Game only has 22 levels, on 'level 23' it just says GAME OVER.
Maybe I should pick up where I left off at 18 then. FINALLY figured 18 out. 20-22 were lame.  |
|
|
|
|
Someone took it, lock topic?
|
|
|
|
|
Don't Bitch & Whine, Bet & Win!
Bedouin? No, Bet & Win!
Kick the Buck, Bet & Win!
|
|
|
|
|
LMFAO level 12 was right up left down.
|
|
|
|
|
12: not impossible but I thought I'd never reach it after many many deaths, so I didn't record my moves.
|
|
|
|
Poll Auto Closed
Almost 95% of people (19 out of 20) feel that escrowing for yourself is wrong.
That is overwhelming community agreement.
Let future scammers know if they try this, they will be ostracized from the community just like Cody/Quickscammer.
Not people, accounts, which might be controlled by the same person, but still argued by indefensible bullshitters to be third-parties.  |
|
|
|
|
"Exactly", "but most likely never", LOL perhaps you'd like to spend your time correcting your quotes of my posts instead of equivocating your argument into oblivion. I'm unwatching this topic and don't plan to edit my replies (further than bringing the newest quote trees in line with my older posts) anymore.
|
|
|
|
It's going to be horribly difficult to move all the previous posts over there in chrono order. |
|
|
|
What Bob is pretty much right about is that we have little recourse against an anonymous entity. What Bob is wrong about is that that somehow excuses whatever that anonymous entity did.
And I love the logic, "The victim thought it was a third party at the time so nothing wrong happened."
"The users of Mt. Gox thought it was a great exchange, so nothing wrong happened."
Umm we are not talking about any loss of money here are we? If so I may be wrong but I did not see where QS had stolen any money or covered up a hack as was the case with mtgox. We absolutely are. The escrow fees for a non-existent by definition, escrow agent. You are either bold-faced lying or willfully ignorant. Your choice. Nahh dude.. The buyer or seller, whoever it was who paid the escrow fee got what they paid for.. They paid to have an account, not a person, hold money for them during a business deal. Who was behind the account has no bearing on the situation at hand because the payer got what he paid for which was an account to hold said funds. Stop trying to beat me up here.. This (bct) is a fucking anonymous world, where everyone is using pseudonyms. If you dont like the rules then dont play the game. More indefensible bullshit from you. An escrow agent is not defined as "an account". A counterparty paid for an escrow agent and got their own counterparty instead of a third party, as required by the definition of escrow agent. If you don't like being "beat up" then don't play your indefensible bullshit game. Ok bro.. now your really coming off like a loser liar. Never ever have I ever had more the 15ml of any alcoholic beverage. Not at the bar, not at the restaurant, not at my friends house, not at the bowling alley. Never ever have I ever.
lmao.
Your libel continues. Perhaps you'd like to libel Penn Jillette a liar too, about his life of non-alcoholic drinking? |
|
|
|
What Bob is pretty much right about is that we have little recourse against an anonymous entity. What Bob is wrong about is that that somehow excuses whatever that anonymous entity did.
And I love the logic, "The victim thought it was a third party at the time so nothing wrong happened."
"The users of Mt. Gox thought it was a great exchange, so nothing wrong happened."
Umm we are not talking about any loss of money here are we? If so I may be wrong but I did not see where QS had stolen any money or covered up a hack as was the case with mtgox. We absolutely are. The escrow fees for a non-existent by definition, escrow agent. You are either bold-faced lying or willfully ignorant. Your choice. LMAO. 15ml, more like 40oz.
Your choice is bold-faced lies, then. You're libeling against one of the core tenets of my identity at this point. I have not and will never intentionally drink more than that amount of alcohol. The first time was when I was served champagne as a minor at a wedding reception, despite requesting Martinelli's non-alcoholic sparking apple cider and only taking a sip of the champagne to make sure, and the second time was when I tasted a few drops from a wine bottle when I was of legal age. Both times I got a headache from such a minuscule amount. |
|
|
|
More indefensible BS by Bobsurplus, whose "logic" would require every contract killer and their hit caller, who didn't use their legal names in contract, no matter any amount of other proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to be found innocent.
Contempt of court, law, humanity.
