More like proof of foolishness.

At the risk of violating Napoleon's advice to never interrupt an enemy who is making a mistake, I should remind you that extortion is more effective when you threaten people with something that will actually affect them. I wouldn't have said anything were I not concerned about the real victims of this sort of foolishness:

Thanks. With all the action I've been getting (and giving) in the foxhole, I was starting to lose track of just how many times I've been penetrated from behind. It's nice to know I'm on top for once. I just hope cryptohunter doesn't become jealous.

It isn't your fault. Cryptohunter seems to have lost interest in my sordid affairs, having recently taken an unhealthy interest in those of the feline persuasion.

I'm not quite understanding what you're complaining about, or why my name is on your list, but I guess you're angry about merits? I think you should try to explain your accusations more clearly.

It's a joke, though the humour is based on wordplay, so I don't expect a non-native English speaker such as yourself to "get it". But you do understand the concept of jokes, right? Don't they have jokes in Russia? In any case, post containing funny jokes often earn merits, particular when posted in humour-oriented threads. There's nothing untoward going on here.

It's only half gay (or half straight if you're an optimist). Unless you're a woman with a penis too, which makes it fully gay (but still only half lesbian). If you're a woman without a penis, that bumps it up to three-quarters lesbian. Obviously it's fully straight if you're a man with a pussy, but it's still unclear whether that qualifies as part lesbian (further study is needed).

This. Also I feel that all of the "donate to charity" options are unethical simply on principle: either the user is entitled to keep the money, or he is not. If he is not entitled to keep the money, he is not entitled to donate it, either. Donating the money serves no purpose except to make stealing from a scammer seem less unconscionable than it is.

No, that analogy is not right. A better analogy is if the previous owner threw sand in the crankcase causing the engine to blow up some time later after you bought it, then blaming the car's manufacturer for allowing used car sales. The moral of the story is, when buying a used car from a stranger, check the oil first, if only to make sure it is in fact oil and not sand.

I'm guessing we'll see Russians targeted by known scammers whose negative trust is hidden from everyone whose trust lists are built on petty vengeance instead of an actual need to tag scammers, so don't say you weren't warned.

For the benefit of anyone from the future finding this thread after having a similar problem, what "actually worked" was using QSize instead of int(s):

(Hint: when the compiler tells you one part of a statement/expression is wrong, try changing only the wrong part instead of other parts that may have been right the first time.)

As the compiler suggestion suggests, names are case sensitive.

I don't seem to recall you asking me for my best posts, but if you insist, I am quite proud of my coverage of the 2016 unofficial global moderator election. I do have hundreds more amazing posts, as you say, but I don't want to make this thread all about me.

Requesting achow101 vs gmaxwell, please.

You can always just use the Show/Hide button like I do.

Since cryptohunter has taken to using self-moderated threads to delete posts containing facts that conflict with his warped opinions, I'm reposting this here, as I feel it's an important and relevant fact that sane people might be interested in knowing and possibly discussing or debating.

---

Putting it in large letters doesn't make it true. What you're describing is, indeed, blackmail. But don't take my word for it: just ask the police whether it's okay to not report a crime because you talked the criminal into returning what they stole. Letting criminals get away with it in this way allows them to commit further crimes, which is why offering these sorts of deals is illegal. You're obviously not likely to get arrested for doing this, since the criminal is the only witness to the blackmail, and they can't implicate you without confessing to their own crime, but blackmail is still illegal even if you won't get caught.

It sounds suspiciously like you're trying to quietly gather information on how to get included on more people's trust lists. I don't believe I'm extremely paranoid; just slightly-above-averagely paranoid.

Excluding you from my trust list does not (necessarily) mean that I distrust you, or that I harbour any resentment or ill-will toward you. It simply means that I believe you are a sufficiently poor judge of character that your own trust list and feedback are meaningless to me, and therefore to be excluded. This is not a moral judgement, but a pragmatic one. Due to my aforementioned paranoia, I will not be more specific than that.

I for one would much prefer that you did, instead of doing so via PM, which in the interests of transparency I am going to post here:


I don't approve of these backdoor shenanigans; they invite accusations of trust manipulation. Did you PM owlcatz too? (And why do you even care about my exclusions anyway? I'm only DT2.)

I really don't. It makes no difference whether you knew or not, except that if you did, and the casino could prove it, you'd be arrested for fraud. But either way you don't get to keep your winnings.

EDIT:
OP couldn't have won any real bitcoins, because they didn't wager any real bitcoins; they wagered void credit, so that's what they won.

Nope. Says so right on the machine:



"MALFUNCTION VOIDS ALL PAYS AND PLAYS". FortuneJack has the same terms (all online casinos do - they'd be crazy not to), and non-computer gambling games have similar rules about dealer errors and the like.

RawDog? Yeah, he was somewhat entertaining. Far more entertaining than cryptohunter, at any rate.

If voting wasn't anonymous, all members of the foxhole butt-sniffing pussy-petting trust/merit club/cult/gang would vote the same way out of fear of being punished by Lauda/suchmoon/whoever's in charge this week. As you're such a big proponent of FREE SPEECH, I'm sure you don't want that.