A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.
A genuine skeptic. A pleasure to meet you. The fun part is that the estimation is supposedly made by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Policy is made based on their estimations. I'm hoping that the reporter made a stupid typing mistake when writing the copy. |
|
|
|
You are well aware that you're not allowed to sell those keys. These keys are generated from an MSDN account and are explicitly not for resale. Also you obtain those MSDN accounts by abusing Bizspark. Bizspark subscriptions that you obtain through more fraud.
You are a true and verified fraudster. There's no need to deny it.
Do NOT judge people by your "opinion". Have you ever got a key from me ? If no don't ever tell me where I got those keys from and how to get them OK ? I don't judge you by "opinion". I judge you by using Occam's razor on your action: selling Microsoft Product Keys for too good to be true prices. Fact: Bizspark allows you to produce keys and even a few MSDN accounts that can provide more keys. Bizspark is free for tech startups. Fraudsters get Bizspark on false pretense and sell the keys / MSDN accounts. All keys obtained this way are not for resale. And that's exactly what you're doing. Feel free to counter my claims and explain how you are a authorized Microsoft re-seller though. My keys are not from Bizspark, that may be all you need to know. Oh, great. Secrecy. How about trying transparency for the next post and telling us where your keys do come from and how you're an authorized Microsoft re-seller. So far all your replies are saying "fraud". I won't. If you want to know the secret, go find it yourself. I think you have failed to refute my claim. You are a fraud. It seems you want me to tell how I manage this business. There is no need for me to prove anything here. I want you to prove that you're legit. And I'm saying you can't, because obviously you are not legit. I've never done below before. Let's see how it works out!  |
|
|
|
You are well aware that you're not allowed to sell those keys. These keys are generated from an MSDN account and are explicitly not for resale. Also you obtain those MSDN accounts by abusing Bizspark. Bizspark subscriptions that you obtain through more fraud.
You are a true and verified fraudster. There's no need to deny it.
Do NOT judge people by your "opinion". Have you ever got a key from me ? If no don't ever tell me where I got those keys from and how to get them OK ? I don't judge you by "opinion". I judge you by using Occam's razor on your action: selling Microsoft Product Keys for too good to be true prices. Fact: Bizspark allows you to produce keys and even a few MSDN accounts that can provide more keys. Bizspark is free for tech startups. Fraudsters get Bizspark on false pretense and sell the keys / MSDN accounts. All keys obtained this way are not for resale. And that's exactly what you're doing. Feel free to counter my claims and explain how you are a authorized Microsoft re-seller though. My keys are not from Bizspark, that may be all you need to know. Oh, great. Secrecy. How about trying transparency for the next post and telling us where your keys do come from and how you're an authorized Microsoft re-seller. So far all your replies are saying "fraud". I won't. If you want to know the secret, go find it yourself. I think you have failed to refute my claim. You are a fraud. |
|
|
|
You are well aware that you're not allowed to sell those keys. These keys are generated from an MSDN account and are explicitly not for resale. Also you obtain those MSDN accounts by abusing Bizspark. Bizspark subscriptions that you obtain through more fraud.
You are a true and verified fraudster. There's no need to deny it.
Do NOT judge people by your "opinion". Have you ever got a key from me ? If no don't ever tell me where I got those keys from and how to get them OK ? I don't judge you by "opinion". I judge you by using Occam's razor on your action: selling Microsoft Product Keys for too good to be true prices. Fact: Bizspark allows you to produce keys and even a few MSDN accounts that can provide more keys. Bizspark is free for tech startups. Fraudsters get Bizspark on false pretense and sell the keys / MSDN accounts. All keys obtained this way are not for resale. And that's exactly what you're doing. Feel free to counter my claims and explain how you are a authorized Microsoft re-seller though. My keys are not from Bizspark, that may be all you need to know. Oh, great. Secrecy. How about trying transparency for the next post and telling us where your keys do come from and how you're an authorized Microsoft re-seller. So far all your replies are saying "fraud". |
|
|
|
You are well aware that you're not allowed to sell those keys. These keys are generated from an MSDN account and are explicitly not for resale. Also you obtain those MSDN accounts by abusing Bizspark. Bizspark subscriptions that you obtain through more fraud.
You are a true and verified fraudster. There's no need to deny it.
