Vod, you are back to overboard again, the company name will only be a one-word name PICISI, not have a six word name, so dismiss that from your head.
The words that stand for the letters in the name will remain the same. 

You said: "You'll deny you are a charity when asked directly,"  that's because PICISI is not a charity, I put that in writing many time to you yet you maintain the notion.
If you asked me if we are a Philantropic comany, I would also say no to that too; and if you asked me if we are an investment firm I would say no to that too; and if you asked me .... you get the point, PICISI will be a crowdfunding site and that is ONLY what we told people it will be.   People will be able to create campaigns to raise funds for their various inventions, ideas, and things, and charities also go there to raise fund too. 

You can't pick out a single word pharase associated with the name of the company and automatically assume that it MUST be what the business does, especially when faced with a mountain of evidence telling you it will be a crowdfunding site.  You went to 8 different threads how could you continue to maintain that illogical line of reasoning?

You said: "... but if a sponsor donates to you believing you are a charity, you don't correct them."  that's unreasonable.  Tell me how it is that someone would become a sponsor of PICISI thinking that?  Are you telling me they would ignore the fact that it says 'a crowdfunding site'.  Then to say "you don't correct them" that's sheer nonsense, why would I do that?  Tell me how I'm to know who thinks PICISI is what you think and we straighten the out right away.  But I doubt if any PICISI sponsor feels as you do.   Nevertheless, as I mentioned above any sponsor for any reason, or no reason at all, can request a refund and receive that refund forthwith.  Money given to me must be done freely and willingly.   

It's strange to me that a sponsor of PICISI would want a refund and go to you about it so :
did any PICISI sponsor go to you claiming that they want a refund?
did any PICISI sponsor go to you claiming that they believed PICISI was ANYTHING other than a crowdfunding site?
did any PICISI sponsor go to you claiming that they no longer want to be a PICISI sponsor?
did any PICISI sponsor go to you claiming that they had discontent of ANY kind?

because I don't think so

Wow, its refreshing to see that someone took the time to actually read the material in order to be informed.

Yes, you are correct when you said: "From the looks of the OP of the OP's thread for PICISI and what I have read about in this thread, it appears that the OP is trying to create a competing company to kickstarter/indigato that utilizes crypt currencies..."

No, PICISI will not specialize in charities.


Yes, you are correct: "I don't think the OP is tiring to pass off his company as being a charity,"

About this part: "I do understand why, at first glance why someone may think it is a charity."  when Vod first saw what you see in the title it was followed by: "a crowdfunding site presently under construction" or words to that effect, so that it likely read: 'PICISI (Philanthropic Investment and Charity for Inventions, Startups, an Ideas). So it is highly unlikely that anyone that read anything generated by PICISI would conclude that PICISI is anything other than a crowdfunding site.

Thank you for: "I do not however understand why someone would think as much after reading the OP's responses."

I have a major problem with this: "This is While it is possible that the OP is hoping to run off with a large amount of bitcoin after being trust with large amounts,"
It tells me that that I would like you to know more about PICISI and the whole business plan.  If a business is generating large sums of money who's running where?

The currency PICISI creates is for the operation of the business, there are many articles I could share with you that detail how that would take place.

Vod mentioned something like you said, but when I asked him to play it out he didn't, since you are clearly more measured in your approach to PICISI, kindly tell me in what way you believe this would happen?

I am the final authority for all info about PICISI, and I will be the final authority once PICISI is a company, nevertheless I don't know everything and I certainly don't read minds.  So my questions are legitimate.  Who has discontent?  No discontent has been expressed to me by ANY PICISI sponsor.

You said: "As long as you continue to collect and hold other people's money, expect to be asked who you are, and why you wish to remain anonymous."
Vod you can have any reason, or no reason at all for asking someone name it doesn't have to be related to collecting money.   Money goes to and from people all of the time some know names some don't that is up to the relevant parties.  If someone doesn't want to give money to another person for any reason at all, they should not give it.  If someone doesn't feel comfortable with someone they are dealing with they should not give any money.  And, if someone gives money to someone else and later feels uncomfortable about what took place they should request a refund. 

