|
Title: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Monster Tent on December 06, 2012, 11:40:51 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121308.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121308.0)
The passthrough operator (Mircea Popescu) is refusing to take action to recover the gigamining shares and has deleted asset information from owners. The shares are not worthless as stated in the op of the thread. Requesting a scammer tag untill this is remedied and warning people that MPEX will not stand by their contracts. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on December 07, 2012, 08:27:23 AM OP's statements are factually incorrect. MPEx is quite exactly standing by its contracts.
Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: EskimoBob on December 07, 2012, 01:27:21 PM OP's statements are factually incorrect. MPEx is quite exactly standing by its contracts. Here is the old contract: Code: BUY QTYPRICESELL QTYDividends : Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: memvola on December 07, 2012, 02:17:07 PM OP's statements are factually incorrect. MPEx is quite exactly standing by its contracts. Let me ELI5 for myself... So you can indeed make claims to GLBSE and giga, and still pass through the profits. But you either didn't make the claim, or you are not telling that you did or even will. And you are not clearly saying that the coins will be passed through to shareholders even if you receive them. Am I missing something? All I see is that you are letting yourself become a liability in this equation, just like Nefario. Contracts are for when there is a necessary dispute. Where is the necessity here? If everyone acts in good faith, this thing will end well for all parties. Contracts aren't why we do business. We do it for the reciprocal benefit. What you are doing is not beneficial to anyone, because I believe you won't steal the money either. You can indeed make the money available to the shareholders. Either you will or you won't. End of story. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: HorseRider on December 07, 2012, 03:04:55 PM My question is, if OP are serious, where we can sue MPEX/MPOE-PR. (I don't know what's going on exactly but obviously OP and MPEX/MPOE-PR are disagree with each other)
If you find it is very hard to sue an exchange, then do not put serious money or shares on that exchange. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: davout on December 07, 2012, 03:12:19 PM I forgot to add: don't trust no stinking gypsies, though. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/52452135/Django%2BReinhardt%2BPNG.png Care to repeat that ? Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: HorseRider on December 07, 2012, 03:15:05 PM MPEX/MPOE-PR: I have seen the link in the OP. If you don't recognize the value of gigavps' share, and you really discard all the etf, I will say that you are a scammer. Please help them continue the indirect relationship with gigaming or other glbse shares that have been maintained through your etf. don't forget the trust they put on you at the very beginning. Looking forward to your answer, so I can express my opinion in several other boards about you. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: guruvan on December 07, 2012, 03:29:13 PM So far what we know is that F.GIGA.ETF assets have been deleted as worthless from holder's portfolios.
We seem to know (having been told by gigavps) that Mircea refuses to comply with the GLBSE claims process and/or the gigamining claims process. This, however is immaterial to whether or not MPEx pays out holders of F.GIGA.ETF - where MPEx gets money to pay out investors in F.GIGA.ETF isn't particularly relevant. What we do not know is whether or not MPEx will stand by the contract, nor do we know know what MPEx will accept as a "legitimate claim" Considering that MPEx seems to use the output of their gpg-signed STAT statement as proof of asset ownership, there seems to be no way for a holder to make a legitimate claim. MPEx has made no statements to clarify, nor has MPEx placed any kind of receipt or other token in the hands of holders who have seen their assets deleted as "worthless" It would be simple for MPEx to clear this up, but Mircea seems to insist on being stubborn and seems to insist there's nothing to return as the assets are "worthless" Again, I point out that "non-tradeable" and "worthless" are fundamentally different. If MPEx refuses to do anything to return the assets to the holders, provide some other certificate of ownership of assets, allowing holders to make a "legitimate claim" and/or refuses to pay out holders then I would support a scammer tag Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: memvola on December 07, 2012, 04:02:45 PM Contracts are for when there is a necessary dispute. Where is the necessity here? If everyone acts in good faith, this thing will end well for all parties. Contracts aren't why we do business. We do it for the reciprocal benefit. Whaaaaa? Contracts are put in place so we can be clear at the outset regarding the expectations of our commercial interaction. With contracts, we can act in good faith because we know we can change the contract if needed and can commit knowing there is mutual good intent. I would not engage in a contract with someone I do not trust. Except my banks, but those contracts just make my keister available for probing at their leisure. Oh, and the cable company. And the phone company. And the midgets. I'm sure there is a misunderstanding here. I'm not suggesting doing business without contracts. I'm suggesting that refraining from doing something beneficial for everyone because the contracts don't explicitly determine the action, is indefensible. In other words, good faith extends beyond contracts. Otherwise people who abuse the meaning of the contracts would not be called scammers (MNW's bet comes to mind). All contracts are subject to interpretation, especially the ones without exact precedent. Just take a look at the ETF contract in question and you'll realize that what it means is totally dependent on the context, which the contract doesn't even refer to. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: HorseRider on December 07, 2012, 04:22:16 PM In many laws, the contract that was given by MPEX/MPOE-PR is so called a "standard form of contract", which means that the customer/investor who sign the contract are in information disadvantaged position. Some of terms will be easily seen as invalid in court compared with a equal/common contract. In this case, if a investor believed that he bought the etf share with an equation in mind that etf=?*gigaming... then the gigaming being untradable could not make the etf worthless. If any terms that has been put into the standard form of contract has made this happen, the court are likely judge that MPEX/MPOE-PR are intentionally scamming the other party, and the terms are invalid.
So, whether the contract is a scamming contract, or MPEX/MPOE-PR is scamming. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: greyhawk on December 07, 2012, 05:14:16 PM If any terms that has been put into the standard form of contract has made this happen, the court are likely judge that MPEX/MPOE-PR are intentionally scamming the other party, and the terms are invalid. That would likely depend on the jurisdiction this supposed court is operating in, would it not? Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on December 07, 2012, 07:46:22 PM OP's statements are factually incorrect. MPEx is quite exactly standing by its contracts. Here is the old contract: Code: BUY QTYPRICESELL QTYDividends : That's correct. So you can indeed make claims to GLBSE and giga Only if satisfying some conditions. But you either didn't make the claim, or you are not telling that you did or even will. It was stated repeatedly that we didn't, and never will. And you are not clearly saying that the coins will be passed through to shareholders even if you receive them. There's no coins that will ever be received, as far as we can determine. Contracts are for when there is a necessary dispute. Where is the necessity here? If everyone acts in good faith, this thing will end well for all parties. Exactly so. Expecting someone to go through giga's hoops for you is not acting in good faith, especially when that someone clearly pointed out that they wouldn't, ever. Some select quotes: Quote Sep 10 23:37:03 <Bugpowder> So.... what is the upgrade path for F.GIGA.ETF? Sep 10 23:37:25 <mircea_popescu> upgrade path ? Sep 10 23:37:32 <Diablo-D3> you mean to tera? Sep 10 23:37:33 <Diablo-D3> probably isnt one Sep 10 23:37:48 <Bugpowder> yes to tera Sep 10 23:38:05 <mircea_popescu> Bugpowder explain what you mean. Sep 10 23:38:32 <Bugpowder> when tera comes out, 2 upgrade paths Sep 10 23:38:41 <Bugpowder> 1:1 exchange for terabonds (25GH/s) Sep 10 23:38:56 <Diablo-D3> Bugpowder: its probably going to just go the 1:1 exchange Sep 10 23:38:59 <Bugpowder> 1:4 exchane for terabonds with a .30-.40BTC fee Sep 10 23:39:08 <Bugpowder> I assume free exchange route Sep 10 23:42:59 <Bugpowder> so.. 1:1 tradein is planned? Sep 10 23:43:26 <mircea_popescu> what's that mean ? Sep 10 23:44:02 <Bugpowder> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92090.0 Sep 10 23:44:39 <Bugpowder> free upgrade to 25GH/s from 5GH/s Sep 10 23:45:47 <Bugpowder> err.... MH/s Sep 10 23:46:08 * nefario1 (~james@149.241.220.17) has joined #bitcoin-assets Sep 10 23:46:18 <mircea_popescu> yeah, i guess so. whatever happens to gigamining bonds. [...] Sep 18 00:48:01 <gigavps> are you going to upgrade your fund bonds to teramining? Sep 18 00:48:08 <mircea_popescu> [\\\] well the btc finances are bizzare Sep 18 00:48:18 <mircea_popescu> gigavps my contract says i will distribute whatever you give out Sep 18 00:48:20 <Bugpowder> http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dividend_implications.asp Sep 18 00:48:25 <mircea_popescu> so, im'a distribute whatever you give out. Sep 18 00:49:05 <gigavps> well, your bonds have value for the upgrade, it might be why the fund is trading lower than gigamining on glbse Sep 18 00:49:11 <mircea_popescu> possibly, yea. [...] Oct 06 02:14:04 <BTC-Mining> Mircea said it would not upgrade to TERAMINING in any case. [...] Oct 31 06:17:56 <mircea_popescu> people were asking me, oh, what about upgrade to tera Oct 31 06:18:08 <mircea_popescu> and i had to stick to "all i'll do is pass along all that's passed to me" [...] Nov 28 20:15:38 <smickles> that actually relates to his position, f.giga.etf would never move to teramining Nov 28 20:15:56 <smickles> so why would it move to the new gigamining My question is, if OP are serious, where we can sue MPEX/MPOE-PR. Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128397.msg1377558#msg1377558), though it would probably not make much sense to sue me personally. If you don't recognize the value of gigavps' share, and you really discard all the etf, I will say that you are a scammer. Your if is misplaced: the measure was announced in October for the 1st of December, implemented on the 3rd. That's three days ago. Also, you have a question left unanswered from a different recent outburst (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126748.msg1375997#msg1375997). So, how old are you? We seem to know (having been told by gigavps) No, you were actually told by MP and me. This, however is immaterial to whether or not MPEx pays out holders of F.GIGA.ETF - where MPEx gets money to pay out investors in F.GIGA.ETF isn't particularly relevant. This is true. What we do not know is whether or not MPEx will stand by the contract, nor do we know know what MPEx will accept as a "legitimate claim" Actually, you do know this. Quote smickles mircea_popescu: directly, if I had proof that I owned F.GIGA.ETF on Dec 1, would you give me fair value of those shares at any point in the future if I relinquish my ownership of them? mircea_popescu smickles I will (and always have) satisfy legitimate claims against myself. Now, it'll all come down to whether your claim is legitimate at that point. smickles There you have it BTC-Mining. Considering that MPEx seems to use the output of their gpg-signed STAT statement as proof of asset ownership, there seems to be no way for a holder to make a legitimate claim. This conflicts with basic logic. There wouldn't be a way for a holder that ignored the issue for a month and didn't get a STAT in time, possibly. Certainly the way for that holder who fucked up wouldn't be throwing a shitfest in the forums instead of getting support via email/irc like sane people. Ya know? MPEx has made no statements to clarify, nor has MPEx placed any kind of receipt or other token in the hands of holders who have seen their assets deleted as "worthless" This is untrue, see above. It would be simple for MPEx to clear this up, but Mircea seems to insist on being stubborn and seems to insist there's nothing to return as the assets are "worthless" I dunno, dood. So far what I see is you being too agitated to sit down and read, flailing your arms and calling people names. What school of negotiation/conflict resolution is this? Again, I point out that "non-tradeable" and "worthless" are fundamentally different. And again you are reminded that the something which you're talking about failed to trade for weeks on end. Something that nobody wants to buy or sell and something that is worthless are fundamentally the same. If MPEx refuses to do anything to return the assets to the holders, provide some other certificate of ownership of assets, allowing holders to make a "legitimate claim" and/or refuses to pay out holders then I would support a scammer tag Then you don't in fact support the scammer tag if you're consistent, seeing how MPEx has done something to provide certificates of ownership, known as STATs. In other words, good faith extends beyond contracts. Otherwise people who abuse the meaning of the contracts would not be called scammers (MNW's bet comes to mind). All contracts are subject to interpretation, especially the ones without exact precedent. Just take a look at the ETF contract in question and you'll realize that what it means is totally dependent on the context, which the contract doesn't even refer to. In this case the written contract, such as it is, is kind of terse anyway. But the important point is that people who had doubts about how the contract works or what it means could, and plenty have, discussed the matter with the issuer. Those who haven't and preferred to just assume are perfectly entitled to their assumption for themselves, but aren't to be allowed to impose it on everyone else. If anyone had bothered to ask at any point prior "Hey, in the event Giga asks for X Y Z in order to issue you further dividends, will you do X Y Z?" the answer would have certainly been no (this is supported by the answer being no above for the tera upgrade). Not having bothered to ask does not give one license to claim whatever they imagined as fact, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR and Mircea Popescu polimedia.us Post by: EskimoBob on December 07, 2012, 08:07:16 PM Gigavps and the scam he is pulling has a separate thread. This is about you 2
Looks like fluffygrrl (MPOE-PR) and Mircea Popescu's polimedia.us are not new to spamming and scamming http://i46.tinypic.com/2pplnoh.jpg Just search for: spam polimedia.us or fluffygrrl spam etc. Nice PR fuck up, Mircea. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Kluge on December 07, 2012, 08:46:06 PM Given the ambiguity, even though the exchange/issuer took extreme advantage over their unit-holders (apparently I wasn't the only one who immediately thought of the MNW Pirate bet), I don't think this'd merit a scammer tag, and the loss they've caused their customers will probably cause enough punishment on its own.
What would merit a scammer tag, and hopefully Giga'd be bold enough to make it public, would be the exchange/issuer filing claims AFTER having wiped out users' claims. IIRC, though, MPEX provides a kind of receipt in transactions. It's possible Giga would honor those units in good faith. Maybe worth talking to him about if one held a significant amount... Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Monster Tent on December 07, 2012, 09:44:49 PM Given the ambiguity, even though the exchange/issuer took extreme advantage over their unit-holders (apparently I wasn't the only one who immediately thought of the MNW Pirate bet), I don't think this'd merit a scammer tag, and the loss they've caused their customers will probably cause enough punishment on its own. What would merit a scammer tag, and hopefully Giga'd be bold enough to make it public, would be the exchange/issuer filing claims AFTER having wiped out users' claims. IIRC, though, MPEX provides a kind of receipt in transactions. It's possible Giga would honor those units in good faith. Maybe worth talking to him about if one held a significant amount... The contract doesnt mention glbse, it is with gigamining, which still exists and has a claim process. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: guruvan on December 08, 2012, 02:16:43 AM There's no coins that will ever be received, as far as we can determine. Quote Exactly so. Expecting someone to go through giga's hoops for you is not acting in good faith, especially when that someone clearly pointed out that they wouldn't, ever. Some select quotes: You wouldn't be going through those hoops for your investors, just yourself. As stated previously, it seems to me, and apparently most of these folks that you owe the money. You, on the other hand, seem to be stating that you will not honor this debt obligation. We seem to know (having been told by gigavps) Quote No, you were actually told by MP and me. No. Actually, I was told in your F.GIGA.ETF thread by gigavps. Perhaps you don't read so well? Maybe you missed that little tidbit amidst the shitstorm that you brought about? This, however is immaterial to whether or not MPEx pays out holders of F.GIGA.ETF - where MPEx gets money to pay out investors in F.GIGA.ETF isn't particularly relevant. Quote This is true. Without daily STATs there may not be any way to "prove" we owned the shares on Dec 1. So, again, your argument breaks down (and could be solved by replacing the proof!) What we do not know is whether or not MPEx will stand by the contract, nor do we know know what MPEx will accept as a "legitimate claim" Actually, you do know this. Quote smickles mircea_popescu: directly, if I had proof that I owned F.GIGA.ETF on Dec 1, would you give me fair value of those shares at any point in the future if I relinquish my ownership of them? mircea_popescu smickles I will (and always have) satisfy legitimate claims against myself. Now, it'll all come down to whether your claim is legitimate at that point. smickles There you have it BTC-Mining. Considering that MPEx seems to use the output of their gpg-signed STAT statement as proof of asset ownership, there seems to be no way for a holder to make a legitimate claim. This conflicts with basic logic. There wouldn't be a way for a holder that ignored the issue for a month and didn't get a STAT in time, possibly. Certainly the way for that holder who fucked up wouldn't be throwing a shitfest in the forums instead of getting support via email/irc like sane people. Ya know? You know, it started out asking what's going on. Your lack of anything like a reasonable response has allowed YOU to turn this YOURSELF into the ensuing shitstorm. Blame your own arrogant stubbornness. Your actions could have avoided my simple question turning into a shitfest. What part of "PR" do you not fucking get? It's not "Public Berations" as you seem to suggest with your constant derision of all persons who are not you. It would be simple for MPEx to clear this up, but Mircea seems to insist on being stubborn and seems to insist there's nothing to return as the assets are "worthless" Again, I point out that "non-tradeable" and "worthless" are fundamentally different. Quote And again you are reminded that the something which you're talking about failed to trade for weeks on end. Something that nobody wants to buy or sell and something that is worthless are fundamentally the same. One doesn't necessitate the other. Just because it's not being traded today doesn't mean it won't tomorrow. Also, when the backing for a security hasn't become worthless (as gigamining clearly HAS NOT) then it sure seems the security isn't worthless, no matter how many times you repeat the statement. If MPEx refuses to do anything to return the assets to the holders, provide some other certificate of ownership of assets, allowing holders to make a "legitimate claim" and/or refuses to pay out holders then I would support a scammer tag Quote Then you don't in fact support the scammer tag if you're consistent, seeing how MPEx has done something to provide certificates of ownership, known as STATs. You have never given anyone any inkling that they must run a STAT on a daily basis in order to ensure that MPEx doiesn't steal their assets or the value stored therein. So, until you change that situation, and provide the means of proof back to holders of this asset, I call you a scammer, because the end result is theft of value from your investors resulting in your lack of fiduciary responsibility. Please, change my opinion. Looks like fluffygrrl (MPOE-PR) and Mircea Popescu's polimedia.us are not new to spamming and scamming Just search for: spam polimedia.us or fluffygrrl spam etc. Nice PR fuck up, Mircea. LOL. You state this like they're actually two separate (real) people. Read "the girl's" posts and compare to mircea_popescu's irc writing. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: greyhawk on December 08, 2012, 02:58:24 AM I would do her.
Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Bitcoin Oz on December 08, 2012, 03:01:47 AM Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: greyhawk on December 08, 2012, 03:02:26 AM Dont' care. I'm drunk today. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: usagi on December 08, 2012, 04:34:21 AM OP's statements are factually incorrect. MPEx is quite exactly standing by its contracts. When the time comes in just a week or two to go over the holdings of NYAN on MPEX such as satoshidice, bitvps and so forth, if you do not honor your claim you can bet your bottom dollar I will ensure every shareholder is aware of the fact you stole their money. You are going to have to honor your committments whether you like it or not. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on December 08, 2012, 08:34:11 AM This is completely you own doing. There was nothing in your contract to state that you'd refuse to claim your funds in the even of liquidation of other type of credit event. There's nothing in the contract that states bizarre newly-invented performances will be even entertained, let alone satisfied, and let alone free of charge. Actually, there's plenty quoted earlier stating exactly the opposite. In general, when you enter into a contract to buy a car and fail to specify that the car you're buying has to be delivered to Patagonia via airdrop you also fail to get your car delivered to Patagonia via airdrop. This leaving aside the fact that you've actually not paid anything to the ETF issuer in the first place. You, on the other hand, seem to be stating that you will not honor this debt obligation. This is exactly the opposite of what's been stated all through this thread and in all the places this thread was created to avoid, as if that works. The simple fact of the matter is that you failed to get your stat in time, and then for some reason failed to even approach support, because oh god almighty guruvan might say "sorry, I...forgot" or whatever it was. Instead you've created some bullshit drama as if anyone cares and keep pushing these false theories of yours, inconsistent such as they are. Go right ahead and repeat 'em until you're sick of it, I guess you're too emotionally invested by now for anything else. Golly, MP is arrogant and whatever because some random "investor" isn't able to keep up with his investments on a monthly basis and then is too arrogant and thick-skulled to act like a rational human being. Heh. You wouldn't be going through those hoops for your investors, just yourself. As stated previously, it seems to me, and apparently most of these folks that you owe the money. Most of these folks being what, three idiots of which two are well known scammers, one's Eskimobob and one's you. Nice company, carry right on. For all intents and purposes our conversation ends here, enjoy my ignore an' the rest of your life. Usagi, Kludge and the rest of the fuckwit parade: get lost. Only on BTCtalk people who stole thousands of Bitcoins from naive wannabe-investors would have the audacity to try and add to the effort of mudslinging legitimate companies over imaginary issues that in any event would not exceed in value the cost of a decent meal at a family restaurant. The lessons to be learned here, by people who aspire to one day be investors, are, in order of importance: A. If you are unable to follow up with the news of your investments on an at least monthly basis you are unable to be an investor. You will need to either hire a professional to manage your portfolio or else face the simple cold reality that you don't have enough money to be an investor. And yes this means you suck as a human being. B. If you fail at something, trying to create some sort of universal agreement on replacing the inconvenient facts with some imaginary facts never works. The most you'll get is an agreement of idiots (which is convenient for everyone else because it allows easy recognition of who's holding the short IQ stick). C. No company worth twopence will ever yield to a howler campaign. The very simple reason is that howlers are a dime a dozen, and if a dozen manages to extract a dime and a penny from a company there'll be no end of howling. So yeah, if you ever see some company yielding because some people are screaming what you're seeing is a company that will soon fold. In spite of how the howlers are really-really convinced it really works the other way around. D. If you fuck up you're better served by humbly contacting support privately than by aggressively slinging mud publicly. Even if you get nothing at all, at least you spare yourself the publicity of your fuck-up. And now back to your regularly scheduled trolling/drama/bs. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: usagi on December 08, 2012, 08:51:09 AM Usagi, Kludge and the rest of the fuckwit parade: get lost. Only on BTCtalk people who stole thousands of Bitcoins from naive wannabe-investors would have the audacity to try and add to the effort of mudslinging legitimate companies over imaginary issues that in any event would not exceed in value the cost of a decent meal at a family restaurant. I do hope you're not serious. People sent you bitcoins and if you don't honor those shares you deserve a lot more than a scammer tag. The worst part is how you blame others for stealing/scamming in the same breath you state your intent to steal and scam yourself. There are a LOT of investors on the lists I've recently gotten from GLBSE. If I have to tell people that they won't be getting X amount of bitcoins because of you, how do you think that's going to make them feel? Oh, I notice Mircea changed his OTC rating for me from -10 to -1 and removed his libelous statements. Smart. Now don't fuck this up and you might actually get some good PR in the community for a change. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: EskimoBob on December 08, 2012, 10:20:55 AM ... Most of these folks being what, three idiots of which two are well known scammers, one's Eskimobob and one's you. Nice company, carry right on. For all intents and purposes our conversation ends here, enjoy my ignore an' the rest of your life. Well known? Really? Only in your and usagis delusions. Can you tell me how have I scammed or lied to someone or did you pull that lie out of your pimple covered arse? I have asked this countless times and never received any answer: Who did I scam and how? The fact is that you, as a mircea popescu's sock puppet and your egomaniac master mircea have scammed your clients by deleting a asset of your ridiculous "exchange". This is a fact , no matter what angry crap you spew all over this forum and try to spin this to something else. You have failed your job her in so many levels, that only a complete idiot takes you seriously. MPOE-PR, you are a epic failure when it comes to PR. Fluffygrrl (MPOE-PR), why don' you go back spamming porn sites. :-* Quote enjoy my ignore an' the rest of your life. This is just too fkn funny Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on December 08, 2012, 11:02:51 AM Usagi, Kludge and the rest of the fuckwit parade: get lost. Only on BTCtalk people who stole thousands of Bitcoins from naive wannabe-investors would have the audacity to try and add to the effort of mudslinging legitimate companies over imaginary issues that in any event would not exceed in value the cost of a decent meal at a family restaurant. I do hope you're not serious. People sent you bitcoins and if you don't honor those shares you deserve a lot more than a scammer tag. The worst part is how you blame others for stealing/scamming in the same breath you state your intent to steal and scam yourself. There are a LOT of investors on the lists I've recently gotten from GLBSE. If I have to tell people that they won't be getting X amount of bitcoins because of you, how do you think that's going to make them feel? Oh, I notice Mircea changed his OTC rating for me from -10 to -1 and removed his libelous statements. Smart. Now don't fuck this up and you might actually get some good PR in the community for a change. Lol. On one hand, your NYAN scam cost more than this entire discussion probably two or three fold. The scammer tag request for Patrick Harnett as required by the circumstances is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121915.0 Nefario already has a scammer tag. Usagi should probably get one, but the matter seems too complicated to prosecute (especially given that he's disappeared). On the other hand, you had an MPEx account?! When did that happen even. Get lost, seriously, you're making the other idiots look almost sane by contrast. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on December 08, 2012, 11:17:19 AM Well known? Really? Only in your and usagis delusions. Can you tell me how have I scammed or lied to someone or did you pull that lie out of your pimple covered arse? Simmer down and let's play math. 3 of which 2 are scammers + 1 (+ 1). Kludge is one of the scammers, and he's particularly funny because he only realized he's fucked after I pointed it out to him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104707.msg1176189#msg1176189). Usagi is the other, I imagine you need no links for that point. And so here we have, two scammers. I guess if PH shows up, or HK or whoever else we'll have 3, 4 or even more. Not like there's any shortage of scammers running around BTCTalk. Heck, even Nefario was recently astroturfing his buddy on Reddit, I guess in another coupla months we'll be seeing him too as if nothing had happened (God knows he's trying to scam FinWhatever people into giving him money). You personally weren't in the scammer category, principally because you've not yet done anything - I have full faith that should you do something you'll probably muck it up. You were just an aside, "this angry nutty type". Sorry for not having properly spelled it out. Feel better? Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: usagi on December 08, 2012, 12:47:08 PM I'm posting this here to support ongoing investigations into Martha Mcculler.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77268.msg862174#msg862174 The first thing to know about this person is that she is psychotic. Or psychic. However you spell the word: http://www.cigarsmokers.com/threads/9195-PM-SPAMMER-Erin-Pavlina http://www.erinpavlina.com/about-erin-pavlina/ As Martha McCuller she owns about a dozen domain names each with different addresses. But based on the above page (look at the photo; it's her, hell yeah): https://www.google.ca/search?q=erin+pavlina&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ZTXDUJnmFZCamQX9jICwBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1440&bih=771 Who would have guessed that this asshole who accuses people of scamming is herself not only scamming people out of their assets on MPEX, but is a professional scammer (oops.. I mean, psychic). No, really -- the more I look the more real scamming I see. I quote: http://andrewlynch.net/2009/08/07/update-on-erin-pavlina-and-why-i-disagree-with-what-she-does-so-much/ "...Erin has $500 of my money and I am still wincing from the pain of being ripped-off by paying for one of her psychic readings. I wish I had done more research before I went through with it – the problem is that people paying psychics are vulnerable and really want to believe in this bs. Usually I am a rational person but I got totally duped by the false promises on her website. So I would be grateful if you would please publish this comment as a big warning to anyone thinking of buying a reading from this lady – DON’T DO IT!! It feels like rape." and "Erin uses cold-reading techniques to give the outward appearance of being a psychic medium, and all the content on her website and her blog is carefully constructed to uphold this appearance, as people will come to her already believing she is psychic, making her job much easier as a result, as they will mould what she says into something that fits their reality." Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on December 08, 2012, 01:03:04 PM I'm posting this here to support ongoing investigations into Martha Mcculler. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77268.msg862174#msg862174 The first thing to know about this person is that she is psychotic. Or psychic. However you spell the word: http://www.cigarsmokers.com/threads/9195-PM-SPAMMER-Erin-Pavlina http://www.erinpavlina.com/about-erin-pavlina/ As Martha McCuller she owns about a dozen domain names each with different addresses. But based on the above page (look at the photo; it's her, hell yeah): https://www.google.ca/search?q=erin+pavlina&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ZTXDUJnmFZCamQX9jICwBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1440&bih=771 Who would have guessed that this asshole who accuses people of scamming is herself not only scamming people out of their assets on MPEX, but is a professional scammer (oops.. I mean, psychic). No, really -- the more I look the more real scamming I see. I quote: http://andrewlynch.net/2009/08/07/update-on-erin-pavlina-and-why-i-disagree-with-what-she-does-so-much/ "...Erin has $500 of my money and I am still wincing from the pain of being ripped-off by paying for one of her psychic readings. I wish I had done more research before I went through with it – the problem is that people paying psychics are vulnerable and really want to believe in this bs. Usually I am a rational person but I got totally duped by the false promises on her website. So I would be grateful if you would please publish this comment as a big warning to anyone thinking of buying a reading from this lady – DON’T DO IT!! It feels like rape." and "Erin uses cold-reading techniques to give the outward appearance of being a psychic medium, and all the content on her website and her blog is carefully constructed to uphold this appearance, as people will come to her already believing she is psychic, making her job much easier as a result, as they will mould what she says into something that fits their reality." That's a whole new level of batshit right there. Quoting it just in case you go back on your meds and delete all your posts again. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: usagi on December 08, 2012, 01:09:11 PM I'm posting this here to support ongoing investigations into Martha Mcculler. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77268.msg862174#msg862174 The first thing to know about this person is that she is psychotic. Or psychic. However you spell the word: http://www.cigarsmokers.com/threads/9195-PM-SPAMMER-Erin-Pavlina http://www.erinpavlina.com/about-erin-pavlina/ As Martha McCuller she owns about a dozen domain names each with different addresses. But based on the above page (look at the photo; it's her, hell yeah): https://www.google.ca/search?q=erin+pavlina&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ZTXDUJnmFZCamQX9jICwBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1440&bih=771 Who would have guessed that this asshole who accuses people of scamming is herself not only scamming people out of their assets on MPEX, but is a professional scammer (oops.. I mean, psychic). No, really -- the more I look the more real scamming I see. I quote: http://andrewlynch.net/2009/08/07/update-on-erin-pavlina-and-why-i-disagree-with-what-she-does-so-much/ "...Erin has $500 of my money and I am still wincing from the pain of being ripped-off by paying for one of her psychic readings. I wish I had done more research before I went through with it – the problem is that people paying psychics are vulnerable and really want to believe in this bs. Usually I am a rational person but I got totally duped by the false promises on her website. So I would be grateful if you would please publish this comment as a big warning to anyone thinking of buying a reading from this lady – DON’T DO IT!! It feels like rape." and "Erin uses cold-reading techniques to give the outward appearance of being a psychic medium, and all the content on her website and her blog is carefully constructed to uphold this appearance, as people will come to her already believing she is psychic, making her job much easier as a result, as they will mould what she says into something that fits their reality." That's a whole new level of batshit right there. Quoting it just in case you go back on your meds and delete all your posts again. Right, because the photo of fluffygrrl and erin pavlina so totally don't look at all alike ;-) And you so totally didn't own the domain name for the book spam or any of the other websites ;-) Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: guruvan on December 08, 2012, 01:54:56 PM OK.
So, I will leave it at: MPEx is stealing assets from anyone who didn't have the "good sense" to run a STAT on Dec 1. Because I failed to "contact support" before posting a question in a thread, and THEN I got irritated at the bullshit found for an answer from MPOE-PR, I will have my assets stolen. If MPOE-PR wasn't such an arrogant, stubborn fuckwit, "she" could see I didn't start the shitstorm....She did, with her own failure to recognize the difference between a question and an accusation. The level of your disdain you have for your customers is sheerly fucking amazing. Good way to sell your service to others. I'll be sure to recommend you. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Deprived on December 08, 2012, 05:45:49 PM I have an amusing theory. Only a theory, but one consistent with the known facts.
MP doesn't own any Giga bonds. Let's look at the known facts: MP bought a bunch of Giga MP ran a pass-through based on those bonds MP was apparently not making any profit from those bonds (claimed by MPOE-PR) other than any extra custom it brought in MPEX' direction. MP had a very low opinion of securitiess on GLBSE and of GLBSE itself - and actively sought opportunities to short them. So isn't the obvious scenario that those giga bonds were sold on the market and the pass-through effectively acted as a short on them with the following benefits over a 'normal' short: No expiry date or means for the short to be recalled/expired. No premium paid on dividends or up-front. With the upgrade pending to teramining there was no conceivable way this could fail to profitable - as the pass-through obviously wouldn't upgrade and then the bonds would sink to near zero value (and cost to mantain) and could be bought back on the market at bargain-basement prices and the issue closed out. Only way this could possibly go wrong is if for some unforeseen reason there was suddenly a requirement to prove ownership. And that's what just happened. There's no way to PROVE this is what happened if MP claims he hasn't even registered a claim with GLBSE - that is until the total bonds claimed gets so near to the actual outstanding ones that there's no longer enough unclaimed yet to cover the ones supposedly held by MPEX. Using the pass-through as a means to short makes a lot of sense. It's consistent with all the known facts. But is it the truth? I don't know - but it's an amusing theory if nothing else. And of course it's very easy to disprove (if untrue) - just needs MP to submit an email/BTC address to GLBSE and have Giga confirm that the correct number of bonds is associated with that address. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Bitcoin Oz on December 08, 2012, 09:52:26 PM Usagi, Kludge and the rest of the fuckwit parade: get lost. Only on BTCtalk people who stole thousands of Bitcoins from naive wannabe-investors would have the audacity to try and add to the effort of mudslinging legitimate companies over imaginary issues that in any event would not exceed in value the cost of a decent meal at a family restaurant. Hate to break it to you or you didnt actually read what Kluge said, but he was defending you. Reading comprehension fail. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: ciuciu on December 08, 2012, 10:43:57 PM I have an amusing theory. Only a theory, but one consistent with the known facts. MP doesn't own any Giga bonds. Let's look at the known facts: MP bought a bunch of Giga MP ran a pass-through based on those bonds MP was apparently not making any profit from those bonds (claimed by MPOE-PR) other than any extra custom it brought in MPEX' direction. MP had a very low opinion of securitiess on GLBSE and of GLBSE itself - and actively sought opportunities to short them. So isn't the obvious scenario that those giga bonds were sold on the market and the pass-through effectively acted as a short on them with the following benefits over a 'normal' short: No expiry date or means for the short to be recalled/expired. No premium paid on dividends or up-front. With the upgrade pending to teramining there was no conceivable way this could fail to profitable - as the pass-through obviously wouldn't upgrade and then the bonds would sink to near zero value (and cost to mantain) and could be bought back on the market at bargain-basement prices and the issue closed out. Only way this could possibly go wrong is if for some unforeseen reason there was suddenly a requirement to prove ownership. And that's what just happened. There's no way to PROVE this is what happened if MP claims he hasn't even registered a claim with GLBSE - that is until the total bonds claimed gets so near to the actual outstanding ones that there's no longer enough unclaimed yet to cover the ones supposedly held by MPEX. Using the pass-through as a means to short makes a lot of sense. It's consistent with all the known facts. But is it the truth? I don't know - but it's an amusing theory if nothing else. And of course it's very easy to disprove (if untrue) - just needs MP to submit an email/BTC address to GLBSE and have Giga confirm that the correct number of bonds is associated with that address. I'm sure this theory is true. A spammer is always a scammer. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Deprived on December 08, 2012, 11:22:24 PM I have an amusing theory. Only a theory, but one consistent with the known facts. MP doesn't own any Giga bonds. Let's look at the known facts: MP bought a bunch of Giga MP ran a pass-through based on those bonds MP was apparently not making any profit from those bonds (claimed by MPOE-PR) other than any extra custom it brought in MPEX' direction. MP had a very low opinion of securitiess on GLBSE and of GLBSE itself - and actively sought opportunities to short them. So isn't the obvious scenario that those giga bonds were sold on the market and the pass-through effectively acted as a short on them with the following benefits over a 'normal' short: No expiry date or means for the short to be recalled/expired. No premium paid on dividends or up-front. With the upgrade pending to teramining there was no conceivable way this could fail to profitable - as the pass-through obviously wouldn't upgrade and then the bonds would sink to near zero value (and cost to mantain) and could be bought back on the market at bargain-basement prices and the issue closed out. Only way this could possibly go wrong is if for some unforeseen reason there was suddenly a requirement to prove ownership. And that's what just happened. There's no way to PROVE this is what happened if MP claims he hasn't even registered a claim with GLBSE - that is until the total bonds claimed gets so near to the actual outstanding ones that there's no longer enough unclaimed yet to cover the ones supposedly held by MPEX. Using the pass-through as a means to short makes a lot of sense. It's consistent with all the known facts. But is it the truth? I don't know - but it's an amusing theory if nothing else. And of course it's very easy to disprove (if untrue) - just needs MP to submit an email/BTC address to GLBSE and have Giga confirm that the correct number of bonds is associated with that address. I'm sure this theory is true. A spammer is always a scammer. Even if that theory is true it doesn't of itself make it a scam. It would only have been a scam if the contract wasn't honoured - e.g. if the contract stated the Giga bonds had to be kept (rather than just paying out to mirror the performance of actual bonds). It'd be like running a fixed-rate mining bond without actual hardware - same benefit (a loss) for investors and less hassle/similar profit for the operator. Nothing intrinsically scammy about it - obviously then stopping paying dividends/deleting the asset data is a different issue: as that implies actual possession of the Giga bonds (as if they'd been shorted and the contract was for "benefits equivalent to" rather than "benefits from" then there'd be no reason to stop paying if GLBSE got closed, giga got adbucted by aliens or whatever). Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on December 09, 2012, 08:24:15 AM Hate to break it to you or you didnt actually read what Kluge said, but he was defending you. Reading comprehension fail. I don't care what he was doing. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: guruvan on December 09, 2012, 03:18:31 PM I have an amusing theory. Only a theory, but one consistent with the known facts. MP doesn't own any Giga bonds. Let's look at the known facts: MP bought a bunch of Giga MP ran a pass-through based on those bonds MP was apparently not making any profit from those bonds (claimed by MPOE-PR) other than any extra custom it brought in MPEX' direction. MP had a very low opinion of securitiess on GLBSE and of GLBSE itself - and actively sought opportunities to short them. So isn't the obvious scenario that those giga bonds were sold on the market and the pass-through effectively acted as a short on them with the following benefits over a 'normal' short: No expiry date or means for the short to be recalled/expired. No premium paid on dividends or up-front. With the upgrade pending to teramining there was no conceivable way this could fail to profitable - as the pass-through obviously wouldn't upgrade and then the bonds would sink to near zero value (and cost to mantain) and could be bought back on the market at bargain-basement prices and the issue closed out. Only way this could possibly go wrong is if for some unforeseen reason there was suddenly a requirement to prove ownership. And that's what just happened. There's no way to PROVE this is what happened if MP claims he hasn't even registered a claim with GLBSE - that is until the total bonds claimed gets so near to the actual outstanding ones that there's no longer enough unclaimed yet to cover the ones supposedly held by MPEX. Using the pass-through as a means to short makes a lot of sense. It's consistent with all the known facts. But is it the truth? I don't know - but it's an amusing theory if nothing else. And of course it's very easy to disprove (if untrue) - just needs MP to submit an email/BTC address to GLBSE and have Giga confirm that the correct number of bonds is associated with that address. He shorted pirate with his pirate.synth fund - an (illegal in the EU) naked credit default swap. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: ciuciu on December 10, 2012, 06:14:58 PM I have an amusing theory. Only a theory, but one consistent with the known facts. MP doesn't own any Giga bonds. Let's look at the known facts: MP bought a bunch of Giga MP ran a pass-through based on those bonds MP was apparently not making any profit from those bonds (claimed by MPOE-PR) other than any extra custom it brought in MPEX' direction. MP had a very low opinion of securitiess on GLBSE and of GLBSE itself - and actively sought opportunities to short them. So isn't the obvious scenario that those giga bonds were sold on the market and the pass-through effectively acted as a short on them with the following benefits over a 'normal' short: No expiry date or means for the short to be recalled/expired. No premium paid on dividends or up-front. With the upgrade pending to teramining there was no conceivable way this could fail to profitable - as the pass-through obviously wouldn't upgrade and then the bonds would sink to near zero value (and cost to mantain) and could be bought back on the market at bargain-basement prices and the issue closed out. Only way this could possibly go wrong is if for some unforeseen reason there was suddenly a requirement to prove ownership. And that's what just happened. There's no way to PROVE this is what happened if MP claims he hasn't even registered a claim with GLBSE - that is until the total bonds claimed gets so near to the actual outstanding ones that there's no longer enough unclaimed yet to cover the ones supposedly held by MPEX. Using the pass-through as a means to short makes a lot of sense. It's consistent with all the known facts. But is it the truth? I don't know - but it's an amusing theory if nothing else. And of course it's very easy to disprove (if untrue) - just needs MP to submit an email/BTC address to GLBSE and have Giga confirm that the correct number of bonds is associated with that address. He shorted pirate with his pirate.synth fund - an (illegal in the EU) naked credit default swap. I know why there are not many complains in this thread. In fact nobody bought his shit, except for his former fan guruvan. Mods, what is the decision? Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Bugpowder on December 10, 2012, 11:03:17 PM I'll chime in here because prior to the collapse, I owned over 1,000,000 F.GIGA.ETF shares. Once the upgrade path was clarified by MP in #bitcoin-assets, I immediately sold them all at a 35% loss, only to see them bounce again as more people bought in without thinking.
MP was direct and upfront about the terms of the contract when asked. I made the wrong assumption and paid for it. Was I pissed, yes! But, I didn't do standard due diligence. I don't think I was scammed, I think I was stupid for not asking questions about how the security would operate in a situation that was outside of the cases presented in the contract, PRIOR to making my investment. This is a similar situation. People bought in hoping to exchange them for a major profit because the price was highly depressed, but didn't do their homework first. All you had to do was do the smallest bit of research into F.GIGA.ETF prior to pulling the trigger on your purchase. If you didn't, SOLD TO YOU. There is no scam here. Just a representation of the classic situation in all real-world finance. If you can't figure out who the sucker is in the room, it's you. Buyers screwed themselves by not doing DD. MPEx is the only exchange I have any confidence in and if MP gets a scammer tag, this forum is really clueless. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Bugpowder on December 11, 2012, 12:10:16 AM I have an amusing theory. Only a theory, but one consistent with the known facts. MP doesn't own any Giga bonds. Let's look at the known facts: MP bought a bunch of Giga MP ran a pass-through based on those bonds MP was apparently not making any profit from those bonds (claimed by MPOE-PR) other than any extra custom it brought in MPEX' direction. MP had a very low opinion of securitiess on GLBSE and of GLBSE itself - and actively sought opportunities to short them. So isn't the obvious scenario that those giga bonds were sold on the market and the pass-through effectively acted as a short on them with the following benefits over a 'normal' short: No expiry date or means for the short to be recalled/expired. No premium paid on dividends or up-front. With the upgrade pending to teramining there was no conceivable way this could fail to profitable - as the pass-through obviously wouldn't upgrade and then the bonds would sink to near zero value (and cost to mantain) and could be bought back on the market at bargain-basement prices and the issue closed out. Only way this could possibly go wrong is if for some unforeseen reason there was suddenly a requirement to prove ownership. And that's what just happened. There's no way to PROVE this is what happened if MP claims he hasn't even registered a claim with GLBSE - that is until the total bonds claimed gets so near to the actual outstanding ones that there's no longer enough unclaimed yet to cover the ones supposedly held by MPEX. Using the pass-through as a means to short makes a lot of sense. It's consistent with all the known facts. But is it the truth? I don't know - but it's an amusing theory if nothing else. And of course it's very easy to disprove (if untrue) - just needs MP to submit an email/BTC address to GLBSE and have Giga confirm that the correct number of bonds is associated with that address. I'm sure this theory is true. A spammer is always a scammer. Even if that theory is true it doesn't of itself make it a scam. It would only have been a scam if the contract wasn't honoured - e.g. if the contract stated the Giga bonds had to be kept (rather than just paying out to mirror the performance of actual bonds). It'd be like running a fixed-rate mining bond without actual hardware - same benefit (a loss) for investors and less hassle/similar profit for the operator. Nothing intrinsically scammy about it - obviously then stopping paying dividends/deleting the asset data is a different issue: as that implies actual possession of the Giga bonds (as if they'd been shorted and the contract was for "benefits equivalent to" rather than "benefits from" then there'd be no reason to stop paying if GLBSE got closed, giga got adbucted by aliens or whatever). I think you are on the right track here. MP definitely wanted to short the piss out of any GLBSE asset. Also the total number of F.GIGA.ETF shares available on the market was over 900,000 (which was the original IPO level). I know because I tried to corner the market but ran out of funds around 1.2M shares. The question is, was this term of the contract violated "The Owner will never own less shares of the underlying than the total float of this asset implies." Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on December 11, 2012, 12:39:40 AM I think you are on the right track here. MP definitely wanted to short the piss out of any GLBSE asset. Also the total number of F.GIGA.ETF shares available on the market was over 900,000 (which was the original IPO level). I know because I tried to corner the market but ran out of funds around 1.2M shares. The question is, was this term of the contract violated "The Owner will never own less shares of the underlying than the total float of this asset implies." MP has a long history of shorting idiocy, which has something to do with GLBSE only in the sense that a lot of it was gathering there at some time. Short assets were however marked/described as such, and synthetics idem (such as for instance pure.synth, which was incidentally unwound in an orderly fashion a while back). Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: jamesg on January 16, 2013, 09:01:25 PM I have asked Mircea to claim again. Below is the chat log from IRC.
