|
Supplements are essentially like any other food, except often concentrated. Certain foods people react differently toward or are allergic to. Some make you fat, some give you energy, some are good for your skin, it is more of a matter of what nutrients you need at any given time. Calling a supplement bad for you isn't a clear metric. What might be bad for you may be good for some one else. It is best to just see what works best for you and pay attention to the results.
|
|
|
|
Mods, this post is very much on topic as it is an accusation based upon another accusation against me by Vod. Stop removing posts directly relating to this thread as off topic. They are very much on topic.Just more accusations stacked on top of old unsubstantiated accusations. No one can show anything demonstrable to support their claims, only a long string of accusations from people with personal issues. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg53761336#msg53761336Lectures me about setting and example about "forgiveness" as he negative rates me. These two are having fun trying to reinforce each other's accusations without actually substantiating anything. Neither the accusation by Vod, the original one, the one Nullius gave for the same unsubstantiated claim, or the new rating Vod left have any basis in fact, have nothing to document their claims with, and is clearly just abuse of the trust system to silence opposition.
|
|
|
|
Vod 2020-02-04 Reference " Mentally ill stalker who will post private messages then lie about it as revenge for ignoring him. Avoid. " |
|
|
|
So, when can we all get behind a minimum standard for accusation flags and ratings? More of the usual guilt via association, arbitrary accusations, and creative narration skills.
Well, it looks like eddie13 only left a neutral for OP, and as far as this thread goes it's just a discussion of the issues OP has with eddie13. If there's no merit to these accusations, OP isn't going to get a lot of support from the community--and it's entirely appropriate for a member to start a thread like this rather than jumping right to leaving negs and starting flags, no? Where is Eddie being explicitly scamming people ?
I don't know him all that well, but I don't recall him ever being involved with a scam, though he's gotten into some heated debate about some forum issues. I'm not convinced that what OP presented here is evidence that he tried to scam anyone or was involved in a project during which he knew it to be a scam. This looks like OP trying to exact some revenge because of eddie13's accusations against him by trying his hardest to sling some mud. Sure, appropriate. It is also appropriate for the community to then immediately expect him to substantiate his claims with SOMETHING other than simply claims right? |
|
|
|
|
So, when can we all get behind a minimum standard for accusation flags and ratings? More of the usual guilt via association, arbitrary accusations, and creative narration skills.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, censorship for reporting on the Corona virus, very much on topic.
My thread is locked because it would be this thread instead of my thread. You all get to gave your little mutual reassurance circle, and I get to have a public log of moderator actions taken. It seems pretty clear who has issues with public discussions here. Can any of you explain the point of this thread?
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking he fell for one of the articles with the fake "Democrats Push Legislation to Make Criticism of Government Officials a Criminal Offense" headlines, didn't realize they were amendments and misinterpreted the old laws (thinking they were new) to fit the headlines he had just read.
Most likely. Here's such an article from Newsmax: Not content with destroying the Second Amendment with a rushed-through laundry list of gun control measures, Virginia lawmakers are now assaulting the First Amendment, the most cherished of constitutional guarantees.
Virginia HB1627, introduced January 16, would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor for engaging in “Threats and harassment of certain officials and property.” According to the bill’s summary, it would come into play only:
“if the victim is the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.” Of course the author of this story either has serious reading comprehension problems or just didn't care what he wrote because he knew it would satisfy the hunger of his reader base -- either way it is purely a wrong take. Oh, here's what he more likely read: zerohedge's (also wrong) interpretation of the bill: Yet another new bill is on the table and this one criminalizes criticism of certain government officials...