As for PICISI, if any sponsor wants a refund the process is very simple, just ask me.  Again, if anyone gave me money and they want it back ask for a refund.
If anyone became a sponsor and no longer wants to be a sponsor just let me know I will remove them from the sponsor list.  I have no problem whatsoever issuing a refund, and I have no problem whatsoever removing a name from the sponsor list.   Oh, btw, I would never issued negative feedback in order to extort anything from anybody.

Sponsorship of PICISI will be a privilege that many will covet, once the site launches sponsorship will be limited and the fee won't be cheap.  If a sponsor doesn't get what they expected then I don't expect them to keep paying. 

Mark this words: THE PICISI SPONSORSHIP POLICY IS 100% SATISFACTION or 100% REFUND GUARANTEED ON REQUEST!!!

If you read about PICISI you will see why people will gladly pay to be a sponsor.

"we", who's this "we" that you represent?

When a company is formed it will be done so under the laws where it is formed.

In your quote you reference in bold text it mentions "Charities" the context is that Charities can go to PICISI to crowdfund charitable campaigns, just like is presently done at many crowdfunding sites including indiegogo.  That does not make the site, or site owner a charity.  I'm sure you knew that. 

Nevertheless, you said 'I collected money under a guise of being a charity' I said that was not true, and I further asked you to support your claim by telling me where that claim originated.  I don't want ANYONE thinking that, much less a sponsor. 

Vod, PICISI is not a charity.   

Your use of the word "guise" implies that someone was deceived, I want to know which one of our sponsors feels in anyway deceived,
which one of our sponsors believes as you believe, which sponsor gave money and wants it back, which sponsor no longer wants to be a sponsor,
which PICISI sponsor came to me with any discontent whatsoever?

You've already gone to many of my sponsors needlessly spreading FUD, I don't know why, but I do know what you said is the reason and
I have clarified all of your misconceptions, even the one that you are stubbornly maintaining. 

You know PICISI is going to be a crowdfunding site, so who told you otherwise?

"... hold you legally accountable to their funds."

Who's money is being held, and for what purpose?

Wow, thanks for the massive sign of public support HYPER, I really appreciate it. 

I wish Vod would stake his 'Vod' username membership on his claims so that Vod membership is resigned once PICISI is launched. 

He should have to suffer loss for wrongfully impugning a another username's character.

 

I want you to know that I appreciate your public stand for truth.

Here is another PICISI sponsor that Vod specifically went to with his smear campaign: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=971382.msg11372497#msg11372497

Here is his comment:




There you have more evidence of Vod misunderstand of what PICISI is.   

When he says: "Turns the Armis is running a scam" is that supposed to mean 'as it turns out that ... scam' because that would imply some investigation took place and some finding was arrived at by some authority.  So the question is: "who what authority made any determination about PICISI?"

Vod also said: "... and not the charity (no charity license!) he claims."  yet "he" (Armis) made not claim that PICISI was a charity, to the contrary Armis very specifically and emphatically indicated that PICISI is not a charity, never planned to be a charity, and has no intention to be a charity.  So where did Vod get this misinformation, and why is he claiming that I made the claim. 

Vod continued: "... But he wants to reassure you that all the public identities of his board of directors (no corporation license!) ..."  What "board of directors", again where did he get that from, not from me.    He continued: "... will be disclosed to the stakeholders (no corporation license!) ..."  aaaaha, perhaps that's the basis for Vod's confusion, apparently he read "stakeholders" as "stockholder" because he referenced "no corporation license".  If he looked up the word "stakeholder" he should understand that it applys to many things even a family.  The context that it was used in was the job description of the duties of the Executive Director of PICISI.  And that was in the context of my invitation and request for people to join me in being an administrator for PICISI. 

Vod concluded that with: "... once he collects a large sum of non-reversible currency."  what currency is he talking about?  how is it that "he" (Armis) comes to receive these funds?  He irresponsibly leaves this open to imply wrongdoing.   However, PICISI is actually designed to properly earn large sums of money, and earn it from people that will be happy to give us that large sum of money because we will have performed as expected.


