You have no proof where the funds went after OG received them, this is a fact.
It really doesn't matter as it doesn't change the fact that Og lied about not being reimbursed by pirate. For all you know it could have been a refund, and you have no evidence to demonstrate otherwise, only speculation of where it went.
Doesn't matter; see above. Lauda's rating, according to what was left, has nothing to do with this
You're the one who brought it up. This is just more proof these systems are merely tools you and your mob buddies use to punish people with ideas you don't like, and protecting people from fraud is merely an afterthought if it is considered at all.
K, so leave. I don't think I will go anywhere. I think I will keep doing what I am doing and continually draw attention to the malignant behavior of you and your pals.
This is straight out of the TOAA playbook: trolling and lying in the name of helping others while actually helping nobody. Yet is does matter, because a supposed lie is not equivalent to theft. The "lie" itself isn't even proven and based on the word of a convicted felon. You don't have any idea where that money went, and any conclusions toward that end are purely speculation. Yes, I did bring it up because the timing of the rating makes it clear it was left in retribution for pointing out the continual speculative accusations and attacks on OGNasty. Why would I leave when clearly that is the goal of these attempts to punish me and intimidate me into silence? No, I think I will get louder. |
|
|
|
Exactly. All the same mob members who have been attacking OGNasty forever now are here
Wrong. Didn't give a shit about OgNasty until this thread was revived. repeating over and over again how they have proof, but hey have nothing of the sort.
Wrong. Your failure to digest proof submitted here many times over is no fault but your own. The only 100% absolute fact here is no one knows where those funds went, to who, or why.
Wrong. We know funds went from pirate to Og even though Og said he was never reimbursed by pirate. This point is not even being debated, just being glossed over in favor of repeating "there is proof" ad nauseam without ever presenting it.
Wrong. Its been an ongoing debate for over a week now. This is 100% about targeting OGNasty. None of these people here accusing him give a flying fuck about anyone that was supposedly victimized or this community in general.
We've gone over this already, several times. I for one don't feel sorry for victims who knowingly invest in Ponzi schemes. Regardless, it was 7 years ago, so good luck finding someone willing to claim they were a victim now. This issue has never been about this point despite your repeated attempts to make it so. This community is simply a tool for them to punish their adversaries as they have demonstrated repeatedly in the past.
Nobody is making you stay here. And of course this same mob of people is making sure I pay a price for speaking up here in the form of more trust system abuse. The referenced event happened some time ago, but the trust rating was only left now. I wonder why that is!
Because you are currently attempting to introduce confusion into a relatively clear matter. Og said he lost funds to pirate. Pirate submitted testimony to the SEC saying he was refunded in whole. Documents submitted by pirate correspond to blockchain evidence which prove beyond a reasonable doubt at least some funds were sent to Og. In this instance, given the circumstances, it makes absolute sense to trust pirate's word over Og's, given that pirate was submitting testimony to government officials and Og is not. I don't always agree with Lauda's ratings but in this case I absolutely do. You don't have to be here. If you hate this community so much, then leave. You show up with a bad attitude every single day. Nobody has ever asked for your advice on anything. Nobody needs you. Just leave if you hate it so much. You have no proof where the funds went after OG received them, this is a fact. For all you know it could have been a refund, and you have no evidence to demonstrate otherwise, only speculation of where it went. This is not proof, this is speculation. Lauda's rating, according to what was left, has nothing to do with this, but of course based on the timing of the rating, it is obviously retribution for posting here and dismantling their efforts trying to target OGnasty with accusation after accusation based on speculation. This is just more proof these systems are merely tools you and your mob buddies use to punish people with ideas you don't like, and protecting people from fraud is merely an afterthought if it is considered at all. I don't think I will go anywhere. I think I will keep doing what I am doing and continually draw attention to the malignant behavior of you and your pals. |
|
|
|
The usual mob of perpetrators is at it again, this time taking retribution for daring to defend one of their targeted individuals. The referenced event happened some time ago, but the trust rating was only left now. I wonder why that is! Apparently putting people on my trust list Lauda doesn't approve of makes me dishonest. This is a blatantly obvious pattern of abuse of anyone who dares to question this targeted abusive behavior. These people belong no where near having any kind of influence in a trust system, because to them it is simply a tool to use to punish people they don't agree with. They couldn't give a fuck less about the community, the community is just a tool they use to jerk off their egos. Lauda 2019-12-18 Reference "Dishonest. Wouldn't trust." |
|
|
|
|
I would echo the sentiments of the other users here, reloading coins is a bad idea. The only way I would personally see this as acceptable is if there was a clear marking on the coin or hologram making it obvious it is a reload, otherwise unscrupulous people could try to resell reloads as originals, which would certainly effect the resale value of the actual originals, pissing off your customer/collector base.
