I was not referring to the new motions.

I was referring to the specific statement stating that Craig was in no way involved with the negotiations.
To me that appears in contradiction to what the motion stated.

https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1191284725920542720?s=19



https://coingeek.com/calvin-ayre-passes-on-buying-dave-kleiman-estate-because-it-holds-no-assets/

Perhaps someone should advise the court of this. I distinctly see CSW name on the court documents stating that "the parties" are negotiating a settlement.

So it is just a play of words. Craig may not have been present but  Ayre and his lawyers were not negotiating on his behalf ?


If they were NOT representing Craig - then did they inform the court ?  Were the plaintiffs aware that they were specifically not negotiating with Craig or anyone representing him ?

How does that work with privileged information in the USA ?

The motion granted by the court was for "the parties" to negotiate a settlement.

Everyone can witness that The-One-Above-All saw my allegation. Refused to answer yes or no. Refused to confirm whether the "little bears" were midgets or underage.


He had ample opportunity to reply and the consequences were clearly stated if he didn't answer immediately in the format that I demanded. Therefore I present it as an undisputed, undeniable admission of guilt.

I will now set up a self moderated parody thread "exposing" this filthy pervert. Creating local rules preventing him (also known as "we" or "us"), his alts or his cronies from replying to it. It will be an edutainment guide named: "How to spot the fallacies of a pigeon pooper."

I archived this whole disgusting thread. All the sick perverted references and insults you made. So I have plenty of material - even if you shut up, make another alt or swallow the tampon.

Dirty turds (especially when on "official" dirty turd list by the self appointed coprophile) will be invited to make their faecal vocal contributions



This perverted testicle voyeur that "likes" little talking bears to "watch" is under false the impression there is more than one of me.

Sorry - there is no pussy and weasel - just me (human). Too busy stomping on your sexy fluffy slippers that you mistook for me.

1) Where did you prove it was Hilarious&co that marked it as bad ?
2) It is clearly stated that:
was actually good advise. You should learn to shut up. "Used tampon" should not be taken literally - it is an insult.

You have claimed he didn’t enforce rules - rules that are actually don't exist. (The invisible giraffe) You didn’t present any verifiable evidence directly implicating Hilarious. (no proof of killing)

The only thing you can prove is that he has publicly ridiculed and insulted you, yourself and your alt.
(insulting the cat)

The reason I used an absolutely ridiculous analogy is because you are dishonest enough to try and use it as anything other than an analogy if I used a more realistic example.

So enough delays - last chance to answer the questions so I can write a far more entertaining piece of fiction than what you are going to write :

Were you aroused when you buried the the corpse of the kidnapped invisible giraffe ? - yes or no ? (This is a yes or no answer question only ! Everything else will be ignored)

Your homo erotica involving small bears witnessed by everyone on here. Were they midgets or underage ? (Choose one or both of the two)

Failing to answer immediately will be considered an undisputed, undeniable admission of guilt.

You've repeatedly said that all along. If it is undeniable then why are we even talking ? You are wasting my time.

What is undeniable is that you did not keep to the agreement to get Theymos to be an arbitrator and used every excuse not to follow through with it.
 

Whatever. You were always going to do that anyway.

I'm sure you will arrange it in a false and defamatory way so it says what you want it to say and obscure what I actually said.




It appears you have taken it as a compliment. 


FYI - It appears that most of the references and information is probably too difficult for you to understand. I post it so anyone rational reading it has an understanding of the issues and logic followed.

If you vote for a politician to trust you don't necessarily agree with all of their conduct or decisions. You choose them because you think they can do the job well. Same applies with DT.

I've long ago realized that "The One Above All"  is just another way of saying "Angry delusional pigeon flying overhead with chronic diarrhea".

Don't attribute things to me that I did not say. Learn how to use quotes properly.




https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1931778.msg19286369#msg19286369

People can read the comment and judge for themselves.
Commenting on an auction is not auction scamming.

If I had to tag every shill on this site I'd have no life left.

In some countries vendor bidding is allowed. (Although bidding on your own auctions I find scammy)

Some of the old DT's have some bad habits. By setting a good example those bad habits  -or those that continue with those bad habits will disappear over time.

