You get so worked up over a seemingly small point. I am not asserting that any initial burden has been moved from Twitchy to you.
I am merely asserting that you have the burden to prove any assertions that you make, to the extent that you are trying to persuade anyone into siding with you or action or whatever.
If you are not trying to persuade anyone, and you are merely rebutting the claims of others, then of course, you would have no burdens; however, let's say that Twitchy had met his burden of production and presentation, then the burden would shift to the other side (which seems to be you in this case?) to show that his evidence and logic is not true or persuasive.
I am not asserting that Twitchy never had any initial burden of proof, but if he were to have met the burden of proof (which he claims to have done in part of the evidence that he presented), then if true, the burden would shift to the opposition in regards to either the truth of that evidence or the persuasiveness of the logical claims. I would agree that we don't get to any of this shifting of the burdens, if what you said were to end up being true - that is that Twitchy has not provided sufficient evidence or logic to prove his points..
It is not just you who gets to decide whether Twitchy has met his burdens, but you are entitled to your opinion and your ability to present rebuttal, counter-evidence and counter-logic, of course.
I don's see how I am saying anything that is exactly controversial, like you seem to be attempting to make it out to be.
It is not a small point. It is a point upon which this entire accusation rests. Twitchy Seal is speculating where that money went, he has no proof of where it went, to whom, or why. I have highlighted in bold you contradicting yourself from one second to the next. The part that you highlighted in bold is not contradictory. I don't have any burden to prove anything, and this is you, once again, attempting to divert the burden of proof from Twitchy Seal to me.
I already said my part like three times and three different ways, so repetition is not going to make any difference. I rest upon what I have already said. I never said I was not trying to persuade anyone. I said I don't care if anyone believes me.
I said that if you are trying to persuade, then you have burdens. I did not otherwise characterize your ambitions in that direction, but now, you seem to be admitting that you would like to persuade some people. There is a difference even if you don't want to admit the distinction.
I don't see any reason to attempt to educate me on these points. I have stated my perspective and you have stated yours. Largely, we have exhausted the topic, it seems. Claiming to have met the burden of proof and meeting the burden of proof are not equivalent.
Sound to be pretty close in the way you are phrasing it. Maybe you would like to provide an example or some examples, and even describe why it matters to get into such distinction attempts? I don't get to decide he hasn't met the burden of proof, but you do?
Each of us does. You cannot decide for the rest of us. It is not my opinion, it is a fact.
Everyone is going to agree with you then, if the facts are as obvious as you are making them out to be. He has no proof where those funds went.
One step at a time. There was some attempts to digest timelines for the various payments and to add them up, so of course, OGNasty could provide evidence, or someone can go through Twitchy's numbers and to show that they are wrong (several times Twitchy has already invited such criticisms of his numbers) Again, you attempt to invert the burden of proof and claim I need to present evidence his "evidence" does not meet the burden of proof.
You can do whatever you want. I doubt that repetitious debating with me about the same points over and over is going to be very helpful in this regard. That is not how burden of proof works.
Well, I am glad that you have clarified everything. I feel a lot more enlightened now. Either he has the evidence or he doesn't, and he doesn't, that is a fact.
Well sometimes if something is being investigated, the evidence is still being established and developed. At some point, all the evidence has been gathered that is available, and these evidentiary parts might constitute direct evidence and/or reasonable inferences. What you are saying is not controversial, it is a logical fallacy.
You have not exactly clarified that purported logical fallacy part, but that's ok, because I already said what I had thought was responsive to the topic. |
|
|
|
Ouch.
Didn't Hairy say something about middle december dump?
The good thing about dumps is the following pump... unless another dump follows.
Bleh, it's been long time since I don't have any idea what the price gonna do, so let's just let it be. This is fine.
I thought that a week or more ago, the longs out numbered the shorts, so if we can get the shorts to out number the longs, then wouldn't that provide REKKening fuel? Are we there yet? Not there yet?  |
|
|
|
If you wake up in the morning and your yard is wet, but you didn't see it rain, would you consider it just speculation that it rained because someone could have come and sprayed your yard with water while you were sleeping? No. The wet yard proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it rained.