|
|
|
|
They did collectively control the economy, what the hell are you on about?
Sorry who are this "they" you're using? Again, the only person owning the means of production in Nazi Germany was Hitler, the only person owning the means of production in USSR was Staline. That's collectivisation for you? Yes, that is collectivization, because collectivization is an inherently flawed concept. Some one gets wasted and plows into a school bus, everyone says the driver was drunk. You reply "You call that drinking? That is manslaughter. Drinking is when you have fun with your friends." Socialism is an amorphous thing that socialists call all the things they like, and of course socialism is never at fault any time it results in negative consequences. |
|
|
|
so 144 coins.
did not he repeatedly state he invested coins .
he did. lots of posts show he said he put coins into this pirate club.
so now you need to prove those 144 coins belonged to whomever.
i rounded a bit
aug 6. 1 btc was. 10.75. x 66.8. = 725
aug 13. 1 btc was 11.86. x 39.2. = 453
aug 17. 1 btc was 13.31. x 38.0. = 505
I get 1683 in usd.
so did he simply keep that as it was what he invested?
we don’t know
was some of that paid to a third party investor
we don’t know
did it belong to multiple third parties and og kept it wrongly
we dont know.
when og had 3 million plus in funds did he keep them safely
we do know answer is yes.
my biggest concern about og was he may have made some coin with digibyte in a gray manner.
not this.
to op when you can answer the questions we dont know let us know. Exactly. All the same mob members who have been attacking OGNasty forever now are here repeating over and over again how they have proof, but hey have nothing of the sort. The only 100% absolute fact here is no one knows where those funds went, to who, or why. This point is not even being debated, just being glossed over in favor of repeating "there is proof" ad nauseam without ever presenting it. This is 100% about targeting OGNasty. None of these people here accusing him give a flying fuck about anyone that was supposedly victimized or this community in general. This community is simply a tool for them to punish their adversaries as they have demonstrated repeatedly in the past. EDIT: And of course this same mob of people is making sure I pay a price for speaking up here in the form of more trust system abuse. The referenced event happened some time ago, but the trust rating was only left now. I wonder why that is! Apparently putting people on my trust list Lauda doesn't approve of makes me dishonest. Lauda 2019-12-18 Reference "Dishonest. Wouldn't trust." |
|
|
|
there is a big difference between equity owners that live from passive income and people that are forced to sell their time.
besides back to topic,
if the nazis where socialists why did they kill socialists and kommunists then and put them into the KZ or ausschwitz?
why did hitler attack the socialist soviet union then?
there are many rich, powerful and influential people in the west nowadays who need for their economic survival, to get a rumor like that around. but i doubt it will work. nazis were national kapitalists.
regards The same reason Stalin put other socialists into the gulags. Power. Socialism is simply the means to an end for dictatorial power. Collectivizing all the resources inherently is flawed because it makes it so easy for a dictator to step in and take over everything, let alone the plethora of other flaws with socialism. |
|
|
|
Anyone who compiles information (evidence) should be making some kind of conclusions or recommendation (which seems to be what Twitchy had been attempting to do), but if the evidence is compiled well, any reader of the information that has been compiled would not have to agree with the conclusions or recommendations of the information compiler.
