted on 12/03/05 at 08:40:45 On 12/03/05 at 06:31:37, psz wrote:Proof has been given. Go read up on the ingredients list again, and study what it all does individually as well as in combination. You'll see that they DO speed the metabolism, and they DO tend to burn fat more efficiently. Prove it. Yeah, the chemicals may be intended to do something specific, but that doesn't mean it actually works. Only through actual use can people know whether or not it works. Thus far, the only people claiming to have results from the product are people who have either a) never been on it and b) never needed it, and they're all in a group that is being paid to advertise the product, and are actors and not actual users of the product. On 12/03/05 at 06:31:37, psz wrote:Saying that you don't believe that the product is listing actual ingredients is just, well, childish. Whether a product is regulated outright by the FDA or not, does NOT mean they can put anything they want on the ingredient list. There ARE still laws regarding that. Considering that mislabling ingredient lists could lead to DEATH in some cases (allergic reactions, mixed chemicals, etc), it would not only lead to MASSIVE lawsuits, it would also be outright stupid from a sales standpoint (Who wants to be known as the company that kills it's customers? Tobacco companies need not apply :-P) The spin stops here, pal. I didn't say they lied about the ingredients, but that we don't know a) how much of each ingredient there is (which isn't required on unregulated labels) or b) how much of any particular ingredient is needed to actually do something to begin with. If you went around real life advocating this product as you have been here, you would find your credibility dropping rapidly. These heavily advertised and fine print ridden supplements are fads and pretty much everyone knows that none of them do anything. This isn't one of the legitimate supplments, this is a fad that's designed to make money and nothing else. Heck, the only reason you don't find your credibility going down rapidly for doing that crap here is because people dislike me and will disagree with anything I say regardless of what they actually believe, which just goes to prove my point I spoke of with regards to my book in another thread. Quite immature. I expect this kind of stuff from the idiots over at GameFAQs, but I never expected people here to be so outright immature. You people need to grow up and get with the real world. They say there's a sucker born every minute, and those are the people Morphoplex and the like are made for, hands-down.
psz	Posted on 12/03/05 at 15:47:49 Again, I will state what I stated before: My CO WORKER FINISHED IN SECOND IN THE NATIONAL BODY FOR LIFE COMPETITION 2004. He used one of the Morphoples-like products. His best friend's ex-wife IS A NUTRITIONIST WHO ALSO SAYS THE PRODUCTS WORK WHEN USED PROPERLLY How much more do you WANT?
Snabbit888	Posted on 12/03/05 at 17:38:44 Prove it. Yeah, the chemicals may be intended to do something specific, but that doesn't mean it actually works. Only through actual use can people know whether or not it works. Thus far, the only people claiming to have results from the product are people who have either a) never been on it and b) never needed it, and they're all in a group that is being paid to advertise the product, and are actors and not actual users of the product. It is law that if someone gives a testimonial for a product (whether it be a food, a movie, a supplement, etc.) they have to have eaten/watched/taken it or it falls under false advertising. Though they could be getting paid and probably are, they still have to had tried it. So these companies just can't go find tons of musclebound people and say, "Tell them our product did this," as that's illegal.
Anubis	Posted on 12/03/05 at 21:42:12 On 12/03/05 at 15:47:49, psz wrote:Again, I will state what I stated before: My CO WORKER FINISHED IN SECOND IN THE NATIONAL BODY FOR LIFE COMPETITION 2004. He used one of the Morphoples-like products. His best friend's ex-wife IS A NUTRITIONIST WHO ALSO SAYS THE PRODUCTS WORK WHEN USED PROPERLLY How much more do you WANT? Funny, I have fitness experts and medical doctors that directly refute what you're saying, who say flat-out that those products are a fad and have quite exaggerated effects. Just because they did well doesn't mean it had anything to do with those products. For all you know, they would have done exactly the same even without the products. Hence my point. On 12/03/05 at 17:38:44, Snabbit888 wrote:It is law that if someone gives a testimonial for a product (whether it be a food, a movie, a supplement, etc.) they have to have eaten/watched/taken it or it falls under false advertising. Though they could be getting paid and probably are, they still have to had tried it. So these companies just can't go find tons of musclebound people and say, "Tell them our product did this," as that's illegal. That's not exactly true. In fact it may be flat-out wrong. Well, at least in the United States. I think the law actually goes more like this: yeah, you had to have tried it, but there is nothing saying you had to spend X amount of time with it, nor does the product have to actually do anything. Basically, they tell them to take a pill, then whether it works or not, they put them in front of a camera to say whatever they are scripted to say. There is no law saying that testimonials have to be truthful, none whatsoever, not in this country. Wait, lemme amend that a bit. There may be a law stating that, but since it's a person's "word", there is absolutely no way to prove (in a court of law) if someone lied in a testimonial unless they come out and admit it. If you actually believe that Tracy Brooks used Morphoplex, lost five pounds thanks to Morphoplex (as opposed to, say, not eating for a week), and couldn't keep her pants on, then I got a bridge to sell you. That's if we ignore the facts that a) losing five pounds doesn't change your size, which I know from personal experience, and b) it doesn't look like she's lost any weight recently anyway.
Snabbit888	Posted on 12/03/05 at 22:52:25 Well it's the responsibility of the company who's producing the product to make sure that the person giving the testimonial HAS used the product. If the company is stupid enough to just take someone's word, then they don't deserve to be in business anyway.
91	Posted on 12/03/05 at 23:05:21 On 12/03/05 at 21:42:12, Anubis wrote: That's not exactly true. In fact it may be flat-out wrong. Well, at least in the United States. I think the law actually goes more like this: yeah, you had to have tried it, but there is nothing saying you had to spend X amount of time with it, nor does the product have to actually do anything. Yes it had to have done something, else their saying it did something would be classed as false advertising. Not only that, it would actually be much harder than you suggested to just flat out lie and get away with it, as these things are surprisingly easy (but not guarenteed, of course) to root out in court. Not only that, but it's actually a crime to be 100% truthful in your commercials but omit small details or create any false impressions. And going off the beaten track slightly, you ever notice that alcohol and tobacco adverts are often really weird - that's because the list of things they're not allowed to say is so huge, companies often have to revert to making their adverts totally random in order to simply grab peoples attention. OK, it's very little to do with anything previously said, but I read up on this recently, 'tis all very interesting.
Unright	Posted on 12/03/05 at 23:57:16 On 12/03/05 at 21:42:12, Anubis wrote: Funny, I have fitness experts and medical doctors that directly refute what you're saying, who say flat-out that those products are a fad and have quite exaggerated effects. Just because they did well doesn't mean it had anything to do with those products. For all you know, they would have done exactly the same even without the products. Hence my point. I don't mean to butt into a conversation I'm not a part of (and especially on I subject I don't know too much), but I've heard that products like Morphoplex often rely on the addage that "Individual Results May Vary". Probably for 50% of users, it doesn't do much. For 35%, there is a slight effect. The other 15% probably show a definate improvement. Of course, for that inital half, there also the placebo effect. Just the fact that You've spent the extra money for a supplement may motivate you more to keeping to your exercise/diet plan and therefore could be a worthwhile purchase. Is it a scam? I don't think so. No more a scam then a sports car commercial implying that driving a sports car improves your chances of getting laid. In some individual cases it might, but in some hopeless cases, it won't.
91	Posted on 12/04/05 at 01:42:09 On 12/03/05 at 23:57:16, Unright wrote: No more a scam then a sports car commercial implying that driving a sports car improves your chances of getting laid. In some individual cases it might, but in some hopeless cases, it won't. That would be illegal anyway - unless you're marketing something specifically designed to do that (such as aerosols, I guess), you're not allowed to suggest that the product you're marketing, whatever that may be, will make you more attractive. Certainly in this country at least.
Unright	Posted on 12/04/05 at 02:05:31 On 12/04/05 at 01:42:09, 91 wrote:That would be illegal anyway - unless you're marketing something specifically designed to do that (such as aerosols, I guess), you're not allowed to suggest that the product you're marketing, whatever that may be, will make you more attractive. Certainly in this country at least. I don't mean they come right out and say it (although Axe Body Spray certainly does), it's just the suggestive undertone. ..."in this country"? Ain't youse a Brit?
91	Posted on 12/04/05 at 02:17:52 Yes, I'm British (well, part British, part German actually). Also, there'd probably be some credence to Axe Body Spray saying it, so they'd be OK.