Some of the old DT's also have an invaluable amount of knowledge and skill.

The only person running away is you. Your posts consists of insults and assertions of your preconceived ideas You don't answer any questions or directly reply to any points made.

You may produce walls of words but you don't participate in any discussion. You don't interact - you just throw words at people.

You don't understand the rules (proven)
You don't understand how the trust system works (proven)
You don't understand how merits work (proven)
You don't know how to look up information on this site (proven)

It is just plain lazy. You demand and expect people to act as your unpaid servants. Take initiative and learn how things work before complaining about them or participate in the conversation by listening. Stop ranting and read what I've actually said with an open mind. You might learn something.

You can continue with your ranting and raving but it is your loss. The only one you are deluding with your nonsense is yourself and perhaps one or two others.

You don't address any of the points I've made - including the guidelines set by the forum administrator.

You are talking at me. You should be talking to me and listening to me. That is how normal people communicate.

I believe my moderate views and rational discussion has resulted in others taking on some more moderate views as well. The people I respect the most on this forum and whose views are most in line with mine are Suchmoon and Hilariousetc. If you categorize me the same as them then I have no problem with that.

I've proven that you don't understand the forum rules and try to censor people.

It also appears that you are unable to justify your conduct or position given the guidelines provided by Theymos. So you are attempting to hide it by hurling insults and distracting from the reply. Literally burying the evidence in bullshit birdshit.

Your accusations against Hilariousetc and Flying hellfish are as reliable as the accusation against you about kidnapping the invisible giraffe and starving it to death.

Photo of the missing giraffe:



Your homo-erotic fantasies involving bears is witnessed here:





WTF was going on in your head when you wrote that !!!???



Proof of pleasuring yourself:


Insults to cats here:


In the meantime - not one denial about the kidnapped invisible giraffe. You've had ample time to deny it and didn't- surely that is plenty of proof of guilt ! It must have pleasured you when you buried the corpse - you sick fuck !

Were you aroused when you buried the the corpse - yes or no ? (This is a yes or no answer question only ! Everything else will be ignored)

In addition to that you have tagged no scammers what-so-ever or excluded any scammers from your trust list. You are the most corrupt of all ! By your own logic you support every scammer that has ever been on this forum !


On a more serious note:

I debunked it here and proved you made untruthful accusations and attempted to censor comments you didn't like:

It shows a complete lack of understanding of the processes here:




Most of the people on your list were on DT already with the old system.
There are currently 100 DT1 of which 3 are excluded. There are many more DT2
So it hasn’t been “taken over”.


None of the people in the OP have any benefit from receiving merit. They all had Legendary or Hero accounts when merit was introduced.

Some of them are merit sources and by giving merit to people whose judgement they trust it is spread to other users via the sMerit system. The way it was designed.

A legendary account receiving merit = no benefit.
Receiving more than 1000 merit = no benefit to recipient.


That is way the system is supposed to work.  People vote for people that they trust. There were no instant changes but I worked hard to ensure that DT’s were endorsed in the Russian and Turkish communities. Local knowledge and native language speakers from different countries greatly assist in detecting scams and cultural understanding and diversity.
Both Tman and Lauda listened to what I had to say and both modified their viewpoints but
I also recognize that they also have the right to have a different opinion than me.

I have not seen any evidence that the majority of people (excluding spam and alt accounts) disagree with the selection of DT. Only a small minority voices disagreement. Some refer to themselves in plural format and some of them are alts.


What you are complaining about is exactly how the system is supposed to work.


I’ve never participated in a signature or bounty campaign. I don’t like signature campaigns and recently when I audited a signature campaign it became apparent just how prominent spam and bounty scammers are.

I imagine that a reputable bounty or sig manager will give preference to people who they know to be reliable posters.

Being a business they have the right to choose who represents them.  
Anyone can become a bounty manager.


That is because they don’t trust those people. Local rules you made prevent discussing those people individually.



There is a right and wrong way to approach a situation. If you are relatively unknown and use abusive and emotive language to attack a prominent forum member using a method that does not follow the normal protocols then it is likely that that person will be ignored or ostracised.
That is how social norms work. Those that yell and shout abuse at those that enforce the rules generally get cast out.