In this case, it should be easy enough for any forum member to be able to separate Twitchy's compilation efforts from his conclusions/recommendations, no?
For example, if all of the evidence shows that OGNasty was paid back 84 BTC more than he paid out to pass through investors, then a reasonable inference could be reached that he pocketed such 84BTC that he was paid. If there is no other evidence regarding what happened to that 84BTC, then what are we supposed to conclude happened to that 84BTC? We cannot conclude that he paid that 84BTC to pass through investors unless we get further evidence of such additional payment(s), which seems to be absent in this case, so wouldn't the most reasonable inference be that OGNasty somehow took those BTC?
Sometimes accountings are needed from members who put themselves into positions of trust and holding the BTC of other members, especially if they are continuing in that line of business, and if they choose not to give a reasonable and perhaps credible accounting, then the most fair conclusion might be to go with the negative inferences that seems to establish a negative conclusion.
There are common practice legal principles that deal with non-cooperating parties in these kinds of circumstances, and if all reasonable efforts have been taken to attempt to get persons with evidence to cooperate and they choose not to, then sometimes the most reasonable next step would be to draw a negative inference from their ongoing non-cooperation in providing evidence. Several posters here have already asserted that OGNasty has not sufficiently cooperated or provided a reasonable and credible explanation regarding the current evidence. Others have argued that OGNasty does not need to cooperate, which does seem to be the weaker position, especially for someone who had been serving as a fiduciary holder of BTC (and still regularly engages in such fiduciary holding of BTC practices through the forum, from my understanding).
Maybe it is true that 99% of the time, OGNasty pays back all of the funds that he holds on behalf of other members, but is that an acceptable practice if it were shown to be true? Anyone who does not get paid back in a particular case does not care if OGNasty pays back 99% of the time, s/he only would care that s/he did not get paid back in this particular instance, if that ends up being the most reasonably inferred facts of this particular case.
All the evidence does not show that. All the evidence shows is transfers were made, not to who, for what, or why. That is absolutely speculation. I took the liberty of putting the part where you yet again try to reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. Well, perhaps I am saying that the burden of proof shifts, and perhaps that is a fair way of saying that if we conclude that the evidence establishes that OGNasty received BTC that should have been the property of others, and it appears that he did not distribute those to the others, then he has some kind of burden to describe or show what happened to those BTC. Of course, you are saying that we do not know the who, what, or why, and that seems to be a bit of an overstatement regarding what the reasonable inferences seem to establish. Yeah, you can argue that they are not established enough, but maybe you are being unreasonable? Levels of reasonableness frequently vary, and that can be why jurors differ in their opinions, even after instructions regarding how to consider the evidence and which parties have which burdens to show what. We are not exactly a jury here, but similar principles apply, even if we might be having some disagreement about what are the standards or even the thresholds for the burdens. Interesting how we can't conclude he is innocent until proven otherwise,
Yes. We seem to agree on that. but for you to speculate and make conclusions based on speculation about what happened to those funds,
It is not called speculation, it is called reasonable inferences. Sure, we can disagree what reasonable inferences establish in this case or any other case. well that is perfectly acceptable to conclude isn't it?