Anubis	Posted on 12/04/05 at 06:40:56 On 12/03/05 at 22:52:25, Snabbit888 wrote:Well it's the responsibility of the company who's producing the product to make sure that the person giving the testimonial HAS used the product. If the company is stupid enough to just take someone's word, then they don't deserve to be in business anyway. They don't care, that's the point. They only wanna make money, nothing more. On 12/03/05 at 23:05:21, 91 wrote:Yes it had to have done something, else their saying it did something would be classed as false advertising. Not only that, it would actually be much harder than you suggested to just flat out lie and get away with it, as these things are surprisingly easy (but not guarenteed, of course) to root out in court. In a perfect world, you'd be 100% right. In the United States, you'd be 100% wrong. On 12/03/05 at 23:05:21, 91 wrote:Not only that, but it's actually a crime to be 100% truthful in your commercials but omit small details or create any false impressions. Not in the United States. The law simply doesn't work that way here. On 12/03/05 at 23:57:16, Unright wrote:I don't mean to butt into a conversation I'm not a part of (and especially on I subject I don't know too much), but I've heard that products like Morphoplex often rely on the addage that "Individual Results May Vary". That's how they get away with it, actually. On 12/03/05 at 23:57:16, Unright wrote:Probably for 50% of users, it doesn't do much. For 35%, there is a slight effect. The other 15% probably show a definate improvement. I'd say the numbers are more around the area of 75/20/5, actually. Educated guess there. Even then, it can't be proven that the supplement was the key (as opposed to the exercise itself). On 12/03/05 at 23:57:16, Unright wrote:Of course, for that inital half, there also the placebo effect. Just the fact that You've spent the extra money for a supplement may motivate you more to keeping to your exercise/diet plan and therefore could be a worthwhile purchase. Except it's unethical because you are praying on a person's psychological mindset to push a product that has no proven actual effect. On 12/03/05 at 23:57:16, Unright wrote:Is it a scam? I don't think so. No more a scam then a sports car commercial implying that driving a sports car improves your chances of getting laid. In some individual cases it might, but in some hopeless cases, it won't. Well, the difference is I would consider that (the sports car thing) a scam as well. On 12/04/05 at 01:42:09, 91 wrote:That would be illegal anyway - unless you're marketing something specifically designed to do that (such as aerosols, I guess), you're not allowed to suggest that the product you're marketing, whatever that may be, will make you more attractive. Certainly in this country at least. Maybe in your country, but not in the United States. I don't like it, but there's nothing I can do to fix it. On 12/04/05 at 02:05:31, Unright wrote:I don't mean they come right out and say it (although Axe Body Spray certainly does), it's just the suggestive undertone. That's a perfect example of what I've been saying. On 12/04/05 at 02:17:52, 91 wrote:Yes, I'm British (well, part British, part German actually). Also, there'd probably be some credence to Axe Body Spray saying it, so they'd be OK. You think there would be credence there? That's mental. Sorry, but unless Axe Body Spray is packed with pheremones, there would be zero credence. Or at least no more than any other scent you could put on yourself. News Flash: The newest Morphoplex commercial pretty well proves beyond a doubt that it's fraudulant. They do have fine print about it, but even on my big screen television (and it's a huge television), it's nearly impossible to read the fine print without putting your face to the television or using a magnifying glass. As such, I consider it fraudulant because they don't make it loud and clear about this stuff. Anyway, in the newest commercial, they do indeed push it as a diet pill. The testimonial says nothing about building muscle, they advertise it as a weight loss pill and nothing more. Oh, but there's more to it anyway! The label and the pring that you can see also list other potential effects, as the testimonial says somethign else as well. First it helps lose weight. Second, it can lower your chelestorol (the testimonial claimed 153 points). Oh, and for the kicker, it "enhances sexual performance". ... Riiiiiiiiiight. Basically, Morphoplex is advertised as being Slim Fast, Lipitor, and Viagra all rolled into one. I'm sorry, but this is complete bullshit, and I'd be more than willing to bet my life that I'm right on that. Get a clue, people! I know you aren't all suckers. Even if it's just this once, please, freaking admit I'm right on this. I think I've more than proven my poitns. If this did what it is advertised to do (regardless of "individual results may very), this thing would be so well-known it'd be on every major news channel in the country (maybe the world). If it's too good to be true, it usually is. Remember that, people. This product is 100% bullshit, a complete fraud. By standing up for Morphoplex, you only make yourself look dumb. Look, let's talk turkey here. I know I can be an asshole, and I know I've got anger management issues. Heck, I don't agree with most of you on a lot of wrestling-related topics, but with a few exceptions (you know who you are), I don't have anything against most people here. I'm not some monster heel looking for heat, I'm just a guy with a bit of an attitude and a short fuse who's really passionate about a bunch of issues. I'm also pretty damn smart and intuitive, though, believe it or not, and I don't like bullshit. Please, stop holding this silly grudge with me and get real.
91	Posted on 12/04/05 at 15:30:44 In a perfect world, you'd be 100% right. In the United States, you'd be 100% wrong.... Not in the United States. The law simply doesn't work that way here. Actually I've read up on this sort of thing, arguing law with me is pretty fruitless. I'm 100% right, quit disagreeing. Maybe in your country, but not in the United States. I don't like it, but there's nothing I can do to fix it. Yeah, I'm going to have to look into this one because I'm not convinced. Like I said, I can't be 100% on this one, but I'd be surprised. You think there would be credence there? That's mental. Sorry, but unless Axe Body Spray is packed with pheremones, there would be zero credence. Or at least no more than any other scent you could put on yourself. I think you'll find that that's exactly what these things are usually packed with. That said, whilst checking up on this, I saw the Axe website and the high level of "you are going to get laid 24/7 if you use Axe" that they suggested IS a big exaggeration. And before anyone tries the popular myth that humans don't have or react to pheromones, I'd suggest steering around that to avoid being wrong.
Unright	Posted on 12/04/05 at 21:21:17 On 12/04/05 at 15:30:44, 91 wrote: You think there would be credence there? That's mental. Sorry, but unless Axe Body Spray is packed with pheremones, there would be zero credence. Or at least no more than any other scent you could put on yourself. I think you'll find that that's exactly what these things are usually packed with. That said, whilst checking up on this, I saw the Axe website and the high level of "you are going to get laid 24/7 if you use Axe" that they suggested IS a big exaggeration. Yeah I brought up Axe Body Spray exactly because it's a spoof of most comercials where they try to subtly encourage a certain image. This is the same image that McDonalds or Coke uses when they show super happy beautiful hip people enjoying their product. It's always carefully calculated and works more on a subconcious level unless you choose to try to analyze every ad you see (try it sometime though, it can be illuminating) AnubisPerhaps the problem is the definitions of the verbage being used. I would describe a product like Morphoplex to be a rip-off. That is a product whose effects are greatly exagerrated. A scam is something I usually describe what a con man does. You pay for something and get nothing. That said, I do consider Morphoplex to be a rip-off and would never spend any money on it.
Anubis	Posted on 12/04/05 at 21:44:03 On 12/04/05 at 15:30:44, 91 wrote:Actually I've read up on this sort of thing, arguing law with me is pretty fruitless. I'm 100% right, quit disagreeing. Well, you don't live in the United States, and if you do, you certainly don't know how the law works around here. Around here, false advertising is extremely hard to prove in court because while there is no proof that backs up the product, there's also no proof that what is advertised is a lie either. The words "individual results may vary" is used around here as a catch-all that allows these companies to basically say whatever they want. All they need is the slightest amount of a chemical that could potentially do what they're claiming and they're clear, whether it actually does anything or not. Axe Body Spray is likely the best proof positive that they can say whatever they want, because pheremones or not, I seriously doubt it works as advertised. If it ain't regulated by the FDA, then they pretty much have free reign to say whatever they want. Or do you actually believe Morphoplex enhances sexual performance and lowers chelestorol, effectively giving it the combined effects of Slim Fast, Lipitor, and Viagra? If so, you're just the kind of sucker these leeches are looking for. This is why I think it should all be government-regulated, to force these companies to start being honest. On 12/04/05 at 21:21:17, Unright wrote:AnubisPerhaps the problem is the definitions of the verbage being used. I would describe a product like Morphoplex to be a rip-off. That is a product whose effects are greatly exagerrated. A scam is something I usually describe what a con man does. You pay for something and get nothing. Yeah, I use rip-off and scam interchangably. To me, they're basically the same thing. I've unforgiving and relentless to people and compnies like that. Always have been, always will be.
91	Posted on 12/04/05 at 22:00:02 On 12/04/05 at 21:44:03, Anubis wrote: Well, you don't live in the United States, and if you do, you certainly don't know how the law works around here. Right, you know exactly what I do and don't know - if you say I don't know American law, you MUST be right, despite not knowing me or not knowing the sort of things I learn and read up on. I will re-itterate - I've read up on this sort of thing before, I often read up on this sort of thing, including how it works abroad, and I was right. Quit trying to argue for the hell of it. It would be an absolute piece of piss for any decent lawyer to prove the truth one way or another - hell, I don't have any law qualifications and I could easily pull it off (if I was actually allowed) after watching a couple of old Perry Mason tapes. As far as Axe Body Spray goes, as I said, having looked further, it's obvious they exaggerate the effects for show but I also realised it's the same product as our Lynx, and that does work (again, not to the extent that they might suggest, but it's been proven to have plenty of credence).
Snabbit888	Posted on 12/05/05 at 01:55:54 Anubis, out of curiosity, do you think if TNA advertises a AJ Styles vs. Samoa Joe main event, but then run an angle where Joe gets hurt and it's Styles vs. Shark Boy instead, is TNA filled with scam artists too because they advertised with "Card subject to change?"