I think you're using phrases that you shouldn't be. Here I sit on the jury, my yard was wet this morning from the phenomenon known as "morning dew". It did not rain yet my yard is wet. I now reasonably doubt your whole case. When you're making accusations such as the ones in this thread/topic you better come harder than that. You are fighting with the hypothetical teeGUMES, rather than undermining the point that Twitchy made. |
|
|
|
I would suggest that if you raise an issue, and say: This is a witch hunt, then you have the burden to show that. Of course, you can express that "this is a witch hunt" as an opinion, but if you are trying to persuade someone, then you have the burden, no?
I posted some evidence of "Witch Hunt" back on page 7, but it was dropped as off topic and it seems you didn't want to look too far into it.. Just because you raise a topic, and present evidence in support of that topic does not make it relevant, necessarily. Seems to me that the more important point of relevance is whether OGNasty engaged in the alleged conduct rather than the supposed vindictive behaviors of the purported accusers. There are standards like this in all kinds of areas of life. Let's take an employment example. Let's say that an employer can fire someone for any reason at all, so long as it is not based on a discriminatory category (such as race, age, sex). The employer had stated that it would like to get rid of Billy because billy is over 50, so therefore the employer has an unlawful motive; however, the Employer also has a rule that stealing from the company is a fireable offense. Billy is caught on camera stealing a $2k computer from the company, and he is clearly guilty of stealing the computer from the company. The company fires Billy. In this hypothetical, it does not matter that the employer has a bias and an unlawful motive against Billy that is clearly proven by evidence if the evidence shows that Billy had been fired for stealing the computer from the company, and everyone who steals from the company gets fired. So you can argue and provide facts until you are blue in the face that you have brought up a valid point about the companies proven bias about billy, but that evidence is irrelevant - even if you have established your burdens on that irrelevant point. If evidence of "Witch Hunt" is now of concern for this topic,
I don't think it is, but I am not denying that there are people making claims that it is relevant and that there is evidence of it. My assertions about burden of proof in regards to that topic does not make it relevant, necessarily. It is just an example of how someone might have a burden who is attempting to make a point about a topic, but does not make the topic relevant, necessarily. I'm sure I/we can provide a plethora thereof, all the way back to and including the creation of this thread by the OP in the first place..
That would be called going on a tangent. Should we really go down that path?
Of course, you are free to try, but it seems mostly irrelevant... not completely, but mostly. Of course, opinions can vary about what is relevant and what is not too, and trolls, shills, distractors become very good at attempting to make irrelevance seem to be irrelevant, but does not cause irrelevance to become relevant. Let me know if/when you would like abundance of "Witch Hunt" supporting evidence presented if it is now considered on topic and relevant to this case..
Maybe you could start a thread on such "witch hunt" topic, and if you provide a link to such topic here, that link might not be considered to be irrelevant to this thread, because at least the link on its own does not provide a lot of gobbledy-gook of tangentially possible distracting information.. and allows a bit better focus on the main topic here, which seems to be whether OGNasty did the alleged unethical or even misleading, fraudulent, conversion deed that he is alleged of doing or not and maybe what the remedy should be, if it seems to be true that he did those things? |
|
|
|
The defining words of this cycle will be: patience.
Somehow I know that's true. Gotta weed out the dolla-dollar bill chasers from the more principled. Will it get ugly or just long and boring? Earlier post, for contextual reference: And the defining words of this cycle will be...front running. Fasten your seat belts!