Sometimes you conclude based on what you got. Sometimes you have direct evidence and other times you have indirect evidence. With indirect evidence, you can still determine if you believe that it is enough to establish reasonable inferences of x or y, even if it might not be as solid of an evidentiary ground as direct evidence. Don't try to act as if the only kind of relevant evidence is direct evidence. That is ridiculous. We have thousands of years of history in which indirect evidence and reasonable inferences is used (even justly so) when direct evidence cannot be obtained. People do not admit, frequently, when they did something wrong, but they still end up getting convicted (either criminally or civilly) on a regular basis, and justly so based on various kinds of indirect evidence and reasonable inferences. There are a variety of evidentiary standards including beyond a reasonable doubt (as Twitchy keeps mentioning), but this is not necessarily a criminal matter. There is also preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing, and depending on the kind of case will determine the evidentiary standards (sometimes established by common law and other times by statute). I think frequently fiduciaries are going to be held to higher standards than regular people because they have a duty to those that they are entrusted with the funds. So frequently we hear about a reasonable person standard, but in the case of a fiduciary, the standard might be tailored to what would a reasonable fiduciary do. OGNasty likely knows enough about what he is doing in order to be held to the standards of reasonable fiduciary practices. You keep crying up and down that you aren't twisting around the burden of proof, but it you do it over and over in every reply.
I am just providing an opinion on these various facts and arguments as they are presented. I doubt that I am twisting anything because I don't have any beef against OGNasty or any alliance with Twitchy or any of the other supposed Nasty haters. Like I mentioned several times already, this Nasty-hater theme, just seems to be quite a bit of a distraction rather than really attempting to figure out what the newly established facts are/mean and/or inferences that can reasonably drawn from them. Yet again you simply flip the burden of proof on its head and just pretend you haven't, but if you have its ok because "burden of proof shifts" according to you. It is not an overstatement at all. You nor anyone else have as any fucking clue whatsoever where those funds went. This is 100% a fact. Your speculation about what happened to it is not evidence, it is speculation. You are right, I am being totally unreasonable expecting you to be able to prove your accusations of theft without relying completely upon speculation and using that to demand the burden of proof now be upon OGNasty. You have fun with your twisted semantic gymnastics, just be careful you don't sprain your brain bending over backwards to try to make all your rambling gibberish seem like it makes logical sense. |
|
|
|
The only way this could back-fire on them if the MSM started to report real news. That's not going to happen, since they are also culpable as accomplices in the corruption that has plagued our country.
Think about all the blatant lies you heard during the impeachment inquiry. Democrats can misinterpret and misquote Trump, and no one will correct them. No one will hold them accountable for spreading falsehoods.
Imagine if a Republican misquoted one word of an Obama statement. The 24-hour news cycle would have a field day running it over and over on just about every cable news station, in an effort to discredit and completely delegitimize that persons entire existence. It doesn't matter. The media will have to report on it once the indictments start coming out. |
|
|
|
Anyone who compiles information (evidence) should be making some kind of conclusions or recommendation (which seems to be what Twitchy had been attempting to do), but if the evidence is compiled well, any reader of the information that has been compiled would not have to agree with the conclusions or recommendations of the information compiler.
In this case, it should be easy enough for any forum member to be able to separate Twitchy's compilation efforts from his conclusions/recommendations, no?
For example, if all of the evidence shows that OGNasty was paid back 84 BTC more than he paid out to pass through investors, then a reasonable inference could be reached that he pocketed such 84BTC that he was paid. If there is no other evidence regarding what happened to that 84BTC, then what are we supposed to conclude happened to that 84BTC? We cannot conclude that he paid that 84BTC to pass through investors unless we get further evidence of such additional payment(s), which seems to be absent in this case, so wouldn't the most reasonable inference be that OGNasty somehow took those BTC?
Sometimes accountings are needed from members who put themselves into positions of trust and holding the BTC of other members, especially if they are continuing in that line of business, and if they choose not to give a reasonable and perhaps credible accounting, then the most fair conclusion might be to go with the negative inferences that seems to establish a negative conclusion.
There are common practice legal principles that deal with non-cooperating parties in these kinds of circumstances, and if all reasonable efforts have been taken to attempt to get persons with evidence to cooperate and they choose not to, then sometimes the most reasonable next step would be to draw a negative inference from their ongoing non-cooperation in providing evidence. Several posters here have already asserted that OGNasty has not sufficiently cooperated or provided a reasonable and credible explanation regarding the current evidence. Others have argued that OGNasty does not need to cooperate, which does seem to be the weaker position, especially for someone who had been serving as a fiduciary holder of BTC (and still regularly engages in such fiduciary holding of BTC practices through the forum, from my understanding).