Anubis	Posted on 12/05/05 at 06:52:33 On 12/04/05 at 22:00:02, 91 wrote:Right, you know exactly what I do and don't know - if you say I don't know American law, you MUST be right, despite not knowing me or not knowing the sort of things I learn and read up on. I will re-itterate - I've read up on this sort of thing before, I often read up on this sort of thing, including how it works abroad, and I was right. No you're not. You don't seem to have any clue how the law works. You might know how it's supposed to work, but the American legal system is a true clusterfuck of epic proportions, and very little of it works as intended. That is the cold hard fact of the matter regarding the befuddling legal system in this country. Corporations pretty much get away with everything around here. As long as they don't get too big (i.e. Micrsoft), the government doesn't give a flying fuck. Of course, you're basically saying "if Morphoplex claims to be Slim Fast, Lipitor, and Viagra rolled into one (which they do), it must be true because it's illegal to lie about it". Wrong. Sorry, pal, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It ain't regulated, period, so they can basically lie all they want as long as they can get one person to back them up (not hard to do, usually by paying under the table; business around here is extremely corrupt in many cases). On 12/04/05 at 22:00:02, 91 wrote:Quit trying to argue for the hell of it. You're the one doing that, not me. You keep conveniently skipping around Morphoplex's claims to enhance sexual performance and lower chelesterol on top of the other stuff they claim it does, despite the plain and simple fact that if it did everything they claim, it would be the most popular product in the world. On 12/04/05 at 22:00:02, 91 wrote:It would be an absolute piece of piss for any decent lawyer to prove the truth one way or another - hell, I don't have any law qualifications and I could easily pull it off (if I was actually allowed) after watching a couple of old Perry Mason tapes. Proving that you know nothing about how the American legal system works. Sorry, but false advertising is a huge bitch to prove, especially since all you need is one "testimonial" claiming it's true to stop it. Oh, and not being regulated in any way helps them get away with it, because it prevents the government from doing anything about it. On 12/04/05 at 22:00:02, 91 wrote:As far as Axe Body Spray goes, as I said, having looked further, it's obvious they exaggerate the effects for show but I also realised it's the same product as our Lynx, and that does work (again, not to the extent that they might suggest, but it's been proven to have plenty of credence). You're insane. Sorry, but I doubt there is any body spray on the face of the planet that does even a minute fraction of what products like that claim. You're only making yourself look stupid. You do realize that, right? Sure, others may rally behind you on here and against me, but that's only because they have personal bias against me. In their real lives, they're thinking, "that guy is a nut job". Well, maybe the other nut jobs aren't thinking that, but you get my point. On 12/05/05 at 01:55:54, Snabbit888 wrote:Anubis, out of curiosity, do you think if TNA advertises a AJ Styles vs. Samoa Joe main event, but then run an angle where Joe gets hurt and it's Styles vs. Shark Boy instead, is TNA filled with scam artists too because they advertised with "Card subject to change?" I have a two part answer to that. First, as far as wrestling goes, absolutely not. It's a work of fiction that is entirely made up for the sake of drama, and therefore the commercials are part of "the act". There is no impact on reality and thus no problem with such advertising. (As opposed to Morphoplex being sold for people to put in their bodies.) Second, in actual sports, well, advertising or not, if someone gets injured (like, say, Shaq), and he doesn't show up despite being advertised to play (like if he got injured), there is no penalty because it's an accident that was perpetuated and controlled by absolutely no one. False advertising requires intent to deceive; accidents and uncontrollable variables don't count, period (as opposed to Morphoplex, which is an obvious and blatant deception). If, however, players "no-show" real sporting events, they do get fined for it, sometimes suspended, and rightfully so.
Snabbit888	Posted on 12/05/05 at 07:03:06 Well wouldn't be just as much of a scam if the Wrestlemania main event was changed from HHH vs. John Cena to HHH vs. Vince McMahon the night of because of an angle? Wouldn't that be a scam? Some people paid $500 for a ticket to see Cena and HHH, and they get HHH and Vince instead? Isn't that the same kind of deal? I'm not trying to be confrontational. Just wanting to see your take here.
Anubis	Posted on 12/05/05 at 07:14:19 On 12/05/05 at 07:03:06, Snabbit888 wrote:Well wouldn't be just as much of a scam if the Wrestlemania main event was changed from HHH vs. John Cena to HHH vs. Vince McMahon the night of because of an angle? Wouldn't that be a scam? Some people paid $500 for a ticket to see Cena and HHH, and they get HHH and Vince instead? Isn't that the same kind of deal? I'm not trying to be confrontational. Just wanting to see your take here. Oh, I understand your question, and it's very important to point out these differences. Like I said, since wrestling isn't "real", being a drama and work of fiction means that their advertisements are effectively part of the act. When they announce a card, the card is part of the act. Since it's all fake and has zero impact on reality, there is nothing wrong with it. That said, I will add this much: I think if a company were to advertise a specific match as a selling point for a major PPV, and then changed it as an angle, while they wouldn't be liable legally, they would be held liable by the fans. In your example, there would likely be a riot if they replaced John Cena with Vince McMahon at Wrestlemania, and I'd bet everything I got that the ratings would nosedive almost immediately. In both cases, however, WWE has no obligation to put on the cards they advertise because it's all fake. There is no real-life impact, so there is no damage done. That is exactly the opposite of the Morphoplex case, where they are intentionally deceptive in order to make money, and on a product that is supposed to have a real-life impact. They aren't fiction. Also, my wife pointed out something important I had overlooked. Even if Morphoplex can get in trouble, it may happen, and it might just take years for it to happen. Think about all the supplements that have gone out of business. They all either got busted or people caught on that it was a scam, and it goes away, to be replaced quickly by the next scam product. Morphoplex is the "flavor of the month", effectively speaking. Look at Miss Cleo; she operated for almost a decade before she got nailed to the wall for her fraudulant garbage. Ten years from now, we won't even remember Morphoplex ever existed, you can take THAT to the bank.
rey619	Posted on 12/05/05 at 10:03:45 Not to put my nose into an already heated discussion.. but has this Morphoplex thing been on the market for a while? Shouldn't it be given a chance to either fail or succeed? I'm not a naive fool who thinks that such products automatically works (I laugh at TV-shop).. but in all fairness, maybe, just maybe it works..
91	Posted on 12/05/05 at 14:57:17 On 12/05/05 at 06:52:33, Anubis wrote: You're the one doing that, not me. You keep conveniently skipping around Morphoplex's claims to enhance sexual performance and lower chelesterol on top of the other stuff they claim it does, despite the plain and simple fact that if it did everything they claim, it would be the most popular product in the world. Two things - number 1, I haven't even mentioned Morphoplex in this thread and haven't argued anything to do with them, so clearly you haven't read anything I've written. And number 2, we all know for a fact you like to argue for the sake of it. Need I remind you... On 02/12/05 at 05:28:02, Anubis wrote: I will do exactly as I said whenever I feel the need to, and guess what motherfucker? No one can fucking stop me you insolent fucking punk. As far as I'm concerned, you could say the sky was blue and I'd debate you on it and flame you now. Why? Just because I can and I just feel the desire to. Since you've already admitted you'll just argue anything I say during that little hissy fit of yours, I think we can all safely say I'm right. Which I am.
Anubis	Posted on 12/05/05 at 23:41:11 You continue skipping over the points, though, which proves that I'm right. Using something that was said almost a year ago is just retarded. Oh, and this topic is about Morphoplex, so I apply all your arguments directly to Morphoplex. If you aren't talking about Morphoplex (why would anyone assume that, though, given that it's the topic of this thread and you're arguing directly with me about it?), you're off-topic and stupid and you need to go away.
91	Posted on 12/06/05 at 00:08:42 You continue skipping over the points, though, which proves that I'm right. Something which you NEVER do, despite having a tendancy to repeat the same arguements over and over no matter how much proof people put, without actually making counterpoints, just because. Using something that was said almost a year ago is just retarded. And yet it's still only one thousandth as retarded as what you said, to the point where it never stops being unfunny. Here, have another one... I will do exactly as I said whenever I feel the need to, and guess what motherfucker? No one can fucking stop me you insolent fucking punk. As far as I'm concerned, you could say the sky was blue and I'd debate you on it and flame you now. Why? Just because I can and I just feel the desire to. You're right, no one can "fucking stop you". I also remember you boasting about your ability to "cuss like a sailor" during that thread. Oh, and this topic is about Morphoplex, so I apply all your arguments directly to Morphoplex. If you aren't talking about Morphoplex (why would anyone assume that, though, given that it's the topic of this thread and you're arguing directly with me about it?), Which in return is only half as retarded as that. So if the topic digresses (which topics tend to do - welcome to the internet, Einstein), it proves in turn you must be right? Genius, utter genius. And again, I once again reitterate that I never argued, directly or otherwise, about Morphoplex. I think my input in that particular debate ranged to "people should just eat less". I didn't once praise or doubt the powers of Morphoplex one way or another. The fact that you decide to take anything I put and apply it to some other discussion because... well, I don't know why strictly speaking, but the fact that you do it makes you look like one of those comedy lawyers they have on sit-coms who use confusing tactics to try and win cases. No wonder you feel like you're qualified to argue law. Now remind me why Chewbacca comes from Endor again. you're off-topic and stupid and you need to go away. And hereeeeee comes the bitchy hissy fit. Mind you, I remember the last time I called someone stupid and told them to go away. The teacher made me sit in the corner for ten minutes and I didn't get to have any milk. And you wonder why I don't believe you have a wife.
Anubis	Posted on 12/06/05 at 00:24:59 Listen, jackass, I'm sick and fucking tired of you taking potshots at me every fucking time I post. I've had it with you. You are the very definition of an internet troll. Well, guess what? I never could resist taking a troll's bait, a fact which I am not at all ashamed of. Do you want me to find every single post of yours and flame you after every post you make? It sure sounds like it. I'm the most vindictive person you will ever know. Revenge always has top priority on my list of thigns to do. Is that what you want? Are you wanting an endless flame war on these forums or something? I mean, if that's what you want, I can certainly give it to you. You do not have the fucking right to falsely accuse or discredit me, period. You simply don't. Every time you spout of nonsense arguing about my writing ability or my having a wife, you become more of a troll. I know most people don't take the bait from trolls, but I always have and I always will. If it's truly your desire to not be able to post peacefully on these forums, I'd be glad to give you that, asshole. Is that what you want? Truly? You had better cease and desist you nonsensical accusations against me and your attempts to discredit me around here or you will regret it because I won't let you post or chat peacefully on these forums anymore. Threat? Yeah. Promise? Absolutely. Sure, it'll mean an hour less of video game time, but like I said, revenge is always top priority with me, and you won't find a human being alive more vindictive and Hell-bent on revenge than me. You're the one in the wrong here, jackass. I would highly suggest you retract your statements and apologize publicly for your slander. If not, well, then I'll just have to follow through on this and all previous threats now won't I?