Vod asks the false question: "Do all his sponsors know he is running a scam?  Esp Hobonickels - I know thy are pro-charity and anti-greed."   There is no scam, and Vod is the only one running around screaming and crying about a non existent scam. 

I told him, if you are so confident it's a scam bet your Vod membership in Bitcointalk.org, if I prove that PICISI is not what you painted as then you resign.  He ignores that, because he actually isn't sure about his assertion at all.  Its a specious claim that only serves to stir up unnecessary fear and doubt.  All because he refuses to read the available information about PICISI BEFORE making a judgement. 

Vod damaged my username's character with is negative feedback, his rush to judgement was wrong, but now he should know better however he is now using that negative feedback to extort information from me for his own misguided purposes.  Such behavior should not be condoned.

Here is a response Vod issued in the thread of the exact same sponsor he just told you that he didn't contact:



[here was my response]


Vod issued negative feedback to me based on his ignorance of PICISI, then went about to tell everyone he could (including PICISI sponsors) more falsehoods about PICISI.  It's obvious that Vod didn't read much about PICISI before rushing to judgement.   It's a shame that he brings the falsehoods to PICISI sponsor threads and annoying that I feel compelled to address his reckless accusations in a responsible way.

Vod mentioned "Charity" "license" "corporation" "board of directors" "stakeholders" and "collection of large sums of ... currency"  
I will prove that he jumped to the wrong conclusion then irresponsibly acted on his misunderstanding.

As you know PICISI is a business plan taking shape, and Armis is the designer and creator of PICISI.  A critical part of that plan is formation of the org, creation of the site, and creation of currency.  

Vod didn't read the plan, he refuses to read the articles about the plan, and doesn't even want to read the threads about the plan, yet he wants people to believe that he knows more about it than the person that created it.   Had he done any of that homework he would see there was never any plan for PICISI to be a charity, that it was always the plan for PICISI to be a business specifically a crowdfunding business.

The site prerequisites imply that no site presently exists, the site prerequisites also imply that once those goals are met something will begin.  When you look at the prerequisites as a whole it should be evident that those make up the basis for the business, and without them there is no business.

You don't need a license to market a plan, you don't need a license for someone to give you money to start a business, nor do you need a license to put the pieces together for the creation of that business.  A license is necessary to operate as a business, not to form one.

Vod mentioned a 'corporation' and 'board of directors', where did he get that from, not from me.  Clearly it originated in his head and now he is spreading the notion to others.   Given that Vod wrote this: "stakeholders (no corporation license!)" its clear to me that Vod confused "stakeholders" with "stockholders".  And that is probably why he wrongly went down that wrong corporate path.  Again he allowed his preconceived notions to prejudice his judgement.  

and lastly,

Vod mentioned 'collection of large sums of money', he really needs to explain that because PICISI does plan on making large sums of money, over and over again, and I have no intention of running away from our success.  


As you can see Vod jumped to the wrong conclusion then irresponsibly acted on his misunderstanding of facts when he issued negative feedback to me.


Vod said: "Just asking Armis to stand behind his words, instead of hiding in the shadows.  Not a smear campaign at all." well if that was actually the cased he would have limited his line of inquiry to PICISI thread not spill it over to PICISI sponsor threads.   Furthermore, if it was not a smear campaign he would not have posted the abundance of negativity in all of those different threads -- about 8 different threads; if that is not a smear campaign what is it?

Vod says: "He's pulling a long con by taking fraudulent donations and being anonymous.  You won't be able to go after him civilly or criminally when he steals your coins."
Yet he doesn't understand what PICISI is, refuses to read about it and refuses to believe the person that created it.   Also, he makes this prediction without any wager I tell him if he's so clairvoyant why doesn't he bet his Vod membership in Bitcointalk.org and if I win Vod resigns from BCT.   You see, I know he's wrong but he has nothing to lose with his irresponsible behavior.  My username is damaged by the negative feedback he issued and PICISI is damaged by his false accusations that he is recklessly spreading.