By the very nature of running for public office, one should expect to be the target of some verbal harassment. People who are so thin-skinned as to make a law about why nobody should be able to say mean things to or about them have no business whatsoever in government. Again, the law has been effect for almost 20 years already. The proposed amendment serves to clarify where the prosecution should take place. [I post a bill] [you flip out and post a source for the bill I didn't even use and claim it discredits it as you project your imagination on me as usual] Thanks for more evidence of your mental illness. Now I am responsible for sources I didn't even use when I post directly from the Virginia legislature. Not insane at all. |
|
|
|
Can't post a quote because TECSHARE posted this in a locked topic; evidently he is afraid of debate: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103785.msg53770829#msg53770829Its hard to imagine he doesn't see the difference between just posting a meme without contributing to the discussion and a meme posted with conversation relevant to the discussion. - If you just post a meme (especially and off-topic one), you can expect it to be deleted as off-topic. - If you post a meme along with something relevant to the topic, you can expect it won't be deleted. Pretty simple, really. If TOAA can figure it out, I would think TS can as well. It's also hard to imagine that TS never reported just memes as being off-topic. Rules for theee but not for heee I suppose. Hopefully he takes solace in the fact that I am done posting in P&S -- its an absolute waste of time. Not that this is much better. You being an advocate of modern day book burning and censorship was very much on topic in a thread talking about a news outlet being censored. Twitchy seals little display of butthurt serves what purpose exactly? Just about as much as yours here. ~
Don't tell him that FHF is not a moderator in Meta (where Twitchy posted his gif), that'd spoil his day. Yep, because everyone knows two separate mods can't abuse their authority simultaneously don't you know? |
|
|
|
These two are having fun trying to reinforce each other's accusations without actually substantiating anything. Who, me and Vod? What, you think we’re just buddies scratching each others’ backs? For the record, I have exchanged with Vod exactly one private communication between 2018 and the present: A terse PM that I sent notifying him of this thread, with my apology for my message being about this. (It felt rude and excessively self-centred, because I had not sent him a hello since I returned from my long absence.) My communications (or lack thereof) with Vod are none of anybody’s business; but I think I should anyway mention that, for reasons that will presently become clear. Unlike suchmoon, I did not subsequently attempt lobbying him. If Vod has stood by his tag, it must only be because, well, it’s his tag, and he made it for reasons that he deemed sound in the first instance. I supported, and continue to support his tag, because I believe it is correct: TECSHARE abuses the trust system. And my respect for Vod is only increased by the fact that he has stood by his own tag, when he could have easily thrown me under the bus to appease suchmoon. In terms that seem embarrassingly old-fashioned nowadays, he has principles! And if he refuses to delete a tag to avoid personal inconvenience, that indicates on the flipside that he does not issue tags for personal convenience, either: Regardless of whether or not one agrees with his standards, he applies his own standards impartially. Whereas my treatment of this thread changed in the moment that I realized, I am not the one on trial here.suchmoon has repeatedly evaded the unavoidable syllogism: If ~nullius, then ~Vod; if not ~Vod, then not ~nullius.Suddenly searching post hoc for other nullian tags she disagrees with shows that suchmoon started with her conclusion, ~nullius, and then worked backwards to find some means to rationalize it without opposing Vod. It also shows how petty she is. Dragging Lauda through the mud on this thread was irrelevant—actually, off-topic. suchmoon has been ~Lauda for a long time. ~nullius ~Lauda would at least be consistent—something that I could agree to disagree about, as long as it’s ~nullius ~Lauda ~Vod. No? Then leave Lauda out of it, just continue excluding her for whatever reasons or unreasons you had before, and exclude neither me nor Vod. Any discussion of Lauda’s tag thus is off-topic on this thread, as a moot point that need not be reached beyond the iron logic of the “if ~nullius, then ~Vod; if not ~Vod, then not ~nullius” syllogism. I focus on suchmoon, because in substantial essence, this is suchmoon’s thread against me straight from post #2. TECSHARE’s OP is meaningless junk laced with baseless claims that I am “an alt of one of the usual members”—just another mundane daily whine from some idiot, not worth my attention. I would have ignored TECSHARE, whom I regard as a troll. I would have ignored anybody who usually supports TECSHARE. I could not ignore suchmoon. But suchmoon is not alone in hypocrisy here: After so many pages of mostly nonsense, I must now also remark on how TECSHARE demonstrates his own hypocrisy by cheering as a big, bad DT1 plays favourites whilst beating up on the little guy. Ain’t that nice for you, TECSHARE? This is what you always claim occurs, even when it doesn’t! Now, it is actually occurring—and you think it’s just fine. Why don’t you ask suchmoon to stop playing favourites, and treat the “little guy” the same way she treats the awesome 5-digit uid forum legend who founded BPIP?