So, yeah, overall, we are returning to the uncertainties of BTC price predictions, and whether some predictions are overly optimistic or overly pessimistic? Either way, I become a little bit irritated when they are expressed in too certain of ways, yet I understand that real people talk like that. You go into the real world, and people continuously talk about things in terms of certainties rather than probabilistically, even if they understand, when taken to task, that the future remains unknown, until after it happens (then it is no longer the future). For sure, when we got our little April 1 to June 27 BTC price boom of more than 3.5x, there were a lot of legitimate feelings of HODLers, and perhaps even non-hodlers (pre-coiners and no coiners) that front running remains a very significant possibility for this upcoming cycle. I hate to put odds on it, but with such ongoing correction (retracing of those gains), it starts to feel as if front running might not be as likely as many of us perceived it to be. Yet, this whole correction (or manipulation or whatever it ends up being) could be a trick (a BIG ASS bear trap), too. In the end, even given our current feelings of peril and uncertainty regarding when this particular correction is going to stop, we cannot really rule out the front running theory. Not yet, anyhow. Regarding this calendar year, we only have slightly more than two weeks left, and surely there are great odds that this calendar year is going to be a positive, especially given that we started out at about $3,800, so even with the ongoing correction/retracement, we are currently more than 80% up for this calendar year. Cannot really complain in the the yearly snapshot kind of way, unless we get a halvening of the BTC price in the next two weeks, which surely is not out of the question, when we are dealing with ongoingly seemingly desperate status financial players who have needs to attempt to show that they have bitcoin "under control." Many of us can tentatively believe that they have bitcoin "under control" until they don't, but of course, even when they lose control of bitcoin, they will, at some point, regain control over it (perhaps at $17k? or perhaps at $50k, or perhaps at $250k), and they will assert: "we got this. That is what we were trying to do." hahahahahha... That should be more accurately referred to as "opportunistic spin."   front running indeed  Hahahahaha.,.. Saw this jojo post, as I posted mine. That is what I am trying to say, jojo. Front running should not be ruled out, yet. So stop rolling your eyes, or they might get stuck like that. You would not want that, AmiNOTrite?  |
|
|
|
[edited out]
I brought up the burden of proof, therefore I must prove that the accuser is engaged in a "witch hunt"? What? I never characterized this as a "witch hunt", Twitchy Seal did BTW. Yes, you are in fact inverting the burden of proof from the accuser on to me. I don't have to prove shit. End of story. Twitchy has to prove his accusation, he can not. This is not having my cake and eating it to, it is how burden of proof works. The one presenting the premise (theft) has the burden to prove the accusation. I don't have to prove it is a witch hunt, and your lack of belief in this premise is irrelevant to the fact that the burden of proof has not been met on the accusation of theft. The only thing ridiculous is your continual inversion of the burden of proof. You get so worked up over a seemingly small point. I am not asserting that any initial burden has been moved from Twitchy to you. I am merely asserting that you have the burden to prove any assertions that you make, to the extent that you are trying to persuade anyone into siding with you or action or whatever. If you are not trying to persuade anyone, and you are merely rebutting the claims of others, then of course, you would have no burdens; however, let's say that Twitchy had met his burden of production and presentation, then the burden would shift to the other side (which seems to be you in this case?) to show that his evidence and logic is not true or persuasive. I am not asserting that Twitchy never had any initial burden of proof, but if he were to have met the burden of proof (which he claims to have done in part of the evidence that he presented), then if true, the burden would shift to the opposition in regards to either the truth of that evidence or the persuasiveness of the logical claims. I would agree that we don't get to any of this shifting of the burdens, if what you said were to end up being true - that is that Twitchy has not provided sufficient evidence or logic to prove his points.. It is not just you who gets to decide whether Twitchy has met his burdens, but you are entitled to your opinion and your ability to present rebuttal, counter-evidence and counter-logic, of course. I don's see how I am saying anything that is exactly controversial, like you seem to be attempting to make it out to be. |
|
|
|
But seems to me that Twitchy has presented evidence and logic to undermine those presumptions of innocence that could allow members to conclude that OGNasty might be guilty of the alleged conduct.
You are largely asserting to stop the investigation because it is a witch hunt. There could be some burden of production and persuasion upon you in that regard, also, but whatever, the evidence is still being presented here and members can decide for themselves whether the evidence is persuasive. Undermining presumptions of innocence is not proving guilt. Agreed. Do you see how you are consistently inverting the burden of proof from the accuser back to me?
No, I don't see that. Seems that you are the one who brought up this idea of burden of proof, and I am just responding to that. I have no burden of anything.
I would suggest that if you raise an issue, and say: This is a witch hunt, then you have the burden to show that. Of course, you can express that "this is a witch hunt" as an opinion, but if you are trying to persuade someone, then you have the burden, no? I don't care if anyone believes me.