Maybe it is true that 99% of the time, OGNasty pays back all of the funds that he holds on behalf of other members, but is that an acceptable practice if it were shown to be true? Anyone who does not get paid back in a particular case does not care if OGNasty pays back 99% of the time, s/he only would care that s/he did not get paid back in this particular instance, if that ends up being the most reasonably inferred facts of this particular case.
All the evidence does not show that. All the evidence shows is transfers were made, not to who, for what, or why. That is absolutely speculation. I took the liberty of putting the part where you yet again try to reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. Interesting how we can't conclude he is innocent until proven otherwise, but for you to speculate and make conclusions based on speculation about what happened to those funds, well that is perfectly acceptable to conclude isn't it? You keep crying up and down that you aren't twisting around the burden of proof, but it you do it over and over in every reply. |
|
|
|
Now why are you always bringing Twitchy in? For the sake of getting this resolved, I really don't care much about whether he is asking questions or drawing conclusions. I am asking questions and others are, too. In order to get some clarity about this situation, it would be really helpful if we can put this obsession aside and focus on the actual questions being asked. But that doesn't seem to be your intention, otherwise you probably wouldn't misunderstand what I'm writing on purpose, all the time.
So, one more time, I'm not here to argue with you about Twitchy, I'm here to ask questions I consider important and helpful in getting this mess resolved. Did that arrive? Maybe because he is the one claiming he has "proof beyond a reasonable doubt OGNasty stole" those Bitcoins? Exactly how am I supposed to address the accusations without addressing the accuser? By Twitchy Seal's own admission he has no proof who those coins went to, therefore by definition he is lying about having "proof beyond a reasonable doubt OGNasty" stole. I don't really care if you think it is important that the one making the accusations is flat out fabricating conclusions, it is in fact important. We have been over the questions, over, and over, and over, and over again. Exactly what is being accomplished other than trying to convince people of his guilt by repetition? It has been established with Twitchy Seal's own admission he doesn't have any idea where those funds went. I consider the fact that you are ignoring this fact quite relevant. I understand perfectly. You only want to look at one side of this issue and ignore the complete fabrications being claimed by the accusers while you pretend to play the role of undecided moderate. |
|
|
|
Aww whats a matter techole, wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? (every morning actually, I don't think your bed has a "right" side).
FOX News gets mentioned by Trump seemingly a hundred times a month, wonder why that is.
I've never said anything about Horowitz, the FBI spying on Trump, or whatever this thread is actually about. I didn't even say it in this thread. Don't let that stop you from making absolutely false statements, though. TIL everytime Trump speaks, he speaks for every conservative. That's what I said. Take your off topic Trump derangement syndrome rambling elsewhere, this thread is about how all the narratives you have been pushing have been proven to be lies by this report. http://www.stationgossip.com/2019/12/the-main-source-for-christopher-steeles.html |
|
|
|
I think this didn't come out the way I meant it to. Maybe language barrier. I was referring to Pirate: he's got nothing to gain from lying to the court, especially with information which is easily verifyable.
Generally, I totally agree that "guilty until proven innocent" is not an option, hence I'm careful forming an opinion, here.
I don't know much about what else is going on between Twitchy and OgNasty. All I've seen is the information provided in this thread, and I absolutely think it's enough to ask questions. Now you are just repeating yourself. He isn't just "asking questions" is he? He is making conclusions, and claiming to have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt OGNasty stole" that Bitcoin. That is a lie and you know it no matter how many times you try to equivocate. The history of flimsy accusations against OGNasty is quite important to this matter, but being ignorant of the history of this situation doesn't stop you from equivocating over and over playing the role of "the moderate" as you perpetuate his lies now does it? |
|
|
|
Well, that's what FOX News is for. FOX News is popular because there indeed exists a bias toward the left in most mainstream news, and there is a consumer demand for counterbalance.