Code: <mircea_popescu> sup Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: EskimoBob on January 17, 2013, 09:10:20 AM I have asked Mircea to claim again. Below is the chat log from IRC. Code: <mircea_popescu> sup Maybe you should add muppet Popescu's last night rants on that topic too. BTW, the sing along, performed by some of his loyal and not so bright sock puppets, was also "entertaining". Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: gmaxwell on January 26, 2013, 09:57:59 AM Just a gawker here— but I'm wondering where this has gone?
Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Monster Tent on January 26, 2013, 11:52:45 AM Just a gawker here— but I'm wondering where this has gone? MP recently lost a case on his own court where he is claiming he is entitled to keep any funds accidentally sent with the wrong amount of btc. I guess his scamming will never end. When the whole mess collapses people should remember this scammer thread as an early signal. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128397.msg1480609#msg1480609 linky. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR and Mircea Popescu polimedia.us Post by: PsychoticBoy on January 26, 2013, 12:05:06 PM Gigavps and the scam he is pulling has a separate thread. This is about you 2 Looks like fluffygrrl (MPOE-PR) and Mircea Popescu's polimedia.us are not new to spamming and scamming http://i46.tinypic.com/2pplnoh.jpg Just search for: spam polimedia.us or fluffygrrl spam etc. Nice PR fuck up, Mircea. OMG what did she buy on SR? She looks very Fucked Up! Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on January 26, 2013, 01:18:04 PM Just a gawker here— but I'm wondering where this has gone? MP recently lost a case on his own court where he is claiming he is entitled to keep any funds accidentally sent with the wrong amount of btc. I guess his scamming will never end. When the whole mess collapses people should remember this scammer thread as an early signal. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128397.msg1480609#msg1480609 linky. Right, except that's (again) exactly the opposite of what happened. Here's the 130 + 10 being refunded: f1a1e66ba18da90b47c7b6da344dc11d22098e0b0839ae17e3bbde9308a2ac00 Here's the judges being paid: 861f4fc30f56ff2488efe86e195354ef0dc89f73be0ff1aec62707ff4ccfccb2 afac444e8ccf169f1298e8de1ea6ef0d4845d01401bef9d919923f8e740650f9 There's only two because we're not quite to the level where we can actually follow rules and instructions, as a "community". So what now? You've presented as fact something that not only wasn't a fact, but was quite exactly the opposite of reality. You're not the first idiot to do this, and this isn't the first time you people (=idiots) do this about MPEx. The bullshit with "GLBSE has more volume when MPEx was doing per month about 10x GLBSE's LIFETIME VOLUME) back last summer readily springs to mind. So what now? Do I ask for you to be banned? Do I ask for you to pay a fine? Do I what? It's ok that you worthless scumbags get to interact with the people that matter. It's not ok that you don't manage to interiorize the fact that you actually are worthless, and actually are a scumbag, as a sort of structural defect. Your continued pretense to act as if forumnobody = big time Bitcoiner, same thing, is what's actually keeping you stuck in your rags, packing mud. Not that you can possibly get it already. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: EskimoBob on January 26, 2013, 02:54:08 PM Just a gawker here— but I'm wondering where this has gone? MP recently lost a case on his own court where he is claiming he is entitled to keep any funds accidentally sent with the wrong amount of btc. I guess his scamming will never end. When the whole mess collapses people should remember this scammer thread as an early signal. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128397.msg1480609#msg1480609 linky. LOL, did those evil judges get negative OTC rating form that megalomaniac Popescu? Looks like at least one did: Quote 15373 mircea_popescu pigeons 202 2013-01-22 06:21:56 -1 Killed my baby. http://v.gd/2ZVQQY and here is this scammer (http://polimedia.us/trilema/2013/rota-post-mortem/) whining about it. I am not a religious person and stay as neutral as possible. But for fuck sake, this attention starved lunatic mircea popescu even burned a Qur'an and made a video of his "brave" act (see youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuvMSjL6UcU). I guess he really wants to be "famous". I wonder, how low can this scumbag Mircea Popescus sink, before rest of you start realizing that you are dealing with a lunatic. Fkn monkey in a suit. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: phantastisch on January 26, 2013, 03:18:00 PM Guys , Mircea will always be part of a dark part of the internet where nobody wants to go. He is popular around some greedy people and that is it. As for his exchange the market will decide. How many stocks are on it that are considerable to invest in? One. How many of them are not or will not be heavily regulated? Zero. The rising popularity will be their downfall. I'm calling it now and you can count on this : When everything Bitcoin related will go big, Mircea, MPEX and Satoshi Dice won't. Stop worrying , it is a non-issue.
Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on January 26, 2013, 05:44:51 PM Guys , Mircea will always be part of a dark part of the internet where nobody wants to go. He is popular around some greedy people and that is it. As for his exchange the market will decide. How many stocks are on it that are considerable to invest in? One. How many of them are not or will not be heavily regulated? Zero. The rising popularity will be their downfall. I'm calling it now and you can count on this : When everything Bitcoin related will go big, Mircea, MPEX and Satoshi Dice won't. Stop worrying , it is a non-issue. Yeah, you were yakking the same nonsense before: As far as i know Goat is refusing to give Nefario a BTC adress because Goat feels like giving him the adresse would be like accepting his delisting. In my opinion MPOE-PR should NOT have started this thread. This will backfire on MPOE. In before only cryptostocks left... How's the backfiring coming along? Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Monster Tent on January 27, 2013, 04:57:28 AM Just a gawker here— but I'm wondering where this has gone? MP recently lost a case on his own court where he is claiming he is entitled to keep any funds accidentally sent with the wrong amount of btc. I guess his scamming will never end. When the whole mess collapses people should remember this scammer thread as an early signal. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128397.msg1480609#msg1480609 linky. Right, except that's (again) exactly the opposite of what happened. Here's the 130 + 10 being refunded: f1a1e66ba18da90b47c7b6da344dc11d22098e0b0839ae17e3bbde9308a2ac00 Here's the judges being paid: 861f4fc30f56ff2488efe86e195354ef0dc89f73be0ff1aec62707ff4ccfccb2 afac444e8ccf169f1298e8de1ea6ef0d4845d01401bef9d919923f8e740650f9 There's only two because we're not quite to the level where we can actually follow rules and instructions, as a "community". So what now? You've presented as fact something that not only wasn't a fact, but was quite exactly the opposite of reality. You're not the first idiot to do this, and this isn't the first time you people (=idiots) do this about MPEx. The bullshit with "GLBSE has more volume when MPEx was doing per month about 10x GLBSE's LIFETIME VOLUME) back last summer readily springs to mind. So what now? Do I ask for you to be banned? Do I ask for you to pay a fine? Do I what? It's ok that you worthless scumbags get to interact with the people that matter. It's not ok that you don't manage to interiorize the fact that you actually are worthless, and actually are a scumbag, as a sort of structural defect. Your continued pretense to act as if forumnobody = big time Bitcoiner, same thing, is what's actually keeping you stuck in your rags, packing mud. Not that you can possibly get it already. Usually the person involved in the scammer accusation comes forward to state their case and its telling that MP himself wont do so but uses a "PR" account. In most cases where the accused fails to defend their actions they get a scammer tag. So the question I ask is why someone cant speak for themself and needs to use a PR flunky. Unless that scammer is using a fake account of course. Im still waiting for Mirceau Popescu to defend himself personally or does he get a pass where no one else does ? P.S. In almost all cases where someone uses a woman as their forum avatar they turn out to be a scammer. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Deprived on January 27, 2013, 07:07:22 AM Just a gawker here— but I'm wondering where this has gone? MP recently lost a case on his own court where he is claiming he is entitled to keep any funds accidentally sent with the wrong amount of btc. I guess his scamming will never end. When the whole mess collapses people should remember this scammer thread as an early signal. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128397.msg1480609#msg1480609 linky. Right, except that's (again) exactly the opposite of what happened. Here's the 130 + 10 being refunded: f1a1e66ba18da90b47c7b6da344dc11d22098e0b0839ae17e3bbde9308a2ac00 Here's the judges being paid: 861f4fc30f56ff2488efe86e195354ef0dc89f73be0ff1aec62707ff4ccfccb2 afac444e8ccf169f1298e8de1ea6ef0d4845d01401bef9d919923f8e740650f9 There's only two because we're not quite to the level where we can actually follow rules and instructions, as a "community". So what now? You've presented as fact something that not only wasn't a fact, but was quite exactly the opposite of reality. You're not the first idiot to do this, and this isn't the first time you people (=idiots) do this about MPEx. The bullshit with "GLBSE has more volume when MPEx was doing per month about 10x GLBSE's LIFETIME VOLUME) back last summer readily springs to mind. So what now? Do I ask for you to be banned? Do I ask for you to pay a fine? Do I what? It's ok that you worthless scumbags get to interact with the people that matter. It's not ok that you don't manage to interiorize the fact that you actually are worthless, and actually are a scumbag, as a sort of structural defect. Your continued pretense to act as if forumnobody = big time Bitcoiner, same thing, is what's actually keeping you stuck in your rags, packing mud. Not that you can possibly get it already. Usually the person involved in the scammer accusation comes forward to state their case and its telling that MP himself wont do so but uses a "PR" account. In most cases where the accused fails to defend their actions they get a scammer tag. So the question I ask is why someone cant speak for themself and needs to use a PR flunky. Unless that scammer is using a fake account of course. Im still waiting for Mirceau Popescu to defend himself personally or does he get a pass where no one else does ? P.S. In almost all cases where someone uses a woman as their forum avatar they turn out to be a scammer. Not sure what your issue is with that case - which I've just looked at. Noone was ever accused of scamming in it - someone sending you unsolicited funds isn't scamming. Looks like it was taken to this rota thing as a test without any attempt at sorting it out otherwise first.. Seems clear to me that MP's disagreement with the rota is NOT that he was ordered to return the funds. It IS that he ended up paying the costs when the mistake was clearly (and admitted to be) someone else's. If someone fucks up then THEY pay whatever costs are associated with rectifying the problem - NOT someone who was involved in the mistake without any desire, intent or action to cause the mistake. I don't use MPEx but, from what I understand, the disclaimer that funds sent in error would be kept wasn't properly published - which is the only reason for the rota to order their return at all. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on January 27, 2013, 08:47:19 AM So the question I ask is why someone cant speak for themself and needs to use a PR flunky. Unless that scammer is using a fake account of course. Dunno dood, maybe being the head of BTC finance takes up most of his time? It's possible, who knows. Or maybe he's just a scammer, those are really famous for not bothering to buddy-buddy with random blokes on forums all day long. But sure, go ask Mellier, Arnault, Tillerson & co why they aren't personally answering your inane bullshit, something tells me they're all scammers too. Jeez, the world has as many centers as there are nobodies. P.S. In almost all cases where someone uses a woman as their forum avatar they turn out to be a scammer. Afaik I'm the only woman here. Speaking of which, grow a pair, use your own fucking picture instead of hiding behind G. Peck. You'll look a lot less like an idiot trying to wield these sorts of pseudoarguments. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: EskimoBob on January 27, 2013, 05:47:00 PM So the question I ask is why someone cant speak for themself and needs to use a PR flunky. Unless that scammer is using a fake account of course. Dunno dood, maybe being the head of BTC finance takes up most of his time? It's possible, who knows. Or maybe he's just a scammer, those are really famous for not bothering to buddy-buddy with random blokes on forums all day long. LOL! "head of BTC finance" LOOOO! You can actually be funny, if you do not try so desperately. Mircea manages the BTC world finances by yapping all day/night long in IRC and ego tripping, like you never seen before. To be polite, it's used to be funny. Now it's just pathetic and really sad sight. LOL... "head of BTC finance" My goods, this is just getting too retarded. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: disclaimer201 on January 28, 2013, 12:38:25 AM Is it possible to have a date with the accused scammer? Do I have to speak Romanian? Sorry for slightly off-topic.
Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on January 28, 2013, 08:12:14 AM Is it possible to have a date with the accused scammer? Do I have to speak Romanian? Sorry for slightly off-topic. Aww that's so sweet. As it happens I'm neither Romanian nor looking for online dates. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: disclaimer201 on January 28, 2013, 02:49:27 PM Is it possible to have a date with the accused scammer? Do I have to speak Romanian? Sorry for slightly off-topic. Aww that's so sweet. As it happens I'm neither Romanian nor looking for online dates. Damn. I had a hunch that would happen. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Third Way on January 28, 2013, 10:07:24 PM This thread was a hell of a read. I hope you can all fix your problems in a timely manner.
Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Monster Tent on January 29, 2013, 01:59:07 AM Just a gawker here— but I'm wondering where this has gone? MP recently lost a case on his own court where he is claiming he is entitled to keep any funds accidentally sent with the wrong amount of btc. I guess his scamming will never end. When the whole mess collapses people should remember this scammer thread as an early signal. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128397.msg1480609#msg1480609 linky. Right, except that's (again) exactly the opposite of what happened. Here's the 130 + 10 being refunded: f1a1e66ba18da90b47c7b6da344dc11d22098e0b0839ae17e3bbde9308a2ac00 Here's the judges being paid: 861f4fc30f56ff2488efe86e195354ef0dc89f73be0ff1aec62707ff4ccfccb2 afac444e8ccf169f1298e8de1ea6ef0d4845d01401bef9d919923f8e740650f9 There's only two because we're not quite to the level where we can actually follow rules and instructions, as a "community". So what now? You've presented as fact something that not only wasn't a fact, but was quite exactly the opposite of reality. You're not the first idiot to do this, and this isn't the first time you people (=idiots) do this about MPEx. The bullshit with "GLBSE has more volume when MPEx was doing per month about 10x GLBSE's LIFETIME VOLUME) back last summer readily springs to mind. So what now? Do I ask for you to be banned? Do I ask for you to pay a fine? Do I what? It's ok that you worthless scumbags get to interact with the people that matter. It's not ok that you don't manage to interiorize the fact that you actually are worthless, and actually are a scumbag, as a sort of structural defect. Your continued pretense to act as if forumnobody = big time Bitcoiner, same thing, is what's actually keeping you stuck in your rags, packing mud. Not that you can possibly get it already. Usually the person involved in the scammer accusation comes forward to state their case and its telling that MP himself wont do so but uses a "PR" account. In most cases where the accused fails to defend their actions they get a scammer tag. So the question I ask is why someone cant speak for themself and needs to use a PR flunky. Unless that scammer is using a fake account of course. Im still waiting for Mirceau Popescu to defend himself personally or does he get a pass where no one else does ? P.S. In almost all cases where someone uses a woman as their forum avatar they turn out to be a scammer. Not sure what your issue is with that case - which I've just looked at. Noone was ever accused of scamming in it - someone sending you unsolicited funds isn't scamming. Looks like it was taken to this rota thing as a test without any attempt at sorting it out otherwise first.. Seems clear to me that MP's disagreement with the rota is NOT that he was ordered to return the funds. It IS that he ended up paying the costs when the mistake was clearly (and admitted to be) someone else's. If someone fucks up then THEY pay whatever costs are associated with rectifying the problem - NOT someone who was involved in the mistake without any desire, intent or action to cause the mistake. I don't use MPEx but, from what I understand, the disclaimer that funds sent in error would be kept wasn't properly published - which is the only reason for the rota to order their return at all. Many times people have been scammer tagged for refusing to send back money mistakenly sent to them. For example Bulanula and Terry Tibbs are two I can think of off hand. Even if a bank gives you funds by mistake and you spend them you go to jail. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: Monster Tent on January 29, 2013, 02:00:40 AM So the question I ask is why someone cant speak for themself and needs to use a PR flunky. Unless that scammer is using a fake account of course. Dunno dood, maybe being the head of BTC finance takes up most of his time? It's possible, who knows. Or maybe he's just a scammer, those are really famous for not bothering to buddy-buddy with random blokes on forums all day long. But sure, go ask Mellier, Arnault, Tillerson & co why they aren't personally answering your inane bullshit, something tells me they're all scammers too. Jeez, the world has as many centers as there are nobodies. P.S. In almost all cases where someone uses a woman as their forum avatar they turn out to be a scammer. Afaik I'm the only woman here. Speaking of which, grow a pair, use your own fucking picture instead of hiding behind G. Peck. You'll look a lot less like an idiot trying to wield these sorts of pseudoarguments. I am not in control of peoples funds. People asking for finances require a higher level of accountability than a random forum user. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: PsychoticBoy on January 29, 2013, 11:43:07 AM Tag the Romanian bastard.