Why would it matter if anyone believes you about anything. You said that you have no burden, so therefore, you would not be trying to convince anyone of anything, right? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it too? I do however care if people believe accusations of scamming based on speculation.
Fair enough. What I am doing is not stopping anyone from presenting evidence. What I am doing is however making rhetorical and sophist persuasion ineffective.
You are attempting to rebutt any evidence (while proclaiming that there is not any evidence, even though there is). Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous? |
|
|
|
I did not like that it is difficult to figure out the date of the article, and I am thinking that the date should be listed on each page of the article. I did like that there are a lot of interesting graphs in the article, which represents interesting current dynamics in finances (and bitcoin), and I liked that at the end of the article it provides: 12 - 2020 BOLD predictions >>>>>>Blockchain Capital’s bold 2020 predictions: 1) A crypto company is acquired for more than $500m 2) Value locked in DeFi hits $5B 3) In the face of competition from China, Libra will receive the green light for a dollar-backed stablecoin 4) A federal judge rules against the SEC in a crypto case 5) Not a single 2020 L1 network launch achieves “top 10” status as defined network value 6) USDC sees 300%+ growth (as measured by transaction value, issuance, market cap and trading volume) 7) Demand for Bitcoin transactions drives fees to exceed $100, catalyzing scaling up the stack 8.) FinCEN/FATF hold stablecoins to a stricter standard than paper cash by requiring broad application of the travel rule 9) McAfee loses his bet and eats his….. 10) KYC/AML becomes the primary regulatory battleground for DeFi 11) Privacy coins are de-listed from major exchanges 12) Bitcoin price blows past all-time high<<<<<<<< |
|
|
|
I doubt that you are really saving anyone or clarifying matters with your ongoing unsupported conclusions, ie that this is a witch hunt, and your other various convolutions and ad hominems etc. That is all irrelevant. Any conclusions I make are independent of the fact that the conclusions against OGNasty require assumption and speculation and are not conclusive proof of anything. I don't have to prove my conclusions. You have to prove your conclusions, that is how burden of proof works. You seem to be twisting my part in this whole situation. I have not been presenting any evidence. I have largely been commenting on the process, which seems to go to your witch hunt allegations, which I suppose I agree with you regarding any suggestion that, for example with OGNasty's conduct, there would be an initial presumption of innocence. But seems to me that Twitchy has presented evidence and logic to undermine those presumptions of innocence that could allow members to conclude that OGNasty might be guilty of the alleged conduct. You are largely asserting to stop the investigation because it is a witch hunt. There could be some burden of production and persuasion upon you in that regard, also, but whatever, the evidence is still being presented here and members can decide for themselves whether the evidence is persuasive. |
|
|
|
[edited out]
So according to JJG Presenting observable and undeniable instances of financially motivated wrong doing including, scamming, extortion, scammer supporting, willing scam facilitating for pay, trust abuse and double standards = stiring up shit and non-contributory content. AHAHAHAHAHAHAH He sounds IDEAL for DT. hahahaahah # Wow. I did not know that you did all of the things that you proclaim to have done. I have largely only seen non-contributory content in your posts, so far. Maybe I should get out more to attempt to identify such "observable and undeniable instances of financially motivated wrong doing including, scamming, extortion, scammer supporting, willing scam facilitating for pay, trust abuse and double standard" that are allegedly being shown through some of your posts? I will watch out for it more, to see if I identify any of that within any of your posts. Sorry wordy wordsmith .. your waffle will be sliced away to reveal the paper thin defense which we will enjoy igniting with our flame thrower or shredding with our chain saw.
At least you have goals. I suppose that could be a good thing if you can attempt to direct yourself(ves) on some kind of meaningful goals. If bringing me down is your purportedly good for the forum goal, then so be it. By the way, if you are just making up daemons, then hey, I may as well serve as one of them, no? Gives you(s) a purpose in life and within this forum. You already seem less that those low functioning no hoping self debunking fools that came before you. There is no substance just a lot of flowery waffle.