Carlzilla	Posted on 12/06/05 at 06:31:32 On 12/06/05 at 00:24:59, Anubis wrote:You are the very definition of an internet troll. I hope the irony isn't lost on him.
TiLoBrown	Posted on 12/06/05 at 06:52:43 On 12/06/05 at 00:24:59, Anubis wrote: You are the very definition of an internet troll. Anubis, YOU are the definition of troll. Also, don't talk about slander when once again, you do it more than anyone else on the board. Sure you may do it against a big company, but you do it more than anyone else.
Anubis	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:02:21 On 12/06/05 at 06:31:32, Carlzilla wrote:I hope the irony isn't lost on him. I suppose you're the newest member of the asshole shit brigade? Yeah, I'm guessing so. You might wanna learn these definitions. You like to imply that I'm a troll, but you guys are the trolls. The most direct definition of an internet troll is someone who provokes other users to flaming. I may do my fair share of flaming, but I do not provoke people to do it. Hell, just look at this topic. I was railing on Morphoplex, and the topic was perfectly legitimate. These products, in the past, are known to be fads and worthless, and most get taken off the market inside a few years. Given their outrageous claims, there is absolutely no reason to believe Morphoplex is any different. They claim to be able to do so many things that the FDA has authorized other products to do (Lipitor and Viagra and the big ones that Morphoplex claims to be able to mimic), and it's just not credible, period. Yet we have this Brit coming here, pretending to know how American law works, firing off blatant lies about me left and right with his sladerous claims that I am lying about being a writer and about being married, outright provoking me over and over and over again. By the very definition of a troll, 91 is a troll and I am not. I may do a lot of flaming, but I don't troll. So you might wanna know the terms before joining the Moron Militia. He's in the wrong, and any reasonable person would be able to see that easily. Do I have a temper? Hell yeah I do. It's perfectly reasonable to lose that temper, too, when someone is firing off slanderous remarks like he has. I am thin-skinned, plain and simple, and it's not up to me to shrug off people's shit, it's up to other people to treat me (and anyone else) with respect and not provoke them. Alas, 91 is provoking me continuously, and yes, I will respond with flames. Taking a troll's bait? Sure, whatever. I can't ignore people talking shit, it's that simple, and I'm not the one in the wrong here. He started it, he has been trolling, and while I may be anti-WWE, he's been shooting off his mouth with lies about me. If I have to take action against him myself and disrupt this forum, then I will, and the only way to stop it is for him to finally start acting mature, retract his lies, and apologize. Period. There will be absolutely no negotiation on this.
Rick Garrard	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:02:44 TiLo, I said the same thing a couple months ago about him in the Dudley post. He's not just a troll, but an attention whore as well.
Anubis	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:09:39 On 12/06/05 at 06:52:43, TiLoBrown wrote:Anubis, YOU are the definition of troll. Also, don't talk about slander when once again, you do it more than anyone else on the board. Sure you may do it against a big company, but you do it more than anyone else. Well, you obviously don't know what a troll is. It is someone who posts solely to annoy and/or offend other posters, provokes people to respond with flames, and who posts false information to antagonize people. I have done anything like that. I have responded to it with flames many times, but that's it. Oh, and I've never posted lies about WWE, either, so that's not slander. 91, however, is attacking my personal life and intentionally provoking me over and over and over. I guess I overestimated your abilities, TiLoBrown. I guess if I want this done, I'll have to do it myself. People wanna attack me continuously, well, prepare to receive the same in return. 91 has provoked me continuously, and since you won't stop him, I guess I'll have to do it myself.
TiLoBrown	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:10:58 On 12/06/05 at 07:02:21, Anubis wrote: The most direct definition of an internet troll is someone who provokes other users to flaming. You use your Anti-WWE in stance to get people in to arguments, thus trolling....have fun thinking about that there guy.
Crpls	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:14:42 91, however, is attacking my personal life and intentionally provoking me over and over and over. I heard that you and the misses feed on Jewish babies and then parade the skeletons around the neighborhood.
Anubis	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:16:47 On 12/06/05 at 07:10:58, TiLoBrown wrote:You use your Anti-WWE in stance to get people in to arguments, thus trolling....have fun thinking about that there guy. You're not too bright. Tell me, when was a debate considered flaming? Yeah, I start debates, but I do not provoke people to respond with flames. My anti-WWE stance has nothing to do with annoying anyone here, but rather with expressing my disliking of Vince McMahon and his product. I have never once had the intention to provoke anyone, plain and simple. So unless you can show be how starting debates is the same as provoking flames, you got nothing. I may start plenty of debates, but I don't spread lies and I don't provoke people to flaming me. Now you can jump onto the bandwagon all you want, but that isn't gonna change the fact that 91 is in the wrong attacking my personal life and that I'm in the right.
TiLoBrown	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:25:19 I never said you start debates, I said you start arguments....there is a difference. And before you say anythings, that is what you do. You know its going to happen, and you don't care that it's going to happen. That, my....not good man, not friend....forget it, that Anubis is trolling. Oh yea, I don't jump on bandwagons, I drive em!
Anubis	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:39:39 On 12/06/05 at 07:25:19, TiLoBrown wrote:I never said you start debates, I said you start arguments....there is a difference. And before you say anythings, that is what you do. You know its going to happen, and you don't care that it's going to happen. That, my....not good man, not friend....forget it, that Anubis is trolling. Oh yea, I don't jump on bandwagons, I drive em! First off, even starting an argument isn't trolling. Like I said more than once now, a fact you seem to disregard, a troll "is someone who posts solely to annoy and/or offend other posters, provokes people to respond with flames, and who posts false information to antagonize people." Oh, and again, I have not done that. Notice how "starting arguments" isn't in there. Too bad you don't seem to know the difference between an argument and a debate, though. Arguments are more or less pointless, debates are usually relevent. I don't recall starting any "arguments" (although we've all participated in them), although if you think you can prove that I have started arguments, by all means, do so. I bring up relevent topics and debate them. Do I vent occasionally? Sure, but that's neither a debate nor an argument. Now, I'm not saying I never argue with people here. I'm doing it right now, although I'm not the one who started it. This topic was created about Morphoplex. I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the product is a rip-off by some definitions, a scam by others, and a fraud by yet others, but as I said, I consider that all to be more or less synonymous, and I have shown it as such. People have dodged the facts several times, citing chemistry and such without even knowing how much of a chemical is needed to get a certain effect or how much of each is in the damn thing. Yet 91 decides to bring up (and make up lies about) my personal life. Off-topic and trolling. You should have stopped him while he was spreading lies about me, yet you did nothing. I guess that puts you on the bandwagon, driver or not. On 12/06/05 at 07:14:42, Crpls wrote:I heard that you and the misses feed on Jewish babies and then parade the skeletons around the neighborhood. Fuck off, loser. This isn't the time or the place to make sarcastic comments.
Snabbit888	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:41:03 yawn Not even to jump on the bandwagon here, but Anubis, how can you NOT see yourself as the antagonist? You tell people they're dumb if they don't think as you do (not debate), you threaten to flame people (certainly not debate), you make these threats of "finishing it yourself" and nonsense like that (definitely not debate)... just face it, you're abrasive. What you do is NOT debate. You don't say, "WWE did this and this, and I think it's wrong because of this and this. What are your opinions?" You say, "WWE is a bunch of assholes! And anyone who likes them is an idiot!" How could you possibly believe that is debate? Seriously? In what capacity could you possibly say that's debate? I try to see your point, Anubis, I really do, but man, you're nuts.
Snabbit888	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:43:03 And you proved nothing beyond a shadow of a doubt, Anubis. You provided no documentation, no research, no anything. Just your OPINIONS. Try doing that anywhere else and see if anyone buys it. "Your Honor, I believe this man is guilty of the crimes he's accused of. Why you ask? Oh, I don't like him..." Quote ONE source. Please. Just one source. A source that preferably isn't from your own head or of a "You're all stupid!" variety.
Crpls	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:45:48 Fuck off, loser. This isn't the time or the place to make sarcastic comments. It's ALWAYS the time and place to make sarcastic comments, Jeweater.
TiLoBrown	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:47:17 On 12/06/05 at 07:39:39, Anubis wrote: Too bad you don't seem to know the difference between an argument and a debate, though. HELLO! YOU THERE? You're the one that tried to swap the two words, you must be the one that doesn't know the difference. Listen buddy, go get some rest to regain some common sense. Don't even try to keep this going with me, you are nothing more than a sad shell of myself 2-3 years ago. The only difference I knew I was joking when I did it. Carp, Rick.....you two want to warn this "man" who hes trying to provke a fight with? Not because I'm a mod, screw that, but because you two remember what I'm like when I'm in a silly internet war....which, right now, I have no problem getting in to.
Crpls	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:49:03 Do I know you?
Rick Garrard	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:50:40 it's just a good thing that TiLo is not that sheep shagging Graeme that used to hang out around these part.