Do NOT judge people by your "opinion". Have you ever got a key from me ? If no don't ever tell me where I got those keys from and how to get them OK ? I don't judge you by "opinion". I judge you by using Occam's razor on your action: selling Microsoft Product Keys for too good to be true prices. Fact: Bizspark allows you to produce keys and even a few MSDN accounts that can provide more keys. Bizspark is free for tech startups. Fraudsters get Bizspark on false pretense and sell the keys / MSDN accounts. All keys obtained this way are not for resale. And that's exactly what you're doing. Feel free to counter my claims and explain how you are a authorized Microsoft re-seller though. |
|
|
|
The idea of "illegal data" is indeed very ridiculous for a variety of reasons.
I believe that it is not actually strictly illegal for bitcointalk.org to allow people to post SSNs (though it may be illegal for the poster in some circumstances). It's probably also not illegal for me to allow users to post death threats, or links to Silk Road-type sites, or detailed instructions on how best to kidnap someone. But even though these aren't illegal for bitcointalk.org, defending these activities (especially to ISPs and other service providers) is too difficult/expensive to really justify.
If you need to use someone SSN etc. in order to prove that they were scamming or to link some scamming to them as an individual, then I will probably go out of my way to allow this. But if their identity and crimes are already well-known, then it's not worth the trouble.
And this is were the justice systems fails. Anyone with pockets deep enough can bully others to do (or not do) whatever they want by making it too difficult/expensive to defend it... |
|
|
|
Bought a Win 8 key through the Store and worked great!
Thanks
Until the stolen key gets flagged and you lose your access. Good luck getting a refund from this scammer.  Thank you for spamming my thread once again,but I assure you I do give refunds. Yesterday for example, I refunded a person just because he bought too many keys accidently. You guys sadly, don't see what happens behins the scene. LOL dont see things behind closed doors? I am one of your customers and you never refunded me for a product that did not work. SCAMMER - DO NOT BUYI tried to give you replacements, but you didn't accept them. Bump, just bought a new business laptop so I can help you customers even more. If you're running a business I would be interested in buying in bulk. I'm willing to do a test purchase of a single Windows 8.1 License from you but I need a tax invoice. |
|
|
|
|
You are well aware that you're not allowed to sell those keys. These keys are generated from an MSDN account and are explicitly not for resale. Also you obtain those MSDN accounts by abusing Bizspark. Bizspark subscriptions that you obtain through more fraud.
You are a true and verified fraudster. There's no need to deny it.
|
|
|
|
I detect a bit of irony in theymos' post where he says "...insecure legacy..." and "...scam investigation...". Question: does this mean we can post any such numbers backwards without incurring Inaba's wrath? It's so sad to see theymos now being Inaba's bitch. But I think that this means that Bruno cannot be held liable for Josh's SSN, because it was found in a publicly available source. Its being removed further exonerates Bruno of any liability. So in a way, Josh just helped you out, dude!  For legal reasons, any sort of secret ID code/number that is used by the insecure legacy government/banking systems is banned from bitcointalk.org. It's a well-known fact that banking systems use the last four digits on a person's SSN to verify one's identity, in my and Sonny Vleisides cases, 6586. So, by extension, according to the new policy NO 4-digit numbers will be allowed on this forum from this day forward otherwise it'll violate the new policy. And, if the policy is immediately changed due to this loophole, then that'll put the entire policy into question. While it is a shame, I completely understand it from a liability standpoint.
i'd do the same thing.
However, it appears that you can just post a link to the document and if others find the info then oh well.
Better yet, putting a permanent link in one's sig, i.e.: Please no not post so-and-so's SSN found via the following link: https//............ You can still publish any information, as long as you do it in a way that does not make BCT/Theymos liable. |
|
|
|
I mean, this has always sort of been a policy, just probably due to recent events its worth reminding everyone. The difference between Doxing someone, and posting information such as a SSN, is that information gathered in a Dox is public info. If you go through phone books, Google, etc and find out info about someone, the fact that it was already out there and available means its not private. In that case you are just putting a compliation of info together. SSNs/Credit Card info, etc is not something you are going to find in any public record, and it can be assumed that it was gathered unlawfully.
In this case the the SSN was retrieved from a public court document. By your definition that would be fine, while it isn't. There is certain information that cannot be posted (regardless on how it was obtained). Edit: Is it just me, or does it seem that Theymos/this forum is getting more attention from authorities recently? |
|
|
|
Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.
1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time
Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.