Could be. You(s) is(are) entitled to your perspective/opinion. You were making no point. You posted off topic irrelevant garbage to try and derail our thread. You then claim it was not off topic because although it tackled none of the central points in the OP some other half witted idiot scammer ( the same one you tried to protect by sneakily removing his quoted post in the wo thread) went off topic so you think it is permitted flow and someone on topic to continue with his off topic derailing LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Haven't we already gone over this, not that I agree with your lil rendition, but I understand that you are referring to your deletion of my post. You are not really saying anything new, but just repeating the same thing. You are making no points you are clearly unable to form a credible and valid rebuttal to our points. Are we clear now??
No "we" are not clear, yet. You need to stick to specifically debating the central points in the initial post, you also need to stick by our local rules there. Got it idiot.
I am not intending to post anymore there or even to read the thread, even though I do have it on my watch list. Maybe I should remove that thread from my watch list? There surely is not anything substantially meaningful going on in that thread, is there? NOT with you self-moderating such contents. I don't care if you two girls had some bitch fight over who is the receiver this week and who cooks dinner next week. You sissy squabbles are nothing to "us" you are trying to derail the thread that details whataboutbobs trust abuse and girly bitchy tactics. Got it moron.
O.k. You are starting to make some senses. Good now stfu or bring some meat to your arguments to we can really tuck in.
I am not clear, you are trying to invite me somewhere? On a date? I am not interested. We do not bond with scammer supporting bitcoin beggars who seek to push clear double standards on this board. We crush them.
This part is a bit unclear, but I suppose that everyone has a perspective regarding what they are doing, and their targets. There is some built in double standards within ordinary human discretion, so I am not sure if you are expecting people/members to be/act the same as robots? |
|
|
|
You are suggesting that I am buddies with bob? Yeah right. Very, VERY funny right there. You know that part about where I said, that, like, if we ever had a $100k party (that I wouldn't show up at for OpSec reasons), I would have to punch you in the face over years of animosity, because that's just the way the universe works ? Yeah, I think I'd rather just shake your hand and walk over to the bar with you to get a drink. #nohomo And seriously, dude. I had forgotten how wordy your posts are. You haven't changed Hey. I was trying to bond with TOAA, and you are ruining the moo. #nohomo. You are going to scare him away (we could only wish). |
|
|
|
Sorry to see that you don't seem to understand engwish. Regarding that above linked thread; I see that you are quite the self-entertained drama queen. Surprises me that you are allowed to propagate such - non-contributory content. And claiming that people that are fighting for transparent fair rules that are applied equally to all members are the BAD guys I don't think you are fooling any one really.
You are fighting for stirring shit. Seems to be your specialty. I am suggesting you are supporting bobs clearly trust abusing actions YES.
I just came to this thread to post my deleted thread. LOL I love how you say I was only replying to some other person (who was not debating anything to do with the central points mentioned in initial post) then when we just say that is no excuse you say....oh well I don't accept your summary LOLOLOL
This point that you are making is clear as mud to the extent that it is relevant to any possible at-issue point. What are you saying then If we were getting you all wrong.
You(s) ( look I am being courteous by referrring to you(s) in the plural.... ) seem to have a tendency to kind of lump matters together, whether subject or members, so there is that. There is no substance in your answers at all with regard refuting anything we have said.
I did not know that I needed to refute anything. I just posted a deleted thread, and you confirmed that you deleted it. So, the subject seems to be over. You admitted the whole point that I was making.. Thanks for your cooperation. You are such a nice guy(s). you were offtopic and didn't bring any observable instances = get it now?? LOL
I get that you are like a broken record with unimportant points, so I have observed that instance of an observable, if that counts for anything. |
|
|
|
[edited out]
Let's make this VERY SIMPLE Striking away pirates claim You are claiming you have CONCLUSIVE PROOF of clear and undeniable financially motivated wrong doing by OG nasty.
YES OR NO?? If you say YES and you do NOT have conclusive proof. That is defamation and lies according to DT precedent here. So you accept you should be flagged and tagged?? Did someone die and put you in charge of what are the forum/thread rules regarding discussion of topics, whether accusations or otherwise? I doubt it. You seem to have about as much of a clue for proper and relevant forum/thread discussion(s) as a fruit fly. Maybe you are a fruit fly, disguising yourself as a forum member? |
|
|
|
[edited out]
Shhh fool, your entire post is this I went off topic because someone else raised something off topic before and I continued with the stream of off topic garbage. Yeah right We should rely upon you to summarize what is going on. Give me a break. NO that is not permitted flow. It must be directly about the central points in the initial post.
