Urgh!
Again with the, "I've seen . . ." and "when I look at . . ." - Evidence or shut the fuck up you tedious infant.

So you defend it on the basis of being 'pretty sure'? How about those pm's I get from people who genuinely didn't understand what they were sending money to? I've also mentioned that there are many users of this forum who struggle to understand English and are prone to misunderstanding what the 'investment' they are getting involved with actually is. So that disproves your weak claim that 'everybody' knows what they are sending money to.

So you're saying you are familiar with a reasoned rebuttal but demand that you be allowed to persist with knowingly posting fallacious argument instead because . . .reasons?

Sure, sounds legit.

This'll be 'literally' as in, 'Completely fabricated assertion', more commonly known as a lie or, colloquially speaking, utter fucking bollocks.

Hahahaaaa! That is a genuinely funny example of taking mangled reasoning to the extreme, QS. It has to be QS, right? I've only encountered one person on this forum who routinely tries floating those kind of stinkers when lashing out about being held to account for his scammy behaviour and QS is the master of it.

LOL! Another fail!

You didn't state an opinion you asserted a subjective fact dressed as an ad hominem


Except it isn't, that's just you failing at honest argument, again. No reasoning, no evidence, baseless subjective conjecture.

Dude, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. That's the best advice I can give you at this time. But feel free to continue providing the stream of data points I am able to use to shred your use of subjective argument fallacies, especially on the basis that you claim to actually be fully aware of what they are yet still insist on employing them.

LMFAO! Nice work, fella!

You went full Godwin, never go full Godwin.

While you're at it, stop fucking whining about the concept of being held to account for your harmful actions.

So you claim to know what a logical fallacy is but choose to employ them as the basis for your response anyway?

Intellectual honesty fail.

The fuck? Are you retarded or do you just pretend to be?

An attempted ponzi scam is still an attempted ponzi scam whether it pays users for a few rounds or not. If it can't show that it is a legitimate investment service then it is not a legitimate investment service.

As for your allegations 'WingTsun', your world is clearly a deeply dark and dismal place. Besides that, you're full of shit so, you know, go fuck yourself.

It claims to be an investment platform with absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

It is safe to assume that the returns it quotes are intended to be generated by simply taking funds from other users, ergo, a ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme will always collapse because of math, leaving users having lost their money or, for some, having profited from a share of that stolen money. Nothing about that arrangement is fair or justified, therefore, it is a scam and is marked as such.

Go look up 'appeal to futility' fallacy.

That's called fraud. It is a criminal offence. Everywhere.

PM's I have received prove that you cannot know that everybody who participates understands what a ponzi is so, therefore, your assertion is false.

Posting support in a ponzi thread implies legitimacy, especially from established forum members. This is what the ponzi scammers need you to do and, by doing so, you encourage other people to deposit which is pretty much the reason why you do it. Don't pretend you're too stupid to understand even that basic principal. This means you are intentionally helping scumbags run a scheme which *will* result in people having their money stolen.


I keep hearing you lot use that phrase. I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

Please, go ahead, define 'out of control' for me. Surely, for me to be 'out of control' you would be able to offer up evidence of how I am on a rampage of abusive and outrageously unfair issuing of negative rating to users?

Surely, on the basis of just how frequently you muppets and puppets employ that phrase, you'd actually have some fucking evidence to support it?

No?

And they will be tagged as such for supporting ponzi scammers and helping them steal money from other users.

There are more than enough legitimate gaming, gambling and investment sites for people to avail themselves of without resorting to seeking to profit from fraud and theft.

So you defend a fallacious tone complaint (please, ffs, will you lot look up what logical fallacies are), by making a tone complaint?

Amazingly, however, you appear utterly incapable of acknowledging that, outside of tone complaints, slippery-slope, straw-man, red-herring, false equivalence, appeal to motive, reductio ad absurdem and 'Godwin', those who oppose the move to hold people to account for their dishonest behaviour, haven't actually presented a single fucking reasoned rebuttal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking

Now, why don't you take a minute to think how fucking irritating it must be to have to constantly rebut the dishonest arguments of these scamming scumbags (because, let's be honest here, the only people who resent being held to account for their actions are those for whom being evidently dishonest is an inherent part of their psyche) repeatedly posting vapid nonsense complaints and refusing to offer up anything of actual substance.

Multiply those arseholes to the power of 'sock' and you might accept that having to do this over and over again, to the same dishonest scumbags, is pretty fucking tiresome. So, no, I won't accept your attempted defence of tone complaint.

Did you use your humongous brain to figure that out, kiddo?
Site T&C's reviewed

Following this review I am of the opinion that this thread is in the wrong forum section and, more importantly, the game operates on a legitimate principal.



There, fixed it for you.

So, let me get this right.

A band of socks, alts and general idiots can't actually provide any evidence of trust abuse, but they believe simply whining about tagging posts indicative of untrustworthy behaviour will somehow magically make their fallacious reasoning and dishonest argument transmogrify into reasoned rebuttal?

Sure, sounds legit.