[Discussion] the fraud advice in here is 2 years out of date
the fraud advice in here is 2 years out of date. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down.
Hard numbers: 2 years. Anything softer than that is flagged as an impression.
Was in a group buy that went quiet for six weeks. It resolved in the end, but the structure meant I had no visibility and no recourse the whole time.
Asked a new shop for a batch-specific certificate before ordering. The reply was a generic catalogue page. I did not order.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Why this board insists on dates and documents rather than names.
A report that says "X is a scam" is unfalsifiable and unactionable. A report that says "ordered on this date, paid this way, asked for a batch document on this date, received this reply, nothing since" can be checked, corroborated, or corrected by somebody with a different experience.
The second kind has repeatedly turned out to be a shipping problem, a payment window, or a misread email. The first kind never turns into anything except an argument, and when it is wrong the cost falls on somebody real.
The site had a decade of testimonials and a domain registered in March. That was the entire investigation.
Correcting my own post: the payment date was the 14th, not the 4th. The gap is smaller than I made it sound.
Never name an individual. The sidebar rule exists because the cost of being wrong falls on a person and the benefit of being right falls on nobody in particular.
Went looking for independent results on Limitless Life after seeing them named three times in a week. Found nothing verifiable in either direction.
A report is useful here when it carries dates, the exact domain, what was requested, what arrived and what did not. Everything else is atmosphere.
the pattern repeats because it works, not because people are stupid
Small fix — the name you are describing is in the wider-market table with almost nothing on file, not in the documented twenty.
Do you have anything in writing from before the payment?
That is an accusation about a named individual and it does not belong here in any form.
Now I buy small from anyone new, test it, and only then commit. It has cost me a few small orders and saved me one large one.
Now I buy small from anyone new, test it, and only then commit.
Disagreeing here: that is a delay, and this board has to keep delay and intent in separate columns.
Disagreeing here: that is a delay, and this board has to keep delay and intent in separate columns.
ferritin_low has the group-buy risk right — it is structural, not a judgement about anybody in particular.
if the price is impossible, the material is the thing being economised on
Not convinced. A payment window that closed is a payment window, not evidence of intent.
Same. A batch-specific document requested before payment costs nothing and filters an enormous amount.
Push back: "nobody has tested them" is a fact about this board, not a fact about the company. Say the first one.
The directory deliberately separates "we have nothing on this name" from "this went badly". Collapsing the two is how boards like this generate false certainty.
- 1The site had a decade of testimonials and a domain registered in March. That…8 comments in this branch · started by u/RetaAndRegret2