Who gives any shits about your post-hoc made-up bullshit fantasy land assertions about what the rules are or should be? That's why no need to participate in the self-moderated threads of disingenuous fucktwats like ur lil selfie (or should I say "selfies" - the royal "wwwwweeeeee, we"?). Sorry they are NOT NARROW they are the central points. Your speculations and false allegations that are not substantiated or corroborated are not going to derail our thread.
I stand by what I already said. Your waffle and garbage has done nothing to rebut our points.
Go ahead and characterize my posts as waffling, when that is the exact thing that you are guilty of. Not going to buy it. You were off topic, you off topic opinions were not even corroborated with observable instances. You were deleted. Try again.
Repeating yourself. Your wordy low functioning defense is like paper to our chainsaw. Now come back to our thread and address the central points raised in the OP with observable instances or fuck off and support scammers/trust abusers elsewhere.
You are asking me on a date, fat girl? Didn't I say that i don't date fat chicks? Sorry, I am not going on your proposed date. I already said that. Got it "cunt".
Or do a whataboutbob and run to red trust and cry that you got put in your rightful offtopic , scammer supporting/ trust abuser supporting , false accusation and speculating place.
We will school you on the art of debate and reason yet idiot.
I am learning so much from you. Thanks for the little lesson. Get on the right side of scammers and honest members or else you are going to out yourself as dirty.
You are the right side? Who would have thunk? Never mind bobs promises of mastadonic penis (micro penis according to rick) do the right thing not just what your bitch pals tell you to do just to be mr popular in the most pathetic thread on this board full or cringe like humor and retarded broke down bums.
Again, I am having a hard time following this point. You are suggesting that I am buddies with bob? Yeah right. Note: By the way, I just noticed that you are adding more content to your earlier posts in this thread after I have already responded to them. I am not going to go back to either read or to respond to any content that was added after I have already responded to such posts. In other words, I tend to consider myself as a "going forward" kind of a guy, (at least for the purpose of dealing with disingenuous shill/trolls like ur lil selfie - ie TOAA) not a "wished that I would have said something else" kind of guy that goes back and re-writes old posts. Go figure. |
|
|
|
[edited out]
NOT ON TOPIC AT ALL The topic is regarding the observable actions of bob after coming to our thread about blackmail/extortion Again. Who cares about your little narrow spin regarding what is "on topic" or not because your brain does not seem to work, to the extent that you have one, regarding matters that are on topic. How the fuck has your shit post got anything to do with that you dumb shit??
It responds to a valid point that was made, that shows you as a likely full-of-shit presenter that is attempting to show himself as a we.. Yeah, sure there might be a "we" that is paying your dumbass to spread nonsense, to shill and to troll, but your ongoing playing around with the concept of "we" is merely just an attempt to annoy and shill... which surely is on topic in terms of considering any possible validity that might exist regarding any point that you make or attempt to make. If you have no clue what observable instances are then don't post on the thread.
I don't need to know about that, especially if a more narrow point is made, and you had been far from keeping whatever your spin-thread is on point, anyhow. Might as well delete the whole thing, no? How can you conform to rules you claim you have no understanding of???
I understand the rule that the forum let's you delete whatever the fuck you want in a self-moderated thread, so that is not really an example of a rule... just an example of you engaging in abusive luring of posters and then deleting for dramatic effect. In other words, you are pretty lame. Get a dictionary and have a read moron.
I doubt that a dictionary is going to help in this case, but hey, if that is your at-hand reference, then that is your choice. Likely explains why you seem to have a tendency to miss BIGGER point ideas because you are ongoingly caught in the weeds of nonsense. |
|
|
|
[edited out]
Well done retard now that post clearly demonstrates 1. it is not on topic or relevant to the central points in our initial post You are the retard because obviously it is on-topic. You just don't like that the contents of the post do not support your spin. 2. there are NO observable instances as required in our initial post
Have no clue about what you are talking about with this gobbledeegook. 3. derailing off topic crap,speculations and false accusastions.
you are not really saying anything - except that you believe the on-topic post is off topic. So fucking what regarding what you think because you are obviously not a good role model in the "thinking" department? well done we deleted it and will continue to do so until you understand you need to adhere to the rules in the initial post you pathetic gimp.
