Exactly

Send from LG G4 with Tapatalk

(05-04-2018 7:11 AM)Paradox Wrote:  Proof please.

I was quoting another member, if you read my words carefully "it is SAID". If a member had experience with pure TAC I believe it is OK to say that the said product is SAID/theorized to have TAC. It was not a statement "the said product HAS" TAC.

Kind of sad when a person with English being second language has to go and explain the meaning of words to people who use the same words to be the "legendary PUA's."

If proof is what you want invest into gas chromatography or go bother a vendor.

(05-04-2018 8:20 AM)kocik2000 Wrote:  to people who use the same words to be the "legendary PUA's.

Proof ... lol

(05-04-2018 8:20 AM)kocik2000 Wrote:  I was quoting another member, if you read my words carefully "it is SAID". If a member had experience with pure TAC I believe it is OK to say that the said product is SAID/theorized to have TAC. It was not a statement "the said product HAS" TAC.

This is exactly how falsehoods get spread. Someone says "I heard", "I read" or something like that and then other posters run with it.

It was not a personal attack. Just clearing up something which would have spread throughout the community. You know how people run with things.

First of all we (the community) don't even know what TAC is. Second of all we don't know what products it is in.

We can only speculate.

What is the difference between TAC and "TAC like" experiences? lol

Edit: This thread is a year old and its about the top 5 pheromones of 2017, not about TAC

(05-04-2018 8:56 AM)Paradox Wrote:  First of all we (the community) don't even know what TAC is. Second of all we don't know what products it is in.

And third, that it didn't carry the P designation suggests that it was probably NOT a single molecule.

(05-04-2018 10:17 AM)mark-in-dallas Wrote:  And third, that it didn't carry the P designation suggests that it was probably NOT a single molecule.

(05-04-2018 10:17 AM)mark-in-dallas Wrote:  And third, that it didn't carry the P designation suggests that it was probably NOT a single molecule.

Not so sure about that. About 10 years ago I asked a question about TAL, TAK and TAH on the Androtics forum. I was considering buying them but the research was sparse on those molecules at the time.

Jasmine sent me a PM and told me that those were feminine molecules (or maybe she said those were for women). In any case I ended up not buying any of them.

So maybe TAC, TAL, TAH and TAK are molecules with feminine qualities? We know EST is one of the chemicals that Androtics had in 2003. Maybe they also had related chemicals like ESTridol, ESTrone, ESTrane and ESTetrol.

Someone else would ask: "PROOF"
but I'm not that kind of person.
Like Mark said P (putatives) are not sigle molecules.
But I think that TA designations are molecules. TAA, TAF, TAC, TAL, TAK...
I think that TAA and TAF aren't feminine. So whether TAC is not also feminine or is feminine... We may only speculate...

Send from LG G4 with Tapatalk