I think the bias in the general media exists because leftist ideology just makes for better news. And by "better news" I mean it attracts more viewers and sells more commercials. It can be more sensational or plain interesting. Whereas "conservative news" tends to be dry and boring. I love how every leftist thinks Fox is some kind of conservative Mecca. Fox is shit and just as establishment as the rest of the media, except for one or two legitimate people on it who they keep on very tight leashes. Most of the media is leftist, because the corporate establishment is leftist, not because it is "more interesting". Conservatives are more individualistic by nature, the left are collectivists. Collectivist ideology aligns perfectly with the globalist cattle cart mentality the corporate media favors to protect its own interests. Of course none of this has anything to do with the topic, which you will avoid completely of course because it is proof of exactly the opposite of everything you have been screaming at the top of your lungs for the past few years. |
|
|
|
You are telling me that you know beyond a reasonable doubt those funds went to an address owned and controlled by OGNasty?
NO! Just saying they didn't go to the addresses all the interest/withdraw funds went during the time period. Every other payment has been documented - from mid April - August 1. Pirate ponzi goes under mid August, Og collects a couple payments from Pirate mid August. He tells his investors he got robbed instead of paying paying them the funds pirate payed him. Not sure how much simpler I can make this. No, you are not "just saying" they didn't go to the same address, you are saying your evidence "proves beyond a reasonable doubt OGNasty stole", which is of course an absolute fucking lie, proven by your own admission. You are claiming to have absolute proof, then walking it back when I call you out on it, pretending you are just making a suggestion. You are full of shit. |
|
|
|
Ya'll are making me frustrated..
Begging for 100% solid proof that he was reimbursed won't magically make proof appear. We've got someone saying he did reimburse – someone who has nothing to gain from making that up (which, btw, should not be confused with considering Pirate "trustworthy"), and someone who's either avoiding the question or has poor writing skills. So, it's not "us" making you frustrated, it's the situation and what we have, so far. And that situation demands asking questions. You don't see any issue with people being forced to prove their innocence on demand? You don't see how this would be abused? There is a very good reason the criminal justice system uses the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" because the process itself can easily become a tool of retribution. Are you absolutely sure he has nothing to gain? With the series of accusations against him made by Twitchy Seal it in fact does seem like he has something to gain, in the form of targeting OGNasty. Why do I have to beg for proof of anything?
Even a mere lie and no proof?
Ya'll are making me frustrated..
You don't. I've posted links to every piece of evidence I've found, including evidence that has proven my own previous theories wrong. Just look at it and come to your own conclusion based on the evidence instead of begging for people to explain it to you or walk you through how to find it. It's all in this thread and you don't need to take my word, or reputation, or anyone elses into consideration. I will save you a bit of trouble though, If you're looking for proof that the chances that Og didn't steal any money is 0.00001% or greater, or if evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he only stole BTC165 doesn't matter because it was only worth ~$1700, or if you don't think evidence that shows it was likely that he stole much more but there is some doubt, or if you don't think Ogs history of profiting off giant scams without risk by collecting other people money is relevant ,then don't bother - you definitely won't find it. Tell me, specifically what part of your cavernous anus did you pull that statistic from? You are telling me that you know beyond a reasonable doubt those funds went to an address owned and controlled by OGNasty? If not, that is a lot more than a 0.00001% chance, but maybe if you make up some more stats and say "beyond a reasonable doubt" a few more times people will just believe you eh? |
|
|
|
Yes its always the imperialist foreign forces. Communists can never do wrong, ever. Its always the external enemy and sometimes the internal enemy. Their ideas cannot be wrong, because they are perfect, and the fault always lies elsewhere, its never theirs.
Quite open until someone tells them they did wrong, then clearly that someone needs re-education...
Communists are like a person trying to scuba dive with a garbage bag filled with air over their heads, then when the bag breaks they blame the ocean for flooding in. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