Don't worry about my posting in your self-moderated thread. Why the fuck would I post in such a thread of some idiot like yourself who is mostly just engaging in propaganda in such a thread? I did make one or two posts in that thread, and the last one got deleted, as I suspected that it would because it hurt your lil feelings. TLDR: You got nothing but whining and hoping for participation in your little scheme in such a way that just wastes the time of any participant in such thread because they know that they have good odds of getting deleted if whatever they say goes against your little spin attempts. |
|
|
|
~
What actions? You mean my words? Yes. Last time that I checked, posting constitutes an action. Last I checked words required a state of thinking to interpret but maybe you have some special way of reading where you don't use your brain. I am quite focused on the topic, just not the parts of it you wish to emphasize. Calling it evidence and logic doesn't make it evidence an logic. There is transaction data yes, but the part where it is assumed there was wrongdoing, victims, or other malpractice is absolutely assumption, not facts or logic.
You are not really saying anything in need of response so far, but I will read on. I am not particularly interested in convincing you. I am more focused on everyone else observing getting the full backround of the motivations behind this targeting, and the long term consequences for this community if this kind of Stalinist behavior is tolerated.
I doubt that you are really saving anyone or clarifying matters with your ongoing unsupported conclusions, ie that this is a witch hunt, and your other various convolutions and ad hominems etc. |
|
|
|
I only glanced through the various posts of this thread, because no one's got time for focusing too much time and attention on that diptwat, aka The-One-Above-All. However, in my previous posts I had mentioned: 1) that I do not tend to post in self-moderated threads of cunts like him and 2) in another of his disingenuous posts, he implied that he was not deleting posts by asking me to provide evidence that he was deleting posts. We all know that he is full of shit, but anyhow here is some additional evidence of deleted post from today. I will put it here, since it seems to be somewhat relevant to this thread, and I suppose posterity, to the extent that matters in connection with anything that shill/troll does. By the way, cunt-twat, The-One-Above-All, deleted my post in that thread, and then responded to such post in his self-moderated thread. Fuck that little twat. I am not responding to him in the self-moderated thread. It is a BIG ASS waste of time. However, I might respond to him in a non-moderated thread to the extent that there might be any substance there, such as in this thread. If I need to take it somewhere else. I realize that not too many members read this thread anyhow because they are likely to get bored (or more likely annoyed) with anything that the twat TOAA says. I will apologize in advance to potentially clutter up more of his potential meaningless responses in this thread, to the extent that he might choose to respond, herein, the little sleaze bag... and to the extent that I will respond to his anticipated and likely nonsense. >>>>>>>> A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted ......... Ignored.