TiLoBrown	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:54:58 On 12/06/05 at 07:49:03, Crpls wrote:Do I know you? You Carping SOB, you know who the hell I am! If I could remember my other insults for you, I'd use em ;)
Crpls	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:56:18 Are you one of the chix I slept with and didn't call back? If so, I SWEAR I was gonna call, but u c, my Grandmother died...
TiLoBrown	Posted on 12/06/05 at 07:57:50 I'm the one that killed her from banging her to hard
Anubis	Posted on 12/06/05 at 08:07:02 On 12/06/05 at 07:41:03, Snabbit888 wrote:yawn Not even to jump on the bandwagon here, but Anubis, how can you NOT see yourself as the antagonist? You tell people they're dumb if they don't think as you do (not debate), you threaten to flame people (certainly not debate), you make these threats of "finishing it yourself" and nonsense like that (definitely not debate)... just face it, you're abrasive. What you do is NOT debate. You don't say, "WWE did this and this, and I think it's wrong because of this and this. What are your opinions?" You say, "WWE is a bunch of assholes! And anyone who likes them is an idiot!" How could you possibly believe that is debate? Seriously? In what capacity could you possibly say that's debate? I try to see your point, Anubis, I really do, but man, you're nuts. How is it debate? Simple. I present the information and I don't put spin on things. I open an issue for discussion. Anything I say about people being crazy for disagreeing with me or being stupid for disagreeing with me, that's all "notation" more or less; I've heard Senators do the same thing on the divisive topics such as abortion and gay marriage and other such things. Heck, there have been fistfights in the House of Representatives over heated debates. The important aspect of a debate is to present a topic and present the facts, and I do exactly that. I know I'm abrasive. That's no news flash. I know I'm abrasive and I know I'm vindictive and I know I've got a short fuse, but that doesn't make any topic any less of a debate. At least, not until I get provoked. Once I get provoked, yes, the gloves come off, as is the case here. I don't threaten flame wars until someone provoked me into it, that much is absolute fact. Snabbit, you're one of the few guys around here I got some respect for, because unlike these shitstains who are attacking me, you show respect and you don't spin things or make personal attacks. I'm cool with that. Still, look for the exact moment this thread got derailed, and you'll notice that it ain't my name on the post, it's 91's. That son-of-a-bitch has pushed it over the line, and this time, I seriously doubt there will be peace. To the rest of you bottom-feeders, I may call names and cuss a lot, but such flames aren't personal. I don't insult your momma or your personal life or your love life or your business. Of course, that's gonna be right out the window if you keep on provoking me. Oh, and 91, if you don't think I've proven my point about Morphoplex (which you keep saying you haven't defended while pretty much doing the exact opposite), then you are definitely a real sucker. Again, show me how it's honest to claim to do all the things Slim Fast, Lipitor, and Viagra do all in one and how it's possible that, if this is true, how it's not world-renowned. The proof is in the common sense as far as Morphoplex goes; sometimes common sense is all you need, given that no media outlet has ever reported a success across the board with the product (it would count as circumstantial evidence in a court of law, the acceptability of which varies by state). Still, I digress. The reason for me being so utterly pissed off is because 91 keeps taking personal potshots at me and the mod is basically saying it's perfectly okay that he does so, lying about me, because I call WWE on all the factual shit they pull (I've never once lied to discredit WWE). Of course, if it's okay for him to provoke and slander me over and over again, I guess that means it's okay for me to flame him over and over. 91 can obviously attack me without fear of reprisal, and I assume that the rules apply across the board, so . . .
rey619	Posted on 12/06/05 at 09:24:44 You may not be a troll in your definition of the word (which is as perfect as a definition can be), but you are highly provocative and bombastic in your opinions, never admitting a fault, and resorting to insulting people who don't share your view. I don't have any personal issues with you (as we more or less share the same view on a lot of things, WWE and the US legal system for starters), but you do tend to have a somewhat one-sided view on things. In order to be a respected debater (sp?), you should be able to .. or at least try to see things from a different perspective. While I think that most of what WWE puts on is horrid, I also notice that PPV buyrates this fall has risen compared to last year. So I have come to the conclusion that while WWE may not appeal to me, it appeals to the majority of the US wrestling fans. I'm not going to rant about millions of people being assholes and ignorant fools, while I'm among the few sane people on earth. I accept the fact that my opinion is different than others, and I try to make them see my point of view in a peaceful, reflected way, without calling them names or provoking them.
91	Posted on 12/06/05 at 16:34:28 On 12/06/05 at 08:07:02, Anubis wrote: Oh, and 91, if you don't think I've proven my point about Morphoplex (which you keep saying you haven't defended while pretty much doing the exact opposite). Quote me on it, if you will. The only thing I said that vaguely links to it was a generalisation about false advertising laws (which I've read up on - like I said, you can argue law with me until you're blue in the face, claiming I can't POSSIBLY know how it works in other countries, despite my easily having access to books and media sources, it doesn't make you right) which had less (nothing) to do with Morphoplex and more to do with the aforementioned generalisation. If you can quote me the bit where I said "ahum actually I think you'll find Morphoplex is brilliant and works" then I'll hold my hands up. On 12/06/05 at 07:02:21, Anubis wrote: Yet we have this Brit coming here... firing off blatant lies about me left and right with his sladerous claims that I am lying about being a writer. Also, you might want to quote where I doubted your abilities as a writer in this thread, I could have sworn I didn't mention that. Also, I took a very relaxed stance on that as you promised to show us some of your work. Naturally we're all still waiting. For the record, I'm only part British, part German and part Polish. And a little bit of Irish somewhere. On 12/06/05 at 00:24:59, Anubis wrote: Do you want me to find every single post of yours and flame you after every post you make? It sure sounds like it. I'm the most vindictive person you will ever know. Revenge always has top priority on my list of thigns to do. Is that what you want? Are you wanting an endless flame war on these forums or something? I mean, if that's what you want, I can certainly give it to you. Yeah, challenging me to a flame war and vowing revenge following your usual effinh and blinding as you throw your furniture around the room, I'm such a troll. Mind you, you've promised to hit me with flame wars before (just like you promised to prove what a brilliant writer you are and how you promised to prove that you can book better than Vince McMahon in your sleep) and you've never delivered. On an unrelated note, I saw SuperstarJimiC was browsing the boards yesterday. Even he followed through with his hype for a few weeks. On 12/06/05 at 07:09:39, Anubis wrote: Well, you obviously don't know what a troll is. It is someone who posts solely to annoy and/or offend other posters, provokes people to respond with flames, and who posts false information to antagonize people. Like that time you were losing an arguement so you called the other guy a racist for the hell of it. Like that you mean? On 12/06/05 at 07:09:39, Anubis wrote:91 has provoked me continuously, and since you won't stop him, I guess I'll have to do it myself. Whatever, I'm sure you'll be banned before you spammed up the entire board with your flaming (which I'm sure won't be slanderous in any way) in an attempt to "stop me", however you define that. Speaking of slander, didn't you once say Vince McMahon was so evil that he'd let a bus full of nuns crash to its death and would only consider saving it for fame and fortune, something like that? I bet you spent ages researching that. Now please, save the teenage-angst tear-soaked hissy fits, asides from making the pixels on my screen run, it causes bad karma.