It may be weird but IMHO there is valid point for adding a negative trust though I don't know what's Quickseller's intention. - 2.5 years ago TF was in default trust list. - tspacepilot earned Bitcoins from coinchat using bots. - TF added a negative trust feedback and was in trusted feedback. - TF was removed and the feedback went to untrusted feedback. - Quickseller bumped it because that is a scammy behaviour. - Hence, everybody can see his scammy behaviour. Leaving negative feedback for things happened long ago isn't unwarranted/unjustified. Maybe unwarranted wasn't the right word to use... It just seems petty to me, that's all. Yeah, I do think from reading about the old issue that tspacepilot abused coinchat. I also think he's been around since then without any issues.... I don't see him running off and pulling a scam in the near future. I'm not putting a negative feedback on your account because of that cookie you stole from the jar when you were a kid either, am I? That would be petty. Especially if it would cause you to get kicked out of that precious signature campaign Again, it's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
If he's selling this, why does he has so many negative trust? @RoSeawolf
If you click on the trust link you would see why: Selling MSDN admins -- will remove this rating, if you stop doing that. Selling stolen MSDN Admin invites. They will stop working in the future. They're selling something that they're not allowed to sell. |
|
|
|
|
Alright, here's my 2 cents. 2 cents is not a lot, so I will keep it short.
1) I think you abused the coinchat x years ago
2) I think it's weird for Quickseller to add a new negative feedback after such a long time
Personally I think it is unwarranted to put a new negative feedback for something that transpired long ago. Just like it is strange to post again in a long dead scam accusation thread.
|
|
|
|
So you feel that all users should be treated equal. I'm not convinced that I should treat Supa the same as Badbear. I would not trade with the former, but would with the latter. And on that same train of thought why should I not value the (trust) opinion of certain members over that of others?
What you're suggesting sounds silly to me. I do not trust those who have proven to be fraudulent and I don't value their trust feedback either. I trust those who have good track records on here more (though I will still do my due diligence) and I value their trust more. Now I pick those members myself, but I did base some decisions of the Default Trust list. It seems like a reasonable default to me.
As said before ratings are given based on the behavior of the user who's suspected of scamming and the experience of the user giving the feedback. Those on the receiving end can defend themselves. Can you provide an example where
1) someone was suspected of scamming
2) they provided information to show they were legit
3) the negative feedback did not get removed and
4) the person that left the negative feedback is (still) in the Default Trust list?
I guess I have argued enough on this topic and have had my say. I may sound silly and so I think about these Virtual Police Inspectors. For me, I'm educated and I don't care if anyone thinks anything about me. @bold: That's what I as well do but I even chose not to deal with them if I find their behavior suspicious or find them rude. That should be chosen by me instead of making others forcing me to deal with these trusted members and use them as escrow. There are only 1-2 members whom I trust here and if I want to deal with them, I will. Badbear is the admin so I said that except admins, there shouldn't be any default trust members that I should trust by default but that's me. I don't know if this user is on the default trust list but he is a legendary member who has left negative trust "Luke-Jr 0: -0 / +0(0) 2014-08-31 0.00000000 Reference "Too good to be true", or at least teaches people to be scammer victims (see link)" on Bipolar's profile. I noticed that Bipolar isn't a fraud but still many people thought he is suspicious and left negative trust feedback which they removed later but not all who removed it. Now someone will argue that one negative trust doesn't matter. I would only say "Continue your argument." Personally I couldn't agree more with the bolded statement. People should make a conscious decision on who they trust. The trust feedback provided is merely a tool that can help in determining who you trust or not. However, for those who do not (for whatever reason) make conscious decisions the Default Trust list is provided... Which is not perfect, but fair enough.
As said before ratings are given based on the behavior of the user who's suspected of scamming and the experience of the user giving the feedback. Those on the receiving end can defend themselves. Can you provide an example where
1) someone was suspected of scamming
2) they provided information to show they were legit
3) the negative feedback did not get removed and
4) the person that left the negative feedback is (still) in the Default Trust list?