Are you fucking retarded? How is a contract killer using a fake name going to save him from a murder charge? LoL, We are talking about apples and oranges here. One is a breach of trust/contract situation and the other is one of the most despicable things one person can do to another which in some places carries the death penalty. Maybe put down the drink and sober up a bit before running off at the mouth agian. Thanks bro. We're talking about victimful crimes. Fraud and murder, both have victims, regardless of the victims speaking up or not. I have never drank more than 15 mL of alcoholic beverages, but thanks for digging your pit of indefensible, contemptible bullshit even deeper. |
|
|
|
No but you cant enter into a contract with anyone unless you have at least a real name. So any contract entered by one fake name to another fake name cant possibly be executed.
More indefensible BS by Bobsurplus, whose "logic" would require every contract killer and their hit caller, who didn't use their legal names in contract, no matter any amount of other proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to be found innocent. Contempt of court, law, humanity. |
|
|
|
Listen bro, take all that legalese back to the court room. The escrow for all intents and purposes was a third party. It was a forum name with an anon identity. Point final.
Your final point remains indefensible and will be quickly laughed out of court with a contempt citation, as there is 20 BTC on the line for a libel case. One intent and purpose was to fraudulently obtain escrow fees, otherwise none of the Quickseller escrows where Quickseller admitted to being the NON-THIRD PARTY, but 1/2 COUNTERPARTY, fraudulent escrow agent, would have been a paid service; they would have ALL been free, yet still not by OED definition - ONLY indefensible bullshitter definition, "escrows". But at the time no one was the wiser.
AKA an element of fraud. |
|
|
|
Got caught out doing what? Running a business?  I'm going to need a BTC-signed YES or NO answer, from Bobsurplus (using 1BobSurplusHa1ha8ha4HaL0Lo7SurplusBob), to the following question: Do you, Bobsurplus, support the business of fraud and/or self-dealing - which is what some may falsely define as "escrowing for yourself" "self-escrow" "middlemanning for yourself" "self-middlemanning"? Is your legal name TheButterZone? You're a fraud. Indefensible bullshit to say a username with no legal name duplication requirement (statutes infringing human rights or struck down by the courts are invalid), nor claim thereof, is fraud. Staff, please investigate Bobsurplus as a Quickseller alt if you agree that they fit the profile. They can investigate all they want. I'm not quickseller nor have I ever been. What Im saying is that the forum rules make it ok for people to have multiple forum accounts. Therefore it is not fraud if he uses one of those accounts to do business. It is business. 1 out of 2 exclusive parties to a trade, cannot be the escrow agent by definition. Regardless of whether restitution was made, fraud occurred if 1 out of 2 exclusive parties pretended to be an escrow agent. Defending the indefensible ad infinitum justifies a lifetime permaban of all accounts. Once again... I'm going to need a BTC-signed YES or NO answer, from Bobsurplus (using 1BobSurplusHa1ha8ha4HaL0Lo7SurplusBob), to the following question:
Do you, Bobsurplus, support the business of fraud and/or self-dealing - which is what some may falsely define as "escrowing for yourself" "self-escrow" "middlemanning for yourself" "self-middlemanning"?
ETA: Oops, not a valid BTC address. Well, I need a clearsigned answer nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Got caught out doing what? Running a business? I'm going to need a BTC-signed YES or NO answer, from Bobsurplus (using 1BobSurplusHa1ha8ha4HaL0Lo7SurplusBob), to the following question: Do you, Bobsurplus, support the business of fraud and/or self-dealing - which is what some may falsely define as "escrowing for yourself" "self-escrow" "middlemanning for yourself" "self-middlemanning"? Is your legal name TheButterZone? You're a fraud. Indefensible bullshit to say a username with no legal name duplication requirement (statutes infringing human rights or struck down by the courts are invalid), nor claim thereof, is fraud. Staff, please investigate Bobsurplus as a Quickseller alt if you agree that they fit the profile. |
|
|
|
Got caught out doing what? Running a business? I'm going to need a BTC-signed YES or NO answer, from Bobsurplus (using 1BobSurplusHa1ha8ha4HaL0Lo7SurplusBob), to the following question: Do you, Bobsurplus, support the business of fraud and/or self-dealing - which is what some may falsely define as "escrowing for yourself" "self-escrow" "middlemanning for yourself" "self-middlemanning"? ETA: Oops, not a valid BTC address. Well, I need a clearsigned answer nonetheless. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