Anubis	Posted on 12/07/05 at 00:15:36 On 12/06/05 at 16:34:28, 91 wrote:Quote me on it, if you will. The only thing I said that vaguely links to it was a generalisation about false advertising laws (which I've read up on - like I said, you can argue law with me until you're blue in the face, claiming I can't POSSIBLY know how it works in other countries, despite my easily having access to books and media sources, it doesn't make you right) which had less (nothing) to do with Morphoplex and more to do with the aforementioned generalisation. Almost all of your posts were direct arguments against what I was saying. Seeing as I was discussing Morphoplex being a fraud, you directly arguing with me means you have the precise opposite stance. On 12/06/05 at 16:34:28, 91 wrote:Also, you might want to quote where I doubted your abilities as a writer in this thread, I could have sworn I didn't mention that. Also, I took a very relaxed stance on that as you promised to show us some of your work. Naturally we're all still waiting. You post your crap about me in multiple threads already, and you even directly spewed your garbage about my marriage in this thread. You're a shitstain, and if you think I'm gonna go out of my way to humor you, you're dead wrong. As for my writing, well, I tried to put it up in the thread that was discussed in. The last thin I did was ask how to attatch a file to my message, and I never got a reply. As of now, though, I have absolutely no intention of putting my work up for you, because you've already shown your bias, so all it would do would open the door for you to attack me even more. You have absolutely no capacity for objective thought, and as such, you have zero credibility as a critic. Tell me, why should I bother posting my hard work for a fucking troll? Please, explain that one to me. On 12/06/05 at 16:34:28, 91 wrote:Yeah, challenging me to a flame war and vowing revenge following your usual effinh and blinding as you throw your furniture around the room, I'm such a troll. Do you know the difference between flaming and trolling? You might wanna check that out. On 12/06/05 at 16:34:28, 91 wrote:Mind you, you've promised to hit me with flame wars before (just like you promised to prove what a brilliant writer you are and how you promised to prove that you can book better than Vince McMahon in your sleep) and you've never delivered. Here you go again. Listen, motherfucker, you have no right to question my credentials, period. Attempting to discredit me like like this, you're just proving my point. The reason I didn't deliver on previous flame wars is because I eventually cooled off and decided to keep the peace, no other reason. As for the booking, motherfucker, you are probably the biggest lying cocksucking piece of shit I've ever had the displeasure of knowing on these boards; you were the one who stopped the booking challenge by forcing your convoluted rules down my throat, and I don't play that kind of game, my booking is about creativity, nothing more. As for my writing, again, give me one good reason why I should humor a troll like you; you have shown be absolutely no respect and you've started several fights with me for no fucking reason, so what motivation do I have to show you my hard work and risk my ideas being stolen or just plain put down because you don't know how to judge anything objectively? On 12/06/05 at 16:34:28, 91 wrote:Like that time you were losing an arguement so you called the other guy a racist for the hell of it. Like that you mean? You love spinning things, don't you? For the Hell of it? I don't think so. On 12/06/05 at 16:34:28, 91 wrote:Whatever, I'm sure you'll be banned before you spammed up the entire board with your flaming (which I'm sure won't be slanderous in any way) in an attempt to "stop me", however you define that. Did I say I wasn't gonna slander you? Lemme make this clear: after the things you've said to me, as far as I'm concerned, it's open season on your stupid ass. As for being banned, yeah, I guess it's nice to have the powers-that-be in your back pocket as your . . . pal . . . I always thought that mods were supposed to be unbiased, but that's obviously not the case with TiLoBrown, who doesn't know how to do his fucking job right. Heck, you should have been warned and reprimanded for your outright lies about me long before this turned into a flame war. I even tried to keep the peace, but it just wasn't meant to be I suppose. On 12/06/05 at 16:34:28, 91 wrote:Speaking of slander, didn't you once say Vince McMahon was so evil that he'd let a bus full of nuns crash to its death and would only consider saving it for fame and fortune, something like that? I bet you spent ages researching that. More lies. Do you ever stop? Excuse me, more spin. Someone else came up with the scenario, and my onjly statement was that he'd only risk himself to save them as a PR stunt, more or less. I based that statement on Vince's track record (the one where he doesn't do anything unless there's something in it for him), nothing more. On 12/06/05 at 16:34:28, 91 wrote:Now please, save the teenage-angst tear-soaked hissy fits, asides from making the pixels on my screen run, it causes bad karma. Hey, it's not like I WANT a flame war. I like things being civil, but you make that impossible. On the list of retards and assholes, you're at the top of the list right now. That's amazing considering Bush set the bar so fucking high on that list. If you want to make thigns civil, all you gotta do is retract your statements and your lies about me. That means, primarily, your accusations that I am lying about being a writer and about being married. Those are the statements that set me off, after all; I take my business and my family very personally, and I will not back off, period. You want it to stop, you know the one and only way to accomplish that.
91	Posted on 12/07/05 at 01:23:45 What is "it" that I want to stop? Seriously dude, if you actually follow through with your threats and go around the boards flaming me after everything you post, it'll only achieve two things. Firstly a brief chuckle on my part, and secondly your banning no matter how much you stamp your feet and say you're the one in the right. And whilst I could do a dissection of your post, I really can't be bothered, so I'll just make a few short points - first, you can claim I argued you on Morphoplex all you like, you know full well it's not true. Go look up the word "digression", topics do that sometimes. It'll be like my saying your arguing me now means you're arguing the bit earlier where I said if people didn't eat as much and stopped having fast food every night then they'd lose weight even though NOBODY, not even you, is stupid enough to argue THAT. Secondly I never said you weren't a writer, just someone who should prove it if they're going to keep going on about it - there are things I'm good at but you don't see me bragging. Thirdly, what did that guy say that was so racist? Fourthly, I and everyone else, relented to your demanding that you be allowed to use fictional wrestlers with bumped up stats for your Vince-beating circuit, and you went and did all of one card. Face it - you didn't live up to your promises. Finally, I don't have Tilo in my back pocket. Asides from not paying him, if we're going to be literal, I've barely had much conversation on him on these boards, not through lack of respect. His going against you is his own opinions, not because he feels he has to defend me.
Rick Garrard	Posted on 12/07/05 at 01:43:38 I am asking...no I am DEMANDING that Oliver turn the cussing filter back on here due to the last post from Anubis. Had this been television, it would have sound exactly like a Kurt Angle ring entrance.
91	Posted on 12/07/05 at 01:57:28 HAHA! Oh man, I yearn for the days when people were sons of a pregnant dog.
Snabbit888	Posted on 12/07/05 at 05:04:12 The best filter I've ever seen in my life was when cockpit became crotchpit. Now THAT is amazing.
Rick Garrard	Posted on 12/07/05 at 06:00:26 that's recrotchulous Ryan and you know it. ;)
rey619	Posted on 12/07/05 at 08:47:27 Speaking of Kurt Angle.. I just came back to watching WWE and all of a sudden his entrance theme is censored and his teeth are missing? What happened?
Anubis	Posted on 12/07/05 at 10:23:32 Okay, I've had enough. I'm calling you out on this bullshit that you didn't argue directly against my posting. Here is your post where you started doing so: On 12/03/05 at 23:05:21, 91 wrote: Yes it had to have done something, else their saying it did something would be classed as false advertising. Not only that, it would actually be much harder than you suggested to just flat out lie and get away with it, as these things are surprisingly easy (but not guarenteed, of course) to root out in court. Not only that, but it's actually a crime to be 100% truthful in your commercials but omit small details or create any false impressions. And going off the beaten track slightly, you ever notice that alcohol and tobacco adverts are often really weird - that's because the list of things they're not allowed to say is so huge, companies often have to revert to making their adverts totally random in order to simply grab peoples attention. OK, it's very little to do with anything previously said, but I read up on this recently, 'tis all very interesting. This came after I said there was really no way their product could do what they advertise, and I called it fraudulant. What's your direct response? That if people give testimonials that it must have done something and that it's a crime not to be 100% honest, which in and of itself is absolute nonsense. Despite that, this is you saying OUTRIGHT that they were honest about the product or else they'd be in legal trouble, which they aren't (at least not at the moment), and since they aren't they must be telling the truth, which they aren't! How could that possible be anything but a direct argument favoring Morphoplex?
Unright	Posted on 12/07/05 at 11:16:32 On 12/07/05 at 08:47:27, rey619 wrote:Speaking of Kurt Angle.. I just came back to watching WWE and all of a sudden his entrance theme is censored and his teeth are missing? What happened? Angle's in full heel mode like he's never been before. He's wearing a black mouthguard to protect his teeth (and it makes him look more evil). Then he started refusing to wrestle his main event matches until the crowd stopped chanting 'you suck' along with his music. Bischoff's solution was the censor the chant. Of course, the fact that Angle can still hear the chant in person is not really addressed.
rey619	Posted on 12/07/05 at 14:32:44 Ah.. so it's all storyline.. good.. I thought he actually lost his teeth and that the move to the new network caused his music to be censored..
91	Posted on 12/07/05 at 16:25:41 On 12/07/05 at 10:23:32, Anubis wrote:Okay, I've had enough. I'm calling you out on this bullshit that you didn't argue directly against my posting. Here is your post where you started doing so: This came after I said there was really no way their product could do what they advertise, and I called it fraudulant. What's your direct response? That if people give testimonials that it must have done something and that it's a crime not to be 100% honest, which in and of itself is absolute nonsense. Despite that, this is you saying OUTRIGHT that they were honest about the product or else they'd be in legal trouble, which they aren't (at least not at the moment), and since they aren't they must be telling the truth, which they aren't! How could that possible be anything but a direct argument favoring Morphoplex? You remember when I said the closest I came to saying anything about Morphoplex was a GENERALISATION (look that word up too) about advertising laws that happened to apply in this case. Well congratulations for finding the appropriate paragraph. I'm sure your parents are proud of you for the way you can Sherlock Holmes-like solve the more pointless mysteries of this earth. It still has nothing to do with whether or not I think Morphoplex works or not, which I haven't said. Perhaps I was implying that by advertising the way they were, they must be telling the truth. On the other hand, I might have implied that by advertising the way they were, they were breaking the law and would be in trouble if anyone decided to press charges (which they evidently haven't, to my knowledge). Your one crowning arguement... shattered like the most delicate of ones hopes and dreams simply because you read into something to bluntly. Now go stomp your heels somewhere else.
Anubis	Posted on 12/07/05 at 18:01:52 You're a fucking retard, you know that? How you can actually sit there and say your comments were not in support of Morphoplex (generalized or not) is just astounding. Hell, next to you even Bush looks like a fucking genius. You see, when you debate, you gotta say what you mean and mean what you say. If you intended for your arguments against me to actually not be directly against what I was saying, logic suggests that you would say so in the post you made originally. Lemme help you out with that since you're too mentally incompetent to do it yourself. How could you have said what you said, yet meant what you claim to have meant? "Well, given their claims, the odds are you're right about their product not doing precisely what it says. Of course, in that case, it's only a matter of time before they get sued and are forced to take the product off the market for false advertising." You'd still be wrong about the law, but at least your brain would be in the same region as your claims. As it is, you didn't qualify your statement as such, and even now, you refuse to state outright to the opposite. Fence-sitting may be trendy, but it's still ignorant. You need to take a stance one way or another, or stop posting in the thread. By posting in the thread, saying one thing and meaning another, you are effectively inciting a conflict that has nothing to do with the debate at all! This is not a debate about advertising law, this is a debate about Morphoplex. Not like you know anything about either, but still. Oh, and before you cite your legal credentials again, I've got two years of Vocational Law Enforcement under my belt. Pontiac Township High School and Livingston Area Vocational Center are my schools if you really must have proof of what vocational classes I took, seeing as you love questioning my credentials so much. Basically, unless you're a lawyer and member of the bar here in America, or at the very least in law school for that purpose, it's highly unlikely that you have studied any laws more than I have. I digress, though. Back on topic, which is Morphoplex, you need to stop your spinning and say what you mean, not come back at a later time and say "well I said this but I meant it in this way". I'm not a fucking psychic. I read words for their precise meaning, I don't search posts for subtleties and hidden meanings. When you debate, making statements that are unclear only complicates matters, dumbass.