He claims there's some "long con" but doesn't play it out, he doesn't explain how it supposedly would happen.  He talks about anonymity but has no idea about my intentions or how PICISI will be run.  He tells you that you won't be able to get your coins, yet doesn't tell us what coins he is talking about.  He irresponsibly plants seeds of doubt then fertilizes it with words of fear so you will think and act negatively towards me and PICISI.  Here's what he doesn't do, he doesn't speak with specifics, he doesn't hash out any example as to how what he predicts supposedly would occur.  

Remember he made many assumptions that you know are false, he assumed you don't know what you are doing (he issued 3 warnings: 1) negative feedback, 2) his first warning post, and 3) his second warning post), he assumed you paid me a lot money, he assumed whatever you paid is not refundable (why else would you need to "go after" someone), the proof of all of those assertions is in what I know that you know, that Vod doesn't know because Vod doesn't want to read the available information about PICISI.  

Even when I spoon feed him with PICISI articles so that he could be properly educated about PICISI Vod told me he didn't want to hear it.  If he doesn't want to read, and doesn't want to listen how would he expect to know about PICISI?  If he doesn't know about PICISI he's unqualified to speak about PICISI.
 

Vod issued negative feedback to me based on his ignorance of PICISI, then went about to tell everyone he could (including PICISI sponsors) more falsehoods about PICISI.  It's obvious that Vod didn't read much about PICISI before rushing to judgement.   It's a shame that he brings the falsehoods to PICISI sponsor threads and annoying that I feel compelled to address his reckless accusations in a responsible way.

Vod mentioned "Charity" "license" "corporation" "board of directors" "stakeholders" and "collection of large sums of ... currency"  
I will prove that he jumped to the wrong conclusion then irresponsibly acted on his misunderstanding.

As you know PICISI is a business plan taking shape, and Armis is the designer and creator of PICISI.  A critical part of that plan is formation of the org, creation of the site, and creation of currency.  

Vod didn't read the plan, he refuses to read the articles about the plan, and doesn't even want to read the threads about the plan, yet he wants people to believe that he knows more about it than the person that created it.   Had he done any of that homework he would see there was never any plan for PICISI to be a charity, that it was always the plan for PICISI to be a business specifically a crowdfunding business.

The site prerequisites imply that no site presently exists, the site prerequisites also imply that once those goals are met something will begin.  When you look at the prerequisites as a whole it should be evident that those make up the basis for the business, and without them there is no business.

You don't need a license to market a plan, you don't need a license for someone to give you money to start a business, nor do you need a license to put the pieces together for the creation of that business.  A license is necessary to operate as a business, not to form one.

Vod mentioned a 'corporation' and 'board of directors', where did he get that from, not from me.  Clearly it originated in his head and now he is spreading the notion to others.   Given that Vod wrote this: "stakeholders (no corporation license!)" its clear to me that Vod confused "stakeholders" with "stockholders".  And that is probably why he wrongly went down that wrong corporate path.  Again he allowed his preconceived notions to prejudice his judgement.  

and lastly,

Vod mentioned 'collection of large sums of money', he really needs to explain that because PICISI does plan on making large sums of money, over and over again, and I have no intention of running away from our success.  


As you can see Vod jumped to the wrong conclusion then irresponsibly acted on his misunderstanding of facts when he issued negative feedback to me.


Vod said: "Just asking Armis to stand behind his words, instead of hiding in the shadows.  Not a smear campaign at all." well if that was actually the cased he would have limited his line of inquiry to PICISI thread not spill it over to PICISI sponsor threads.   Furthermore, if it was not a smear campaign he would not have posted the abundance of negativity in all of those different threads -- about 8 different threads; if that is not a smear campaign what is it?

Vod says: "He's pulling a long con by taking fraudulent donations and being anonymous.  You won't be able to go after him civilly or criminally when he steals your coins."
Yet he doesn't understand what PICISI is, refuses to read about it and refuses to believe the person that created it.   Also, he makes this prediction without any wager I tell him if he's so clairvoyant why doesn't he bet his Vod membership in Bitcointalk.org and if I win Vod resigns from BCT.   You see, I know he's wrong but he has nothing to lose with his irresponsible behavior.  My username is damaged by the negative feedback he issued and PICISI is damaged by his false accusations that he is recklessly spreading.