Actually I do like your true colors. A lot. I prefer honesty whether it's intentional or not. Well, about that... http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5374/53741462.html(Immediately bookmarked by me in anticipation that it may disappear, as it did.)Hey cryptocunt, you try two hardy notttalky the inglich good. ...also, back atcha: I am passing judgment on you on this thread, suchmoon. Not vice versa. That's great. You are both very assured of yourselves. How about either or preferably both of you substantiate any of your claims, I mean like at all. All I have seen you do is demand the claims are true because Vod made the claim and he is intent on leaving it. That's called circular logic. You are literally claiming the thing is true because the claim that has been made is true. |
|
|
|
Off topic: A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Zerohedge just publish an article containing data and facts from other credible sources, if the Wuhan Coronavirus is a bio-weapon or not is all conspiracy till proven.
But there are news that infected have been treated with HIV retrovirus medication.
Bingo. I don't even have to bother to reply to Twitchy. All the info they collated was in the public domain. Someone just found it and wrote a very pertinent article about it. Yes, written in ZH style which seems to be what really gets under certain people's skin (for bizarre reasons which we can only speculate about.) I find the "ZH style" to be: - dishonest - inflammatory - non-factual - catering to an extremely selective audience and serving to profit from the reinforcement of their beliefs Anyone who rules out biological engineering is deliberately blind and totally ignorant of the science of the last 30 or 40 years. And ignorant of the current state of the analysis of 2019-nCoV at this time as well.
I'm not ruling it out but I'm saying it is highly unlikely. Coming from a biology background I require proof of these sorts of assertions, which is why I know for certain that ZH's articles on the subject are bumpkiss. Its like, didn't you guys even read the tweet that I posted that was later included in the article which undermined the premise of their entire fucking article? In so many words, they admitted they wrote a hacky, baseless story. Yet you guys keep believing it to be true. Why? What's in it for you other than you don't have to admit you believed a falsehood? If ZH made anything up about the BF guy in order to do their rebuttal the 'victim' has got a slam-dunk lawsuit, and nobody can tell me that BF doesn't have the funding to retain a few lawyers. In today's climate they could almost certainly win a claim against ZH no matter what the details and who is guilty I would guess, but we've still got that pesky discovery thing and there are still independent contents outlets that won't necessarily cover up the damage. For now.
After stumbling across a certain amount of BF content over the years, and trying to heal my bleeding eyes because of it, I have no trouble at all believing that the writer wants to be 'the Andy Warhol of hebephilia' or whatever it is that he is supposed to have written. In fact I bet that half of the writers for that rag would like the same thing. Until I see the guy prove that it is a malicious fabrication I'll assume it is probably true.
What does any of this have to do with the fact that this journalist exposed ZH for what they truly are? This was genuinely the first BF article I ever consciously read or remember reading. I don't give a shit about them. But because you do, it gives ZH credibility in their cowardly takedown of this journalist? Calling a journalist critical of one of your articles a pedophile instead of debunking their points is a logical response to you? This entire section of the forum should be nuked from existence. Its an absolute cesspit of stupidity, weakness and ignorance. I've wasted entirely too much time here. [imagines this entire tirade with a German accent and burning books in the background]  On topic: And you all turn your backs and look busy doing other things.
This kind of behavior is why people like Vod will be forever free to rampage across this community free of repercussion, and why people like me will never go away. Here I am making my appeal to the community to enforce its supposed standards, but those are only for special people right? The people we don't like they can just be clearly and openly abused using the tools of this system. I don't ever want to see any one of you crying about how much conflict there is around here ever again, because you do nothing to stop it.
I guess we just skip the step now where anyone even challenges Vod and he hides away for a week or two feigning remorse for what he has done and everyone share stories about how valuable of a member he is, so him abusing the system like this can be overlooked, infinite times.
TECSHARE has been getting abused for over 5 years now and you all are just turning your backs to look busy doing other things! I hope this puppy gif makes you feel better, TECSHARE.  |
|
|
|
|
And you all turn your backs and look busy doing other things.
This kind of behavior is why people like Vod will be forever free to rampage across this community free of repercussion, and why people like me will never go away. Here I am making my appeal to the community to enforce its supposed standards, but those are only for special people right? The people we don't like they can just be clearly and openly abused using the tools of this system. I don't ever want to see any one of you crying about how much conflict there is around here ever again, because you do nothing to stop it.