TOAA weaseling out of the agreement and gone back to being obnoxious.....what a surprise...yawn



Nope. I don't have to do anything. You have not kept your part of the agreement that we made.

I could easily do what you are doing.

I can claim you have kidnapped an invisible giraffe and starved it to death. Prove me wrong ! I can twist your words and eventually settle on that you insulted a cat and therefore you are still cruel to animals. I won't play that stupid game.



I gave the answers. You are just changing what I said.

Let me demonstrate the importance of emphasis and how easy it is to alter the meaning.

I never said you stole my money – I didn’t say it but I’m implying someone else may have.
I never said you stole my money – I am strongly objecting to the implication I accused you of stealing.
I never said you stole my money – I may not have said it, but I imply that I think it.
I never said you stole my money – I am not accusing you, but someone else has stolen my money.
I never said you stole my money – I don’t think you stole my money, but you did do something with it.
I never said you stole my money – You didn’t steal my money but I suggest you may have stolen someone else’s.
I never said you stole my money – You didn’t steal my money but I suggest you may have stolen something else.
https://factinator.com/i-never-said-she-stole-my-money/

You are clearly changing the emphasis, context and content of what I said while being rude and obnoxious. Doing so is outright dishonest.












<snip the bullshit>

I believe bitcoin will eventually become a settlement layer. It will be developed further to use sidechains that link back to the value store of bitcoin. Settlement between entities or chains will occur periodically valued in bitcoin.

Symilar to what happened with banks in the past. Funds are transferred between banks by ledger.  Physical transfer occurred later.

A token currency may be Tethered to bitcoin (or tethered to a number of assets - e.g bitcoin, precious metals and land).

Crypto still has a long way to evolve. Exchanges are still falling over, hacks are prominent, transfer is cumbersome and relatively complex (try teaching grandma) , values fluctuate wildly and the code is still a work in progress.

Current phase - surviving legislation.

Three (2-3-4) of those things you mentioned are not breaking the rules.

If (1) you bait someone with insults but create a local rule stating that they cannot reply it is very likely that it will not be enforced.

Reporting someone for those things is called attempted censorship

You'd know that if you had read the rules. Very important: If you report someone for breaking the rules - make sure it is a rule

If it is not a rule - then it is a false report.



Here are the rules:
This is from a reference/educational/informational thread - it is NOT a rock solid list of rules.

The highlighting indicates how it is usually enforced:
Standard = usually discretionary / thread moved
Bold = deletion
Red = user ban
Blue = advisory rule

Still waiting for confirmation of Theymos as arbitrator.

But I don't mind answering those three questions.




All publicly viewable:
https://loyce.club/trust/2019-11-02_Sat_07.33h/897509.html
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview

Nutildah and Tman are on my trust list.

I don't know Lauda well. Lauda has never been on my trust list and Lauda has not trusted me.
I do communicate with Lauda at times and the information they have sent to me has always been reliable.
There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Lauda but I don't expect everyone to always agree with my opinion.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

Tman was added to my list around August. I had issues with the zeroaxl issue (I did not follow it completely) which was very poor judgement but in my opinion not with malicious intent. His work on resolving the Russian issue made me regain faith in his ability to work through issues.
A lot of things happen behind the scenes that determine whether I do or do not trust someone.

I believe that Tman has always had me on his trust list but I didn't check.

Tman is a dick sometimes. But I believe his heart is in the right place and he is sometimes exactly what is needed.

I consider myself to be a moderate libertarian with liberal tendencies. I try to work with other opinions. Sometimes I learn new things from people with different opinions. Sometimes we just agree to disagree.


Nutildah has been on my trust list since January. I did not know Nutildah at the time he offered his account for sale.


I agree with the wording used by Theymos. This is what Theymos said:




Whether something constitutes a lie or is deceptive is sometimes subjective.
Each situation has to be judged on its merits.

For instance -  having an alt account(1) and denying that it is an alt account (2) if that account has negative trust (3) that is a form of scamming.