He claims there's some "long con" but doesn't play it out, he doesn't explain how it supposedly would happen.  He talks about anonymity but has no idea about my intentions or how PICISI will be run.  He tells you that you won't be able to get your coins, yet doesn't tell us what coins he is talking about.  He irresponsibly plants seeds of doubt then fertilizes it with words of fear so you will think and act negatively towards me and PICISI.  Here's what he doesn't do, he doesn't speak with specifics, he doesn't hash out any example as to how what he predicts supposedly would occur.  

Remember he made many assumptions that you know are false, he assumed you don't know what you are doing (he issued 3 warnings: 1) negative feedback, 2) his first warning post, and 3) his second warning post), he assumed you paid me a lot money, he assumed whatever you paid is not refundable (why else would you need to "go after" someone), the proof of all of those assertions is in what I know that you know, that Vod doesn't know because Vod doesn't want to read the available information about PICISI.  

Even when I spoon feed him with PICISI articles so that he could be properly educated about PICISI Vod told me he didn't want to hear it.  If he doesn't want to read, and doesn't want to listen how would he expect to know about PICISI?  If he doesn't know about PICISI he's unqualified to speak about PICISI.
 

Vod said the following to a number of different PICISI sponsors:



The sponsor responded to Vod "... He [Armis] has my trust ..."

Vod issued negative feedback to me based on his ignorance of PICISI, then went about to tell everyone he could (including PICISI sponsors) more falsehoods about PICISI.  It's obvious that Vod didn't read much about PICISI before rushing to judgement.   Nevertheless I must address his reckless accusations in a responsible way:

Vod mentioned "Charity" "license" "corporation" "board of directors" "stakeholders" and "collection of large sums of ... currency"  
I will prove that he jumped to the wrong conclusion then irresponsibly acted on his misunderstanding.

As you know PICISI is a business plan taking shape, and Armis is the designer and creator of PICISI.  A critical part of that plan is formation of the org, creation of the site, and creation of currency.  

Vod didn't read the plan, he refuses to read the articles about the plan, and doesn't even want to read the threads about the plan, yet he wants people to believe that he knows more about it than the person that created it.   Had he done any of that homework he would see there was never any plan for PICISI to be a charity, that it was always the plan for PICISI to be a business specifically a crowdfunding business.

The site prerequisites imply that no site presently exists, the site prerequisites also imply that once those goals are met something will begin.  When you look at the prerequisites as a whole it should be evident that those make up the basis for the business, and without them there is no business.

You don't need a license to market a plan, you don't need a license for someone to give you money to start a business, nor do you need a license to put the pieces together for the creation of that business.  A license is necessary to operate as a business, not to form one.

Vod mentioned a 'corporation' and 'board of directors', where did he get that from, not from me.  Clearly it originated in his head and now he is spreading the notion to others.   Given that Vod wrote this: "stakeholders (no corporation license!)" its clear to me that Vod confused "stakeholders" with "stockholders".  And that is probably why he wrongly went down that wrong corporate path.  Again he allowed his preconceived notions to prejudice his judgement.  

and lastly,

Vod mentioned 'collection of large sums of money', he really needs to explain that because PICISI does plan on making large sums of money, over and over again, and I have no intention of running away from our success. 


As you can see Vod jumped to the wrong conclusion then irresponsibly acted on his misunderstanding of facts when he issued his negative feedback.

Vod carried his falsehood to a PICISI sponsor: ([WAC] Official WorldAidCoin)





Here was the PICISI sponsor's response:





Here was my direct response:




Vod mentioned "Charity" "license" "corporation" "board of directors" "stakeholders" and "collection of large sums of ... currency"   In short, Vod jumped to the wrong conclusion over and over again because he didn't want to read.

Here is a more comprehensive view: Vod is assuming facts in evidence, and more importantly if he or anyone simply look at the fact or the evidence everyone should see the truth.  Here are the facts PICISI is a business plan taking shape, I am the designer of the plan.   A critical part of that plan is formation of the org, creation of the site, and creation of currency.  

Vod didn't read the plan, didn't read the articles about the plan, nor did he read the threads about the plan, because had he done any or all of them he would have found that there was never any plan for PICISI to be a charity, that it was always the plan for PICISI to be a business, and the plan was for the business to help give CC more exposure in real world applications.

