Bitcoin Forum

... we do not ban scammers, we do not even label them scammers (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106310.0), so why would we ban "innocent" replies while you can still use the ignore function.

I couldn't find any scammers in that thread. Who are you talking about?

EDIT: What I do see is clear evidence of a prank (albeit a completely tasteless one that was way over the top, affected lots of people financially, and taught more than just me some very hard lessons)


Eisenhower, since you've already made it clear in PM to me before that you incorrectly think I'm a scammer, can you please share your thoughts on this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140654)? Are people scammers when they don't take money? Are people scammers when they not only don't take money but honor bets that aren't legitimate or legal? Are people scammers when they not only honor illegitimate unescrowed bets, don't take money, but actually pay money to people who even admitted that they wouldn't pay themselves had they lost? I'm kind of confused as to what about that makes me a scammer.

I think you've redefined the word for your own purposes. If you'd like to look at a scammer, take a look at BitDayTrade/BitScalper. Take a look at MyBitcoin. Take a look at TawSix. If you spend the rest of your life thinking I'm a scammer, it'd be a waste of a thought.

Let me ask you one simple question. Would you have taken our money in case pirate had payed his debt? - YES you would have taken it!

Did you want me to answer or did you want to continue to answer yourself?

Ever heard of rhetorical questions? Any different answer then "yes" would have been a lie so sorry when I didnt give you the opportunity to write an essay summarizing yourself, the bitcoin community, dragging this whole thing ad absurdum and twisting everything like you always do.

I give this post max 5 min, till one of your moderator buddys jump in and delete all my posts (again).

I feel awful that I did something that would cause you to act like this, but honestly what's the point of talking to you if you're not looking for truth?

Don't worry, Matt, you didn't do anything that caused him to act like this. He determines his own actions. Your actions may have angered him, but he determines if he allows that anger to rule him or not.

You're the one derailing the topic, so your posts should really be moved to a new topic.

Sorry to have to repeat this (as I had already dropped it), but I just realized another great point to the ridiculousness of this logical fallacy and I think it's important to share:

"If ___A___ you would have ___B___ so you're a __C____ even if you didn't __B____"

You're basically saying that someone is a murderer before they ever murdered because you *think* they would have murdered in a particular situation that never happened. Feeling bad about your emotional responses is one thing, I don't feel bad for calling out your flawed reasoning though.