In my opinion placing negative feedback require several important factors to be considered:

1) In my opinion - is this person involved consistently in deceptive conduct.
2) In my opinion - is this person unlikely to stop their conduct.
3) In my opinion - could this conduct result in the financial harm to other forum users. (Includes scamming and defamation)
4) In my opinion - can a rating potentially prevent such conduct.

My tagging principles are based on my interpretation of   Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT

This is where you are wrong.

You deceived the h4ns by stating that he would get a refund by 30 June 2019.

Whether you believe this is a contract is irrelevant.

h4ns believed he was making a contract with you and as a result of the promise made by you transferred the funds.

Whether you like it or not - you made a contract with h4ns to send the 210 euro to the foundation.

Whether you get the 210 euro back from the foundation is irrelevant. You owe h4ns 210 euro.

Source: https://bitcoin-millionaire.com/business-gameprotect/
Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20191104234928/https://bitcoin-millionaire.com/business-gameprotect/

1) UK law is similar to the law in most commonwealth countries.
For a contract via email to be legally binding under UK law there needs to be:
An offer;
Acceptance of the offer;
Consideration (i.e., some form of payment);
An intention to be legally bound by the contract; and
Certainty as to what the parties have agreed.

https://businessadvice.co.uk/business-development/business-planning/are-emails-legally-binding/

Under USA law
https://www.icaew.com/archive/library/subject-gateways/law/legal-alert/2018-02/case-law-court-confirms-emails-can-create-legally-binding-contracts

2) Yes - they are a written form of communication.

3) Your reputation - by your own conduct - was already absolutely rubbish.  I cannot imagine how this could ruin it even more. What this claim proved was that you go to extreme lows to deceive people from their funds. The only person that has a fantasy that you have a "good reputation" - is you.

4) By making the claim that it is a donation and by falsely claiming that "there is no contract"  you make it absolutely obvious with your current argument  to everyone that:

If we were to accept your argument then using your own logic and terminology:

a) You made a written statement that you had no intention of keeping in an effort to get a non refundable "donation".
b) You used your "reputation" to convince him to accept that "promise".
c) You have now clearly and publicly stated that you had no intention of keeping that promise because you consider it a "donation".

You've been told numerous times now.

Based on what is published here:

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5183189.0

1) It is a contract. (Yes - I did actually study contract law at University)
2) It is in writing.
3) You did ruin your reputation because you breached the conditions of the contract by not returning the 210 Euro on 30 June 2019.

I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works.

Of course I talk like an idiot ! How else would you understand me? You are embarrassed for me ? How cute !  


Yes - the bears make me feel at ease in such a combative environment. Whats wrong with that ?

Crushing minds, stomping boots. I only have the cuddle of a care bear to offer to such a macho brute. Obviously I'm under-resourced for the job.

This is probably about as tough as I can manage without the aid of more bears :



In your wall of words you complain about account sellers.

I dislike account sellers and account buyers. Selling accounts often leads to scams. But generally I have only ever tagged them if the account was used in a proven scam, proven bounty cheating where the manager complains or symilar conduct . However I do not disapprove of others that do tag sold accounts or account sellers.

So no double standard there. I'm also not about to change my personal criteria for tagging.

Also I have never been a merit source.

So many wrong assumptions from Mr The One. If you spend more time reading and less time rambling....then you might actually learn something.





Ewwwww that sounds like you are having a wet dream. I hope you didn't make a mess.

I'm sure that sounded much better in your head.

One moment claiming to be crushing my mind. Next backing out just the simplest agreement that you suggested and I accepted.

Didn't take long for you to try to weazel out of this one. I thought so much. Just cheap talk. Nothing to back it up.



Lets see the sequence of the conversation :

This thread has some amusing quips

You were boasting about it. Now you are whinging that I pointed it out ? You, yourself and I - please make up your mind !


non sequitur

Failing to take action when there is no obligation to act is not proof of anything. Corruption requires "Mens rea".


I accept Theymos as arbitrator.

However I see some issues for you.

1) Theymos has already outed you as Cryptohunters alt.


2) It is up to you to convince Theymos to judge it and to prove he will be judging it. He is your suggestion. I accepted. Theymos decision will be final.

3) Theymos is on DT1  and has not tagged any of the people you complain about.

4) If you back out - it breaks the agreement that I just accepted.