The evidence of those facts is more than obvious, the site prerequisites imply that no site presently exists, the site prerequisites also imply that once those goals are met that something else will occur, when you look at the individual prerequisites in relation to all of them the viewer should reasonable conclude that soon after all goals are achieved the basic tools will be in place to create the business.

You don't need a license to market a plan, you don't need a license to raise money to form a org or any type, you don't need a license put the pieces together for the creation of that business.

Vod mentioned a 'corporation' and 'board of directors'  where did he get that from?  Who called PICISI a corporation? Who said PICISI has a board of directors?  No one that I see, Vod is the only person putting that out there to my knowledge.   Given that Vod used the word "stakeholders" like this: "stakeholders (no corporation license!)" I assume Vod has confused the words "stakeholders" with the word "stockholders".  Again he allowed his preconceived notions to prejudice his judgement.  It's important to note that I corrected that error of his earlier however he likely didn't read it or believe it.  

and lastly,

Vod mentioned 'collection of large sums of money', he really needs to explain that because PICISI does plan on making large sums of money, over and over again, and I would not be foolish to run away from that.

Vod clearly failed to get adequately informed about PICISI before he came to his conclusions, famto get familiar with the subject before makeing ado his homework

I'm looking for people to help me manage PICISI it requires that interested parties read all of the articles presently available about PICISI, and have a solid understanding about PICISI in addition to being suitable for the position sought.  So that when more FUD arrives at PICISI's doorstep more of us are ready to defend her.

I stand behind all of my words. 

It is you who made false accusations because you jumping to the wrong conclusions because your failed to read or understand vital information. 

When you make decisions without having adequate information to reasonably arrive at that decision that is the very definition for the word prejudice.

You issued negative feedback to me although we did no business together, in that negative feedback you made a host of incorrect assumptions, and now you are ignoring the facts because you don't want to recognize the fact that you were wrong and that your actions were reckless and irresponsible.

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to extort anything for someone using the trust system. 

Vod carried his falsehoods to a PICISI sponsor: ([WAC] Official WorldAidCoin)





Here was the PICISI sponsor's response:





Here was my direct response:




Vod mentioned "Charity" "license" "corporation" "board of directors" "stakeholders" and "collection of large sums of ... currency"   In short, Vod jumped to the wrong conclusion over and over again because he didn't want to read.

Here is a more comprehensive view: Vod is assuming facts in evidence, and more importantly if he or anyone simply look at the fact or the evidence everyone should see the truth.  Here are the facts PICISI is a business plan taking shape, I am the designer of the plan.   A critical part of that plan is formation of the org, creation of the site, and creation of currency.  

Vod didn't read the plan, didn't read the articles about the plan, nor did he read the threads about the plan, because had he done any or all of them he would have found that there was never any plan for PICISI to be a charity, that it was always the plan for PICISI to be a business, and the plan was for the business to help give CC more exposure in real world applications.

The evidence of those facts is more than obvious, the site prerequisites imply that no site presently exists, the site prerequisites also imply that once those goals are met that something else will occur, when you look at the individual prerequisites in relation to all of them the viewer should reasonable conclude that soon after all goals are achieved the basic tools will be in place to create the business.

You don't need a license to market a plan, you don't need a license to raise money to form a org or any type, you don't need a license put the pieces together for the creation of that business.

Vod mentioned a 'corporation' and 'board of directors'  where did he get that from?  Who called PICISI a corporation? Who said PICISI has a board of directors?  No one that I see, Vod is the only person putting that out there to my knowledge.   Given that Vod used the word "stakeholders" like this: "stakeholders (no corporation license!)" I assume Vod has confused the words "stakeholders" with the word "stockholders".  Again he allowed his preconceived notions to prejudice his judgement.  It's important to note that I corrected that error of his earlier however he likely didn't read it or believe it.  

and lastly,

Vod mentioned 'collection of large sums of money', he really needs to explain that because PICISI does plan on making large sums of money, over and over again, and I would not be foolish to run away from that.