To be completely honest, I cannot provide you with exactly the scenario you request. But this comes in part from the subjectivity of many of these qualities. 1) "Scamming": one person's "scam" is another person's business. Vod considers anyone selling MSCorp stuff to be scamming, but many people consider that an honest day's work (I'm personally ambivalent on this one, I just use it as an example of the interpretive nature of "scamming"). 2) "providing evidence": why should one have to prove one's innocence in the face of subjective accusations. For example, upthread ACCTSeller decided that since I'm suggesting that the trust system be "weakened" I must be an alt of a "scammer" or in some way be up to no good and he therefore neg-reps me (btw, no problem, he's not on default trust, no one will see his trolling feedback). If he were on default trust, why would I have to "prove" or "provide evidence" that my criticisms of the trust system aren't "a scam". And how could I ever do so, given the subjective nature of "scam". So, I don't have (3) or (4) since, as I said above, I don't have a perfect example to feed you. In general, in this thread, I see people saying "yes, the default-trusters are a kinda unregulated police" and others saying "nah, they are helpful". I think that I want to acknowledge some truth in both sides, yet I still think the forum could be a better, more drama-free place if we could do something to reign in things a bit. As I said earlier, even changing the text from a big red "WARNING...CAUTION" to a yellow "This person has received negative feedback from someone on your trust list" would be a big improvement, I think. Especially because using the phrase "your trust list" would hopefully invite people to ask themselves "my trust list? I have a trust list?" and then go ahead and figure out how to use the trust list properly for themselves, if default trust is going to continue to be an opt-out system. That is because the trust is supposed to work in a (small?) community. If x is on default trust and starts leaving fake trust then y will remove x from their trust list. Default trusters are not police; they have 0 power to stop someone. They can just use words to warn. And if the community values their opinion it will be shown prominently. I do like any suggestion that triggers people to learn about the trust system though. So if the wording of the warning is changed to encourage that (or a tooltip is added or something) I am all for it. |
|
|
|
TL;D(id)R
So you feel that all users should be treated equal. I'm not convinced that I should treat Supa the same as Badbear. I would not trade with the former, but would with the latter. And on that same train of thought why should I not value the (trust) opinion of certain members over that of others? What you're suggesting sounds silly to me. I do not trust those who have proven to be fraudulent and I don't value their trust feedback either. I trust those who have good track records on here more (though I will still do my due diligence) and I value their trust more. Now I pick those members myself, but I did base some decisions of the Default Trust list. It seems like a reasonable default to me. ...
I agree that these DEFAULT TRUST MEMBERS have been able to stop scams with the help of their power to be in the depth 2 but what about the ratings they give only based on an assumption? Would they compensate for the loss the user has to bear as he/she has received a negative trust rating for no reason? Others would just go by their trust or some may give an argument that since you are blaming a default trust member, you are a scammer. They have basically stopped the legit users from selling their products or exchanging in this forum because of their trust rating which was just an assumption.
...
As said before ratings are given based on the behavior of the user who's suspected of scamming and the experience of the user giving the feedback. Those on the receiving end can defend themselves. Can you provide an example where 1) someone was suspected of scamming 2) they provided information to show they were legit 3) the negative feedback did not get removed and 4) the person that left the negative feedback is (still) in the Default Trust list? |
|
|
|
Yeah how dare he steal from a 900billion dollar company, good work guys, now they can eventually hit the 1 trillion mark
I question your morality based on that quote. Stealing is illegal regardless of the net worth of any victims. Besides that, they're stealing from "those who doesn't have the money to afford a Microsoft License", as JudoMS puts it. Those people pay their hard-earned $5 - $10 to get a fraudulent product key. They are defrauding their customers. At least we can help out those who doesn't have the money to afford a Microsoft License.
|
|
|
|
Straight from the WHCMS EULA: 2.2 License Transfers. The Software is licensed only to You. You may not rent, lease, sub-license, sell, assign, pledge, transfer or otherwise dispose of the Software, on a temporary or permanent basis, without the prior written consent of WHMCS Limited. (For the avoidance of doubt, this license is only granted to one person or company and if more than one person or company wishes to use the Software, each user must purchase a separate license). See: http://www.whmcs.com/legal-agreements/I dare claim that you do not have consent to sell what you're offering. Buyer beware! PS. You put the wrong reference in your feedback on me, but thanks for leading me to another fraudulent activity you're involved in! |
|
|
|
|
They're using BizSpark MSDN accounts. Those are intended for start-up companies to get started with Microsoft products.
It's kind of the-first-shot-is-free marketing. If the start-up grows they may be hooked on Microsoft products and more likely to buy proper licences. However those accounts are widely abused, as demonstrated here.
|
|
|
|
|
As has been said before, the Microsoft product keys for sale here are created from an MSDN subscription. While the keys may work (for some time) they are not legit and they're not a licence to actually use the software. Using the software without a licence is piracy.
If it seems to good to be true, it probably is.
|
|
|
|
Interesting. A.D. Douma, A 1% percent owner in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. I'd almost say it's safe to assume that this is SLok. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