91	Posted on 12/07/05 at 19:53:41 1) I don't believe a word of your law credentials. Listing a couple of schools isn't exactly the affidavit you make it out to be. Here - I studied Russian literature at Royal Holloway, even though I didn't. 2) You can kick and stomp all you like, I still wasn't talking about whether or not Morphoplex works. And I'm fence sitting because I don't know a thing about Morphoplex and never professed one way or the other. 3) You digress do you? How dispicable. Lord knows the temper tantrum you threw when I did that suggests digressing is the epitome of malevolence. 4) I would have thought an awesome writer like you could pick out subtleties and irony. Just more bravado you couldn't live up to. :'(
Captain Tagon	Posted on 12/08/05 at 01:28:16 Here's my question Anubis. If the American legal system is so messed up, why would you want the American government regulating scams such as these? That's about as well-thought out as socialists who whine about corporations controlling everything we wear and watch while clamouring for the government to do the exact same thing.
Carlzilla	Posted on 12/08/05 at 02:23:48 On 12/06/05 at 07:02:21, Anubis wrote: I suppose you're the newest member of the asshole shit brigade? Yeah, I'm guessing so. Newest member?!?!? Dude, I've been an asshole for a long long time. I feel insulted that you have belittled me by slapping a "noob" label on my sweet sweet skills. You might wanna learn these definitions. You like to imply that I'm a troll, but you guys are the trolls. Am I trolling right now, absolutly, but you really deserve all the shit we give you. I don't think you have ever made a TNM related post on these boards...except for maybe your ill fated Imperia Corporation fed...which was a cool idea, but didn't take off. The most direct definition of an internet troll is someone who provokes other users to flaming. I may do my fair share of flaming, but I do not provoke people to do it. Hell, just look at this topic. I was railing on Morphoplex, and the topic was perfectly legitimate. These products, in the past, are known to be fads and worthless, and most get taken off the market inside a few years. Given their outrageous claims, there is absolutely no reason to believe Morphoplex is any different. They claim to be able to do so many things that the FDA has authorized other products to do (Lipitor and Viagra and the big ones that Morphoplex claims to be able to mimic), and it's just not credible, period. I love they way he keeps trying to bring this back on topic, for this I will give you props. But let's face it, this post has been about your pig headed desire to be infalable for the last few pages. Let's drop the Morphoplex crap. Yet we have this Brit coming here, pretending to know how American law works, firing off blatant lies about me left and right with his sladerous claims that I am lying about being a writer and about being married, outright provoking me over and over and over again. ANUBIS: "HE'S ATTACKING ME PERSONALLY" sobs Dude, you put yourself in these situations by getting so damn touchy about everything. It's like your a 14 year old opinionated girl. If you would just admit that you are wrong, or drop the argument knowing that you are right and not being a prick tying to prove your point to everyone else then you wouldn't get attacked. We never had this kinda problem before you started making these kinda posts. By the very definition of a troll, 91 is a troll and I am not. I may do a lot of flaming, but I don't troll. So you might wanna know the terms before joining the Moron Militia. He's in the wrong, and any reasonable person would be able to see that easily. Do I have a temper? Hell yeah I do. It's perfectly reasonable to lose that temper, too, when someone is firing off slanderous remarks like he has. I am thin-skinned, plain and simple, and it's not up to me to shrug off people's shit, it's up to other people to treat me (and anyone else) with respect and not provoke them. 91 is far from a troll. He makes contributions to the TNM community, where as you just come here and start flame wars. You sir are the troll. You deserve no respect from anyone on this board and I applaud their efforts in getting you all bent out of shape...it makes for some sweet reading. Alas, 91 is provoking me continuously, and yes, I will respond with flames. Taking a troll's bait? Sure, whatever. I can't ignore people talking shit, it's that simple, and I'm not the one in the wrong here. He started it, he has been trolling, and while I may be anti-WWE, he's been shooting off his mouth with lies about me. If I have to take action against him myself and disrupt this forum, then I will, and the only way to stop it is for him to finally start acting mature, retract his lies, and apologize. Period. There will be absolutely no negotiation on this. I'd personally loose a lot of respect for anyone who appologized to you on this issue. Seriously, you where proven wrong on like the second page of this argument (Just an estimate I don't remember where it was pretty much established that you where wrong.) Yet this thing is now into it's 7th page. It was destined to become a flame war when you cycled your one argument without any credibilty over and over again and discredited everyone elses posts. You are more than "tough skinned" you are pig headed. You need to learn how to accept defeat with some form of dignity, until then we will continued to treat you like the annoying troll that you are. Good day sir.
91	Posted on 12/09/05 at 00:55:02 Unless you can show that I'm lying, I win by default here. Ummm, no. I wouldn't know where to begin to look up those records, and I'm hardly going to go "can't find anything, he's probably telling the truth". Unless you can show me you're telling the truth, I'm just plum not going to believe you. Same with all your other boasts - you've thrown out the "put up or shut up" line often enough, and when it's fired back at you, you shirk back, make excuses and claim that it just "makes you the winner" as if there was something to win. By your own admission, you just looked a bunch of stuff up. Something you should do more often. "Yeah sure, these two photos clearly show Rick Rude didn't use steroids for most of his career." "Actually he admitted to doing them throughout his entire career." "Uhhh, I'm sticking by my original basis on a couple of old undated pictures I found online." The difference is I caught it, owned up to it, and went back to the topic at hand, something you seem to have some difficulty with. So what I was saying was a branch of a larger digression, same difference. It's not a crime one should have to "own up to". I'm actually not that good with catching onto subtleties and hints, never have been. Good - so if any points ever elude you due to them being subtle, you can't complain again, again. I have provided the credentials, and if you want any right to dispute it, it's up to you to go get proof. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. I'll dispute all I like. We've told you how to post your work up here, the "why should I" excuse is just weak, either you're too lazy or you've got nothing. Lose-lose, just like your stupid flame "war" threats. Either you don't go through with it and everyone thinks you're a pussy (more-so) or you do and you get banned. I'll just sit back and watch you make a fool of yourself either way. We all wait with baited breath as to whether you can deliver... You do realize the most economically responsible and well-balanced country in the world, Denmark, runs on a socialist economy, right? Denmark? You saw the same article in National Geographic then. Of course, that was just one guys opinion that you quickly bought as your own, whilst the writers of Economist magazine weighed together all the factors after months of research and said it was the Republic of Ireland. The United Nations meanwhile did similar research and plumped for Norway. Not that they're not socialist, but I felt it was worth pointing out that it's probably not Denmark (whom I would also put below Sweden and, until they joined the Euro and enjoyed a quick economic collapse followed by a total failure to have anyone actually running the country, Germany). I have yet to fire the first shot against anyone. Didn't you just call someone a bigot because they were disagreeing with you on something... AGAIN? Moron.
Captain Tagon	Posted on 12/09/05 at 05:10:14 On 12/09/05 at 00:18:14, Anubis wrote: It's messed up because they have laws that aren't just and because they don't put into place laws they should, like this one. I hope you aren't confusing socialism and communism. You do realize the most economically responsible and well-balanced country in the world, Denmark, runs on a socialist economy, right? Their people work hard, they don't starve, and they get free (and good) health care, all given by the state as a country is supposed to do for its citizens. America, however, leaves it to the HMOs. We could take a good lesso nfrom Denmark. What lesson is that? Not getting attacked by other nations only because we are too small to matter? And the line between socialism and communism is much smaller than you seem to think it is. Then again, what do I know. I'm just some random libertarian who believes people should learn to look out for themselves. And you're talking about solely your opinion on what laws should be put into place. Not everyone agrees with you on how to handle the legal issues. Are you somehow now more important and smarter than everyone else in the world that we should bow down to your demands as far as how to live? In the spirit of the season...have a Merry Go Fuck Yourself. ;)
rey619	Posted on 12/09/05 at 09:26:40 Yes, actually, Norway is better than Denmark. At least according to the UN who put us on the top of the list of Most Agreeable Countries to Live In (or something like that).. four years in a row.. we're not exactly as unimportant as Denmark either, just ask old Adolf. Still, if Putin decides to roll over us, we would need the US to help us.. so I'm not bitchin' too much..
Unright	Posted on 12/09/05 at 11:31:51 Damn, just when the Morphoplex war was smoldering, all of a sudden some politico-economic nationalistic lighter fluid was dumped on.
Zedja	Posted on 12/09/05 at 13:51:24 On 12/06/05 at 07:09:39, Anubis wrote:Oh, and I've never posted lies about WWE, either, so that's not slander. I think you have. But it's been the truth as far as you've seen it, without the evidence to back it up. (Like when you blamed Vinnie Mac to be behind Michael Shane's namechange) Also, flaming others is also baiting others to flame thus making you a troll. And since when isn't calling someone a biggot personal? Not flaming, just asking.
91	Posted on 12/09/05 at 17:29:05 On 12/09/05 at 11:31:51, Unright wrote:Damn, just when the Morphoplex war was smoldering, all of a sudden some politico-economic nationalistic lighter fluid was dumped on. Keeping things political, the residents of Animal Farm worked hard, didn't starve and had enough health care to keep them capable of working (except for poor old Boxer of course). Of course, all they had in common with Denmark was all the bacon...