Sissy runs away from debate but still hiding there giving merit to people spouting garbage. Well done whataboutbob just demonstrates what a pathetic weasel you are. Keep hiding sissy you will never debunk one of our central points and you know this. You have been clearly demonstrated to be a pathetic little bitch who cries to red trust when you get put in your rightful place. Naaaaah he's just responsible and knows he's time is better spent at people or members deserving ..... "his time" moron. Besides his time is better served splurging him moronic mentally deranged drivel to idiots like you who are very deserving of it. haha That does not refute the clear undeniable points we are making in the initial post. It rather serves to substantiate them. But serious why the "WE" ?? Are you working with 3-4-5-6 or whatever on that keyboard there ? I have 0 interest in the whole TOAA character, maybe only the "WE" term is it like T= a person O= a person A= a person A= a person ?? (Oooow yeah, for perfect English writing, you don't have to come to me thats right, strong point, nobody knew that one before, nice....) Hahahahaha.., You know that usually I do not post in this fucktwat's self moderated thread, but it is quite hilarious (maybe even ironic) that you, mic, are asking about the purported "team" of this diptwat... hahahahahaha Not that it is an irrelevant question, because diptwat, aka The-One-Above-All's, does constantly use such stupid ass troll/shill reference to his interweb's persona. Of course, I already mentioned diptwat's use of the royal "we" in an earlier post in this thread (which probably can be easily found), but of course, diptwat refuses to admit why he is actually continuously using such royal we term, He just seems to be a fucking silly ass loser shill/troll who may or may not have a team, and to the extent that he has a team(handler) that is helping him out with his content, themes, etc, then hopefully (on a personally fulfilling level, not that anyone should give too many shits about a person who seems to be employed to engage in such non-constructive posts) he is actually getting paid in bitcoin and able to stack a few sats rather than spinning his wheels with ongoing largely irrelevant nonsense spreading. <<<<<<<<< |
|
|
|
That is what you get, Tecshare, for attempting to confuse matters. You get confusion that you, yourself, caused, seemingly on purpose with your lame-ass attempt at creating a dinsingenuous summary that you were inaccurately striving to spin in your favor. If you try to be a bit more genuine in your renditions of the conduct and statements of others, then maybe someone will feel sorry for you. Including me. Perhaps? But, here, you dug your own little hole (a victim of your own seeming success) and then you are complaining (largely off topic and irrelevantly and who gives any shits) about someone else pulling up the ladder. Difficult to feel sorry for that when we have other topics of the thread, which is largely the evidentiary relevance of various matters concerning OGNasty and if there is any accounting that needs to be done based on more recent evidentiary revelations or the extent that any of the new evidentiary revelations matter. Attempting to confuse matters? I am sorry if you were confused, I'm referring to your actions, not my state of thinking. but I can't be responsible for every simpleton that wanders in and has trouble reading my words.
Yes. You seem to have trouble focusing on the topic, and you seem inclined to attack people who seem to NOT be fully lovey dovey with your goals and objectives to confuse matters in order to protect your lil buddy... and that is not even attempting to say anything negative about OGNasty, it is just referring to your ongoing distraction pitbull-like behaviors. What was lame-ass was your original lazy opinion based on not even bothering to review the information fully, by your own admission, but still be willing to have a strong opinion about it.
I doubt my opinion was strong. I just was talking about the process that suggests reviewing evidence and logic to the extent that exists and is presented. This is exactly what I was criticizing about TwitchySeal. He knows damn well most people aren't going to bother to look that close and he has a good chance of convincing people through repetition of his baseless theories operant conditioning style.
Oh? I see. Twitchy is a menace to the forum because he presents evidence and logic, and the forum members are too fucking stupid to understand that Twitchy is full of shit, and so therefore, Twitchy should not be presenting such evidence to all of us (forum member) dumb fucks... because we are too damned gullible. And furthermore, Twitchy is tricky as fuck for engaging in such manipulation. Shame on you Twitchy!!!!! When I really consider what you are saying Tecshare, that makes a whole lot of sense. NOT. Combine this with the long term trend of himself and his buddies repeating this behavior clearly directed at OGNasty, and it becomes quite obvious this is about serving personal vendettas, not about righting any wrongs done.
You are so NOT very convincing in this regard. Evidence and logic is evidence and logic. Either it is convincing or it is not. Who knows how to resolve it, but members should be able to assess the information for themselves, and if any member has strong proposals or recommendations regarding what should be done or argued for in light of the evidence and arguments, then they should be free to make such assessments and to make whatever proposal, including the one that you are making (which is to drop the matter, but you are just one member, right?). Why would I want you to feel sorry for me?
Hopefully, you don't want that. What hole?
You got me? I don't know what hole you are referring to. Why is it you rely on projection so much?
Did not realize that I was doing that. Is it perhaps because you don't have any logical retort to what I said?
I don't know. I already responded to everything that seemed to be necessary to respond to. You, Tecshare, sure do seem to have a tendency to devolve into a lot of irrelevant divergencies, including questioning my own competencies or whatever you had been attempting to do in your post. Probably, I should apologize for responding to all of this seemingly irrelevant nonsense that Tecshare seems to be bringing up... but I tend to not be easily deterred.. regarding baloney talk... .. I might have to get a lesson from Nancy Reagan ("just say no"... ... hhahahahahahaha)... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