Vod clearly failed to get adequately informed about PICISI before he came to his conclusions, famto get familiar with the subject before makeing ado his homework

I'm looking for people to help me manage PICISI it requires that interested parties read all of the articles presently available about PICISI, and have a solid understanding about PICISI in addition to being suitable for the position sought.  So that when more FUD arrives at PICISI's doorstep more of us are ready to defend her.

Vod carried that same falsehood to a PICISI sponsor: ([WAC] Official WorldAidCoin Thread)





Here was the PICISI sponsor's response:





Here was my direct response:




Vod mentioned "Charity" "license" "corporation" "board of directors" "stakeholders" and "collection of large sums of ... currency"   In short, Vod jumped to the wrong conclusion over and over again because he didn't want to read.

Here is a more comprehensive view: Vod is assuming facts not in evidence, and more importantly if he or anyone simply look at the fact (or the evidence) everyone should see the truth.  Here are the facts PICISI is a business plan taking shape, I am the designer of the plan.   A critical part of that plan is formation of the org, creation of the site, and creation of currency.  

Vod didn't read the plan, didn't read the articles about the plan, nor did he read the threads about the plan, because had he done any or all of them he would have found that there was never any plan for PICISI to be a charity, that it was always the plan for PICISI to be a business, and the plan was for the business to help give CC more exposure in real world applications.

The evidence of those facts is more than obvious, the site prerequisites imply that no site presently exists, the site prerequisites also imply that once those goals are met that something else will occur, when you look at the individual prerequisites in relation to all of them the viewer should reasonable conclude that soon after all goals are achieved the basic tools will be in place to create the business.

You don't need a license to market a plan, you don't need a license to raise money to form a org or any type, you don't need a license put the pieces together for the creation of that business.

Vod mentioned a 'corporation' and 'board of directors'  where did he get that from?  Who called PICISI a corporation? Who said PICISI has a board of directors?  No one that I see, Vod is the only person putting that out there to my knowledge.   Given that Vod used the word "stakeholders" like this: "stakeholders (no corporation license!)" I assume Vod has confused the words "stakeholders" with the word "stockholders".  Again he allowed his preconceived notions to prejudice his judgement.  It's important to note that I corrected that error of his earlier however he likely didn't read it or believe it.  

and lastly,

Vod mentioned 'collection of large sums of money', he really needs to explain that because PICISI does plan on making large sums of money, over and over again, and I would not be foolish to run away from that.

Vod clearly failed to get adequately informed about PICISI before he came to his conclusions, famto get familiar with the subject before makeing ado his homework

I'm looking for people to help me manage PICISI it requires that interested parties read all of the articles presently available about PICISI, and have a solid understanding about PICISI in addition to being suitable for the position sought.  So that when more FUD arrives at PICISI's doorstep more of us are ready to defend her.

Vod carried that same falsehood to a PICISI sponsor: ([WAC] Official WorldAidCoin Thread)





Here was the PICISI sponsor's response:





Here was my direct response:




Vod mentioned "Charity" "license" "corporation" "board of directors" "stakeholders" and "collection of large sums of ... currency"   In short, Vod jumped to the wrong conclusion over and over again because he didn't want to read.

Here is a more comprehensive view: Vod is assuming facts in evidence, and more importantly if he or anyone simply look at the fact or the evidence everyone should see the truth.  Here are the facts PICISI is a business plan taking shape, I am the designer of the plan.   A critical part of that plan is formation of the org, creation of the site, and creation of currency. 

Vod didn't read the plan, didn't read the articles about the plan, nor did he read the threads about the plan, because had he done any or all of them he would have found that there was never any plan for PICISI to be a charity, that it was always the plan for PICISI to be a business, and the plan was for the business to help give CC more exposure in real world applications.

The evidence of those facts is more than obvious, the site prerequisites imply that no site presently exists, the site prerequisites also imply that once those goals are met that something else will occur, when you look at the individual prerequisites in relation to all of them the viewer should reasonable conclude that soon after all goals are achieved the basic tools will be in place to create the business.

You don't need a license to market a plan, you don't need a license to raise money to form a org or any type, you don't need a license put the pieces together for the creation of that business.