hopefully then MP will finally vanish. And the whole forum celebrates Whoehoe. Only greedy people want to do business with Mircea Poopescu Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: greyhawk on January 29, 2013, 12:56:54 PM Only greedy people want to do business with Mircea Poopescu So..... everyone then? Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: PsychoticBoy on January 29, 2013, 01:07:50 PM Only greedy people want to do business with Mircea Poopescu So..... everyone then? NO, some people here have normal lives (a day job etc) and are not delusional. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: greyhawk on January 29, 2013, 01:12:28 PM Only greedy people want to do business with Mircea Poopescu So..... everyone then? NO, some people here have normal lives (a day job etc) and are not delusional. Yes, but those are usually labeled as trolls and sport orange ignore tags. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: PsychoticBoy on January 29, 2013, 01:20:10 PM Only greedy people want to do business with Mircea Poopescu So..... everyone then? NO, some people here have normal lives (a day job etc) and are not delusional. Yes, but those are usually labeled as trolls and sport orange ignore tags. You just made my point, who has a orange IGNORE button? ;) Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: greyhawk on January 29, 2013, 01:21:42 PM Only greedy people want to do business with Mircea Poopescu So..... everyone then? NO, some people here have normal lives (a day job etc) and are not delusional. Yes, but those are usually labeled as trolls and sport orange ignore tags. You just made my point, who has a orange IGNORE button? ;) People with a day job that are not delusional. ;) Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: PsychoticBoy on January 29, 2013, 02:02:51 PM You just made my point, who has a orange IGNORE button? ;) People with a day job that are not delusional. ;) MPOE-PR has a day job (that one I believe, here we would call it the red light district). Only the "not delusional" part makes me wonder. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on January 29, 2013, 02:35:17 PM Tag the Romanian bastard. hopefully then MP will finally vanish. And the whole forum celebrates Whoehoe. Only greedy people want to do business with Mircea Poopescu So what's your suggestion, add a Trappist monk order to MPEx? Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: davout on January 29, 2013, 03:02:28 PM So what's your suggestion, add a Trappist monk order to MPEx? Fuck yes. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/52452135/moine-trapeziste.jpg Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: EskimoBob on January 31, 2013, 08:37:13 AM I think that "scammer tag" for mircea popescu or for his delusional muppet MPOE-PR is not what we need here.
Yes, it's a good start, but not enough. Some people are upset about mircea popescu porn site, that uses the same .us TLD as his exchange, Agreed, this clearly shows how fucked up character mircea popescu actually is. (BTW, why is this romanian spammer using "USA only" TLD?) You must have forgotten, that he is not just a regular wanker, who gets his rocks off on his picture collection. Based on his bragging, Mircea Popescu is also also a sadistic pervert, a woman beater, who enjoys torturing and abusing woman for his sick pleasure. Based on what mircea popescu constantly spews out, his favorite sadist tools are whip and cane. Yes, that retarded brags about it in IRC. WTF! How sick is that! Drear bitcointalk.org member, if you are so demented, that you still do not understand why this Romanian pervert is a poison tho the whole BTC community, let me make it really simple for you: "Every time you let that pompous scumbag take your money, you are directly supporting a sadistic pervert. You are helping him and other perverts like him, to sexually abuse victims of human trafficking and slave trade. What if one day, beating up and raping grown women is not enough for this aging Romanian pervert? What's next? Are you, bitcoin enthusiast, really that greedy and stupid, you support this scumbag with your coin? If yes, please go see a specialist. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on January 31, 2013, 09:24:02 AM I think that "scammer tag" for mircea popescu or for his delusional muppet MPOE-PR is not what we need here. Yes, it's a good start, but not enough. Some people are upset about mircea popescu porn site, that uses the same .us TLD as his exchange, Agreed, this clearly shows how fucked up character mircea popescu actually is. (BTW, why is this romanian spammer using "USA only" TLD?) You must have forgotten, that he is not just a regular wanker, who gets his rocks off on his picture collection. Based on his bragging, Mircea Popescu is also also a sadistic pervert, a woman beater, who enjoys torturing and abusing woman for his sick pleasure. Based on what mircea popescu constantly spews out, his favorite sadist tools are whip and cane. Yes, that retarded brags about it in IRC. WTF! How sick is that! Drear bitcointalk.org member, if you are so demented, that you still do not understand why this Romanian pervert is a poison tho the whole BTC community, let me make it really simple for you: "Every time you let that pompous scumbag take your money, you are directly supporting a sadistic pervert. You are helping him and other perverts like him, to sexually abuse victims of human trafficking and slave trade. What if one day, beating up and raping grown women is not enough for this aging Romanian pervert? What's next? Are you, bitcoin enthusiast, really that greedy and stupid, you support this scumbag with your coin? If yes, please go see a specialist. They say that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable to the primitive eye from magic. The corollary seems to be that for the average retard, competence is indistinguishable from being the devil incarnate. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: EskimoBob on January 31, 2013, 09:58:11 AM They say that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable to the primitive eye from magic. The corollary seems to be that for the average retard, competence is indistinguishable from being the devil incarnate. Thank you for confirming your illness. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: greyhawk on January 31, 2013, 10:08:16 AM So the BD/SM community is "ill" now? Oh boy, are you in for a surprise when you turn older than 12.
Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: PsychoticBoy on January 31, 2013, 10:28:53 AM Is the min age 12 to be allowed in MP's Porn Industry?
Or is it the max age? You like youngsters he, pervert! Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: ciuciu on April 25, 2013, 01:03:28 PM Still no scammer tag for the pervert?
Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: zebedee on April 26, 2013, 07:49:06 AM Still no scammer tag for the pervert? I hope not; if perverts got scammer tags I'd have had one a long time ago.Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: MPOE-PR on April 26, 2013, 12:28:42 PM Still no scammer tag for the pervert? It's funny when people with no shred of a reputation are discussing the reputations of others. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: ciuciu on April 26, 2013, 02:08:31 PM Still no scammer tag for the pervert? It's funny when people with no shred of a reputation are discussing the reputations of others. My point exactly! At least we agree on something. Title: Re: MPEX/MPOE-PR Post by: usagi on April 27, 2013, 05:59:20 PM Leaving aside issue of malicious libel expressed by MPOE-PR as an agent of Mircea Popescu, the central issue here seems to be whether or not the F.GIGA.ETF contract was broken or not.
The central point being, "The ETF is composed of 900`000 shares. Should the Owner acquire more shares of the underlying he may issue more shares of this asset. The Owner will never own less shares of the underlying than the total float of this asset implies. Any and all revenue paid by the underlying will be distributed to the shareholders of this asset without remainder." Under what conditions can Mircea can affect the purchase, sale, redemption, upgrade, etc. of the underlying asset -- essentially, what would allow him to delist the asset and cancel all shares? The only situation in which all shares could be recalled without payment is if the shares went to zero (i.e. no future payment incoming) and there would be no chance for Mircea to sell his shares to recover any money. In this case alone would he be able to do what he did without breaking his contract. The thing is that's exactly what happened. Plus, the contract was struck privately (i.e. off-GLBSE) and GPG signed by Giga and Mircea/MPEX. So the closure of GLBSE had absolutely nothing to do with Giga yanking his shares away and stopping payments to Mircea. Right? The initial action here was from GigaVPS and not Mircea. Plus GigaVPS knew quite solidly who owned the 900BTC worth of bonds; it was Mircea Popescu. There seems to be no reason for him to require any sort of authorization as he already had it in the form of a GPG signature. So it seems if anyone broke a contract it was giga. Stating the obvious, Mircea/MPOE has no "interesting" financial incentive to go after GigaVPS legally for this, so he had no financial incentive to do this. The financial incentive seems to be mainly GigaVPS's. I hate to be blunt but that pretty much proves there's no fraud here. In closing I think it is blatantly obvious that Mircea/MPOE-PR does not deserve a scammer tag for this issue. I think that's fair, even though I don't particularly like the dishonest way in which MPOE-PR executes her role. I think the OP should close this thread. It cheapens the scam accusation forum and the scammer tag process to leave a thread like this open and have people post random junk in it. They're not guilty; get over it; move on. That way the scam accusation forum works and does not get clogged up with noise. |