Anubis	Posted on 12/13/05 at 07:38:50 On 12/09/05 at 00:55:02, 91 wrote:Ummm, no. I wouldn't know where to begin to look up those records, and I'm hardly going to go "can't find anything, he's probably telling the truth". Not my fault if you're a lazy bitch. On 12/09/05 at 00:55:02, 91 wrote:Unless you can show me you're telling the truth, I'm just plum not going to believe you. I already showed you. I gave you names, I gave you my school, gave you specific years, I gave the most exacting details that can be provided. Not sure what more you want. Specific facts are specific facts, and sorry, you're not allowed to just dismiss fact. On 12/09/05 at 00:55:02, 91 wrote:Same with all your other boasts - you've thrown out the "put up or shut up" line often enough, and when it's fired back at you, you shirk back, make excuses and claim that it just "makes you the winner" as if there was something to win. Excuse me? Shirk back? You told me to put up, and I gave you exact details. How is that shirking back exactly? I provided the evidence, provided the specifics, provided the facts, and you call that shirking back? You're the moron here. On 12/09/05 at 00:55:02, 91 wrote:Something you should do more often. "Yeah sure, these two photos clearly show Rick Rude didn't use steroids for most of his career." "Actually he admitted to doing them throughout his entire career." "Uhhh, I'm sticking by my original basis on a couple of old undated pictures I found online." Nice of you making up yet more lies about me. I said that I didn't know the specifics about Rick Rude and that "if he did do steroids, it was earlier in his career during the 80s, based on the pictures I've seen". Lo and behold, that turned out to be relatively accurate given that it was a guess and that I had admitted to not knowing much about him before I said anything. On 12/09/05 at 00:55:02, 91 wrote:Good - so if any points ever elude you due to them being subtle, you can't complain again, again. I didn't complain, you spoke as if my inability to catch subtleties had an impact on my writing, which is ludicrous. On 12/09/05 at 00:55:02, 91 wrote:I'll dispute all I like. We've told you how to post your work up here, No you haven't. I asked how to put up an attatchment, and wow, no responses whatsoever. On 12/09/05 at 00:55:02, 91 wrote:the "why should I" excuse is just weak, Not when the person on the other side is as biased as you. That's like asking a guy to prove his black heritage to members of the KKK. On 12/09/05 at 00:55:02, 91 wrote:either you're too lazy or you've got nothing. Lose-lose, just like your stupid flame "war" threats. Either you don't go through with it and everyone thinks you're a pussy (more-so) or you do and you get banned. If I got banned, I'd just go to Oliver. The result would be either a) I get unbanned and you get a warning, or b) you get banned right along with me. You started it, you're the one spreading the lies and defamation and slander, you're the one that's doing all the trolling. As it stands, I've agreed not to involve him as long as there are no . . . abuses of power. If I've done anything that warrants banning, at least going by the rules, well, there would be people going down with me. I always make every attempt to stand up for myself, though, so that means abusing power to ban we would just make you look like more of a pussy. On 12/09/05 at 00:55:02, 91 wrote:I'll just sit back and watch you make a fool of yourself either way. We all wait with baited breath as to whether you can deliver... You're the one making a fool of yourself. I dealt with plenty of bullies and jocks through school. You're not very original. On 12/09/05 at 00:55:02, 91 wrote:Denmark? You saw the same article in National Geographic then. Of course, that was just one guys opinion that you quickly bought as your own, whilst the writers of Economist magazine weighed together all the factors after months of research and said it was the Republic of Ireland. The United Nations meanwhile did similar research and plumped for Norway. Not that they're not socialist, but I felt it was worth pointing out that it's probably not Denmark (whom I would also put below Sweden and, until they joined the Euro and enjoyed a quick economic collapse followed by a total failure to have anyone actually running the country, Germany). Yeah, and I'm sure there are people who'd put the United States at the top of the list. What a joke that would be, huh? On 12/09/05 at 00:55:02, 91 wrote:Didn't you just call someone a bigot because they were disagreeing with you on something... AGAIN? Moron. Um, nope. I'm sick of this silly accusation as well. I may call people names sure, but I don't make false accusations without probable cause or provocation. On 12/09/05 at 13:51:24, Zedja wrote:I think you have. But it's been the truth as far as you've seen it, without the evidence to back it up. (Like when you blamed Vinnie Mac to be behind Michael Shane's namechange) I still to this day believe Vince McMahon had a hand in that. Logical deductive reasoning on that one more than anything else. It's not often that an unknown indy wrestler goes after a big name, and even less often that he wins; especially given that we will likely never know this other guy (and I still never heard of him except for this), it's as much a screwjob as when the World Wildlife Fund spin went after Vince, and I defended Vince on that subject completely. On 12/09/05 at 13:51:24, Zedja wrote:Also, flaming others is also baiting others to flame thus making you a troll. Wrong. The troll is the one who starts it, not the one who responds to it. I'm reactive in everything I say and do. I never attack unless attacked, and I don't go on the warpath unless provoked. My flaming others is a direct result of them attacking/provoking me in some way, period. As such, since I was provoked, that means I can't be the troll. On 12/09/05 at 13:51:24, Zedja wrote:And since when isn't calling someone a biggot personal? The answer is twofold. First, as far as name-calling goes, it's right up there with "asshole", "jackass", "fuckface", etc. Any other name you could call someone. Second, I never say such things without probable cause or without being provoked, plain and simple. I base everything I say on experience, education, and/or outright fact, depending on which applies to the situation at hand. I have never said such things "just for the hell of it".
Zedja	Posted on 12/14/05 at 19:33:57 I saw that if you got banned, you think it would be an abuse of power? Now, is it just me or isn't flaming an offense? When doing it sparsly, you get warnings, but if you do it over and over, then you usually get banned. That's why I'm surprised you are still here, really. At least that's how it's been done on all the forums I've gone to in the past.
Rick Garrard	Posted on 12/15/05 at 16:44:46 First, as far as name-calling goes, it's right up there with "asshole", "jackass", "fuckface" How can you bring up Eric Bischoff, Steve-O, and Billy Ripken all in the same sentence? The audacity I tell ya! I'm outraged.
TiLoBrown	Posted on 12/15/05 at 18:02:38 OK....explain to me the Billy Ripken one :)
TiLoBrown	Posted on 12/15/05 at 18:05:18 On 12/14/05 at 19:33:57, Zedja wrote:I saw that if you got banned, you think it would be an abuse of power? Now, is it just me or isn't flaming an offense? When doing it sparsly, you get warnings, but if you do it over and over, then you usually get banned. That's why I'm surprised you are still here, really. At least that's how it's been done on all the forums I've gone to in the past. I haven't even thought a banning yet...don't know about the other mods. Nor have I given any warnings. Mainly because he reminds me of myself, its like I said before he's just a shell of my past gimmicks.
Snabbit888	Posted on 12/15/05 at 18:29:46 On 12/15/05 at 18:02:38, TiLoBrown wrote:OK....explain to me the Billy Ripken one :) Billy Ripken once posed for a baseball card where he was posing with the bat over his shoulder. On the knob of the bat, written in marker was the word "Fuckface." The baseball card got printed and packaged as is as they didn't catch it. http://www.snopes.com/sports/baseball/ripken.htm There's a picture of it.
Rick Garrard	Posted on 12/15/05 at 20:02:03 To quote Joey Styles, "Nicely done." Ryan, on the 1989 Fleer baseball card reference.
TiLoBrown	Posted on 12/15/05 at 20:07:27 nice one my friend :)
Anubis	Posted on 12/19/05 at 23:37:11 On 12/14/05 at 19:33:57, Zedja wrote:I saw that if you got banned, you think it would be an abuse of power? Now, is it just me or isn't flaming an offense? When doing it sparsly, you get warnings, but if you do it over and over, then you usually get banned. That's why I'm surprised you are still here, really. At least that's how it's been done on all the forums I've gone to in the past. It would be abuse of power because I would be the only one getting punished despite not even starting it. I opened discussion, but I never fired the first shot. To punish me and not everyone provoking me and keeping it going (TiLo himself included) would be an extreme abuse of power. At this point, I've already had private discussions about what's happened here, and through diplomacy, we've worked thigns out. That's right, even with 91, it's been dealt with and things have been worked out. Yet TiLo keeps it going! If you don't think that'd be an abuse of power, well . . . All I can really do at this point about such thinking is laugh.
Zedja	Posted on 12/20/05 at 10:43:39 This isn't the only thread with you flaming. Flaming is never ok. Provoked or otherwise.
Anubis	Posted on 01/23/06 at 23:24:34 Something new on the original topic here: Jackie Gayda is the newest poster girl for Morphoplex. Do you all believe me now? I mean, do you honestly believe Tracy Brooks and Jackie Gayda have ever even touched this product? If you believe that, I got a bridge to sell you.
Unright	Posted on 01/23/06 at 23:39:49 On 01/23/06 at 23:24:34, Anubis wrote:Something new on the original topic here: Jackie Gayda is the newest poster girl for Morphoplex. Do you all believe me now? I mean, do you honestly believe Tracy Brooks and Jackie Gayda have ever even touched this product? If you believe that, I got a bridge to sell you. I dunno, does it matter? Honestly I just like ignoring Morphoplex like I ignore the rest of the commercials. Just discussing it is like free advertisement to them.

FORUM HOME > Wrestling > US Independents Morphoplex

FORUM HOME > Wrestling > US Independents
Morphoplex