Vod mentioned a 'corporation' and 'board of directors'  where did he get that from?  Who called PICISI a corporation? Who said PICISI has a board of directors?  No one that I see, Vod is the only person putting that out there to my knowledge.   Given that Vod used the word "stakeholders" like this: "stakeholders (no corporation license!)" I assume Vod has confused the words "stakeholders" with the word "stockholders".  Again he allowed his preconceived notions to prejudice his judgement.  It's important to note that I corrected that error of his earlier however he likely didn't read it or believe it. 

and lastly,

Vod mentioned 'collection of large sums of money', he really needs to explain that because PICISI does plan on making large sums of money, over and over again, and I would not be foolish to run away from that.

Vod clearly failed to get adequately informed about PICISI before he came to his conclusions, famto get familiar with the subject before makeing ado his homework

I'm looking for people to help me manage PICISI it requires that interested parties read all of the articles presently available about PICISI, and have a solid understanding about PICISI in addition to being suitable for the position sought.  So that when more FUD arrives at PICISI's doorstep more of us are ready to defend her.

I appreciate your support.  Vod's irresponsible smear campaign is a pit of negativity.

It has become obvious to me that Vod didn't read much about PICISI before rushing to judgement.   Ask him to tell you what PICISI is, he could not tell you because he didn't read about it and refuses to believe what he is told by the creator of PICISI. 

He claims it's a scam so I said if you actually believe that then bet your membership in bitcointalk.org, once I prove that it is not a scam Vod membership must resign.
He refused to address that.  That's proof that he is not just spreading fear but that he doesn't stand behind his words, position, and feedback.

How unfair is it to have a "trust system" in which someone could make a false accusation that causes damage to ones character but suffer no penalty when proven wrong?
I know the site isn't a free country, however I also know that 'guilty until proven innocent' is a bad policy, but worse is the fact that no penalty is suffered by those who seek to used the trust system as an extortion mechanism.

 

I don't know what or who Quickseller is, but my guess is Quickseller by the context and references above that Quickseller is connected somehow to Vod, is that your position Bicknellski?


Getting back to PICISI, I see a few presumptions in play that apparently some, especially Vod, are making that are not facts in evidence, moreover that the actual facts indicate otherwise.   Here are the facts PICISI is a business plan taking shape, and I am the designer of the plan -- Armis created PICISI.   A critical part of that plan is formation of the org, creation of the site, and creation of currency.  

Vod didn't read the plan, didn't read the articles about the plan, nor did he read the threads about the plan because had he done any or all of those things he would have found that there was never any plan for PICISI to be a charity, that it was always the plan for PICISI to be a business, and the plan was for the business to help give CC more exposure in real world applications.

The evidence of those facts is more than obvious, the site prerequisites imply that no site presently exists, the site prerequisites also imply that once those goals are met that something else will occur, when you look at the individual prerequisites in relation to all of them as one the viewer should reasonable conclude that soon after all goals are achieved all of the basic tools will be in place to create the business.

You don't need a license to market a plan, you don't need a license to raise money to form a org or any type, and you don't need a license put the pieces together for the creation of that business.

Currently, Vod is the only person that posted to a PICISI thread that indicated he thought PICISI was a charity.  Even after he created a thread which unfairly lead people to his point of view only a small hand full of people agreed with him (a larger number disagreed with him), and only a fraction of that small handful who agreed with him actually said so in the thread.  My guess is they all had no prior opportunity to see PICISI in context as Vod had.  The very simple fact is prior to Vod's stunt, when anyone saw "PICISI (Philanthropic Investment and Charity for Inventions, Startups, an Ideas)" it was likely accompanied by the words: "a crowdfunding site currently under construction" or words to that effect. This is in threads as well as in articles.   So when Vod saw it he knew or should have known that PICISI was going to be a crowdfunding site not any type of charity.  When Vod created his thread he purposefully left that out.

I'm looking for people to help me manage PICISI it requires that interested parties read all of the articles presently available about PICISI, and have a solid understanding about PICISI in addition to being suitable for the position sought.  So that when more FUD arrives at PICISI's doorstep more of us are ready to defend her.