I guess we just skip the step now where anyone even challenges Vod and he hides away for a week or two feigning remorse for what he has done and everyone share stories about how valuable of a member he is, so him abusing the system like this can be overlooked, infinite times.
|
|
|
|
§ 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty."If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia."
|
|
|
|
Also is "lying" really a valid metric? Not on this forum...  I've seen too many bun fights break out here in Meta and on Reputation, where someone will say something that is simply "incorrect" (for whatever reason)... and the response is inevitably "That's a LIE!!!!!11!!11!1!!!ONEELEVEN!!!!!" Then the "Tells lies, is untrustworthy" red tags start... and the next thing you know we have about 23983475893653456407498 threads titled something like "REEEEEEEEEEEEE <insert name> tells LIES and is ABUSING TRUST"  Apparently nobody makes mistakes around here... instead they're all deliberately intending to deceive Kudos to Theymos for attempting to clarify (again) what his thoughts are on Trust and Flags... The very muddy water is slightly less muddy  Kind of my point. This arbitrary standard causes plenty of conflict and solves nothing. |
|
|
|
"Vod 2020-02-03 Reference (Removed neutral comment because it is still continuing)
Be careful what "personal messages" you send this profile, because if he has a whim of dislike about you, he will post them for all to see. See reference link. " Do I even need to say anything at this point? Is any one else going to tell him he is out of line? This isn't the first time... |
|
|
|
- Reasonable (articulable) suspicion: You have a suspicion which can be clearly explained in reasonable terms. More than a mere hunch; much more than a guess. But still no more than a suspicion.
- Probable cause: On the face of things (at first sight, “prima facie”), the accused probably did it.
- Preponderance of the evidence: Evidence of guilt outweighs evidence of innocence. Implemented via those balance scales you see carved into statues of blindfolded ladies. Note: This requires reasonable thoroughness in loading both sides of the scale, not just stuffing one side and jumping to a conclusion.
- Clear and convincing evidence: Evidence of guilt is strong. Evidence of innocence is weak or nonexistent.
- Moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt: The only way he didn’t do it is if space aliens did it instead.
What would you say is the standard of evidence in this case? Kind of seems like it would barely qualify for the first one... Except in this case you have a bunch of people throwing accusations into a hat and taping them together as if they make each other valid like some kind of accusatory Voltron that has more powers when they combine. None of these accusations meet the minimum standard of evidence and they are all referencing back to each other, none of them referencing anything documented or observable that is evidence of anything objectionable whatsoever. Frankly in spite of my low expectations for people in general, I am amazed how many here think this has any substance to it whatsoever when it is literally nothing more than an accusation. All from people with long publicly documented histories of antipathy toward me of course... |
|
|
|
Roughly 10–20 million dogs are killed for consumption in China each year, making the country the world's largest consumer of dog meat. Consuming dog meat is not illegal in mainland China, and the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture has never issued quarantine procedures for slaughtering dogs.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meatJust sayin. The key word here is pets. This is pretty excessive, useless, and authoritarian exercise. Perhaps they should kill all the sparrows while they are at it too... This is a base example of trauma based mind control. Kill your pet or go to prison. You are damned if you do you are damned if you don't. If you do then you chose complicity in your mind, and it will be harder to sway you from that which you made such a sacrifice for. If you don't they lock you up and probably kill your pet anyway. There is no evidence it is being spread through pets. I can understand mandating keeping them indoors, but this is way out of line. |
|
|
|
if anything i'm trying to rile myself up into leaving counter feedback, since i know it will lead to more unfounded accusations against me. i'm already called a "trust abuser" / "scam defender" / "malicious distractor" because i asked for actual real proof or consistency in DT feedback a couple times.  I exactly know what you are talking about! I have also asked for proofs dozen times already for various things, but seems I am still trust abuser and mob! No proofs ever came! And seems some accounts have been excluded from someone's trust network because of the same thing! Crazy!
