Comment · Mon, January 4, 2016
The forefront for 2016 - New compounds on MYASD's mind
Original post in this thread
srubek · 8 points
Now that things are starting to settle down from the chaos that was quarter 4 of 2015, and since today's newsletter said the site will be revamped for 2016, can we expect any new compounds/preparations, as well?
Give us a glimpse, /u/misteryouaresodumb !
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Personally, I'm interested in NA-Selank-Amidate as a premade nasal spray (I find best results with their premade sprays, rather than making them myself) and further semax peptide modifications, along with, of course, P21 in a nasal spray preparation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
What's on the forefront, Paul?
Much love, as always!
What they were answering
Isochroma-Reborn · 0 points
Sounds like multiple corporations colluding in an antitrust manner.
.
You have now publicized this plan which on its face is intent to violate US antitrust law: a crime itself for which you are already liable to Federal prosecution.
.
NOTICE
.
MYASD: I will hold you personally and the corporate entities and agents thereof jointly and severally liable under all applicable US antitrust laws if I obtain even a single piece of evidence that you have acted in a manner contrary to these legislations.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Restrictive_practices***
.
Group boycotts of competitors, customers or distributors
.
Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941) the FOGA, a combination of clothes designers, agreed not to sell their clothes to shops which stocked replicas of their designs, and employed their own inspectors. Held to violate the Sherman Act §1
.
Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (1959) a group boycott is per se unlawful, even if it may be connected with a private dispute, and will have little effect upon the markets
.
American Medical Association v. United States, 317 U.S. 519 (1943)
.
Molinas v. National Basketball Association, 190 F. Supp. 241 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)
.
Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945) 6 to…
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb
What in the hell are you talking about? Are you seriously insinuating that informing people of scammers, and customers that do improper charge-backs, is collusion? Hahahahaha!
You're just upset because I banned you for making a chargeback after only a couple days in customs, for a package that got there THE VERY NEXT DAY! Don't be an asshole to people, and you won't have to suffer the consequences of people not wanting to do business with you.