Anyway, regarding feedbacks on account TECSHARE 1) I countered Vod's feedback long time ago 2) I placed feedback "troll" because after closer look I figured out that user is trolling (I previously removed counter) 3) Someone told me why I shouldn't leave feedback if someone is troll so I removed -ve 4) Actually, this was second "trolling" feedback I had to remove, so no -ve for trolling, I get it! 5) What he does is speaking one thing and doing another (it is documented, if someone wants to pretend they don't see it, well, it is not my fucking problem) 6) It is obvious what TECSHARE did here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182990.msg52406348#msg52406348, well, we can discuss whether this is true or not, we can also all drop to room temperature IQ and talk whether lemon is yellow or red, or is fake coin scam or not, it is also not my problem) 7) His most claims are not backed up with any proof, like his claim in this topic for example ( I AM STILL WAITING FOR PROOF OF CONNECTION - someone also expressed strong opinion against this in that other thread, nothing about this in this thread, nothing about that in that other thread - DOUBLE STANDARDS!)  theymos should fix 8 9) T reminds me of politicians a lot, that is not good, for a trusted person, I can't trust users who he has on his trust list, no one should, that is really bad actually. Not to mention some inclusions he doesn't want to remove. 10) Finally, I was thinking a lot lately, TECSHARE is trusted trader but that doesn't mean he is not a big troll, still, I can trust him with trades as he has very long trading history, but some of his "actions"...uh uh uh...still, as I said, he IS trusted trader, should not be tagged <-- which is worth for this discussion. 11) And no, I won't stop pointing his nonsense and some weird theories which he has formed in his mind: Not really, it is just a low cost strategy to give the image of impartiality where none exists so they can abuse it later when it serves them. Marlboroza does the same thing.
----------------------------------------------------- This post is not open for discussion!
TMAN is more drunk.. TS is still a cunt,. Any more updates?
Don't drive. 1) and shortly after removed the very next instance your jimmies were ruffled. 2) Consensus is this is not a valid use of the trust system, but spam away. 3) That was the right move. 4) This is starting to drift way off topic... shocking. 5) More flailing desperately to justify your overreach. 6) What "I did there"? That link is an accusation against me, based on nothing more than the delusions and fairy tales of Nutilduhhhh, I didn't do anything. I won't go so far as to say this makes him a "scammer," but its pretty dishonest behavior. Its obvious what TS has been doing over the past few months, and its evidenced best by him adding 6 Turkish local board DT1s to his trust list weeks or days after they were added to DT1.
...
As you can see, Matthias9515 was the only member to trust TECSHARE first, and TS didn't get a reciprocal trust from by rallier or PHI1618. He also added Vispilio to his list, who recently fell off DT1 for not having the minimum requirements. He also did the same thing with WhiteManWhite:...
Would you trust somebody who goes around adding new DT1s to his trust list despite having no previous interaction with them whatsoever, and who doesn't speak their native tongue? I wouldn't. Is it obvious? That is a phrase people like to use when they don't have evidence of something and they want to convince you of it. So far I see an accusation of adding 6 Turkish users to my trust list, and claims that this is some how "dishonest". I get to use my vote like everyone else? THAT'S DISHONEST, ITS OBVIOUS! What this boils down to is the usual guilt via association mentality that is so popular around this forum combined with some spurious correlation.  As we can see here, obviously Nicolas Cage movies cause swimming pool drownings. They both correlate right? Everyone knows things that correlate are causally related right? It is not like there are literally thousands of other reasons why those things might happen, Private Dick Nutilduhhh is on the case to tell you how it is! This is all just a result of butthurt that couldn't be soothed with mere words, so they feel the need to attack my reputation in a lame attempt to harm my ability to trade and use the forum like everyone else. 7) No one cares/OT 9) Well gee, good of you to impose your fantasies on me because imagination. More of the usual guilt via association and demands that you get to dictate inclusions to my trust list for some reason "or else". In this case "or else" comes in the form of negative trust ratings over various amorphous, arbitrary, and totally undocumented accusations against me. 10) Actions? What actions? You mean accusations, spurious correlations, and guilt via association? That thread is evidence of nothing but Nutilduhh's obsessive need to abuse the trust system as a tool to fight their own personal petty grievances. The rest of you are just using it to build your mountain of bullshit upon to try to establish a narrative here. 11) Like I did, the very first moment you got your jimmies russled, you removed that counter rating. You just thought it was a carrot you could use to train me. I am not interested in your moldy carrot. 12) Jesus Christ is it over already? |
|
|
|
|
marlboroza 2019-12-31 troll
How much more clear does it need to be made that certain people are intent on using the trust system as a weapon to silence people who disagree with them?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
