Kind of seems like you are admitting that your conclusions rely on speculation. I would love to hear you explain how the fact that your accusation relies on speculation is not addressing the central issue of burden of proof, which by definition relying on speculation you have not met.
Speculation happens when no compelling facts are considered, which is not the case here. You've been given the resources to educate yourself on the evidence of what happened but are unwilling, unable, or you did educate yourself but can't refute anything I have claimed, so you just call everything 'speculation'. This is what it actually looks like when someone makes false assumptions just to attack someone: I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway.
~snip~
All of your claims rely heavily on speculation, assumptions, and perfect hindsight.
If you're capable, just put a little effort into looking into the facts. Maybe you'll find something I missed and then the next time you insult me it will feel even better than normal. If you're not capable, then please stop making statements as you did consider the evidence. Way too much personality happening in this thread now..
You you, He He, This user, That user, etc. etc. We are all guilty of it so don't try denying it..
Let's get to the facts of this matter so we can get it over and done with eh?
So we are down to 144 unaccounted for BTC now?
Worth what? Like $1,000 at the time?
You're killing me man. Just read the thread please, I'm starting to feel like a broken record. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.msg53339211#msg53339211 |
|
|
|
I am more focused on everyone else observing getting the full backround of the motivations behind this targeting, and the long term consequences for this community if this kind of Stalinist behavior is tolerated.
To everyone else observing it looks like you are barking at anyone who questions is presenting assumptions and speculation as facts. Fixed that for you. Also what is it like speaking for "everyone" sounds like a cool job. Is this the part where I tell you not to speak for me and call you a little girl? There's an obvious conundrum here that you are downplaying in order to continue your Trump-esque screams of "WITCH HUNT!" Its amazing that you actually believe people still take you seriously. You think? I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway. It's crazy how many people have jumped to vigorously defend OgNasty, but don't seem interested in what actually happened. QuickSeller is the only exception. |
|
|
|
A lot of people will at a conscious level think, "I'm tolerant, I'd definitely vote for a gay president," but subconsciously they'll be a little uncomfortable with it, and if they're not sure who to vote for, this'll tip the scales. This subconscious effect is best captured in neighbor polling, where "your neighbors" IMO ends up being a proxy for "your community's collective subconscious": That gap grew even wider when voters were asked whether they thought their neighbors were ready for a gay president. About a quarter of respondents answered affirmatively, while 46 percent said their neighbors were either definitely or probably not ready for a gay president. Pluralities of both Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents, all said they did not believe that their neighbors were ready for a gay president. This might bode poorly for him in a general election, though I doubt that a lot of people are wavering on whether to vote for Trump or not -- most people either love him or hate him --, and the LGBT thing is an effect which pushes most people only slightly. Also, any negative effect will be counterbalanced to some extent by some LGBT people being actively driven to vote for him. .... If all that was true, how did Hillary run at all? By avoiding this delicate issue? She filed with the FEC? |
|
|
|
Twitchy clearly stated he has NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED WRONG DOING. IT is merely speculation.
 It's not merely speculation. There's a shitload of evidence. What I stated was that the evidence "proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he pocketed BTC144" If scammers were only labeled such when it was proven that it would be impossible for them not to have scammed....nobody would ever be labeled a scammer. Could you take the default trust list drama to another thread please? |
|
|
|
the sun is 32 nautical miles wide.
Did you use a sextant measure the sun? lol ^^^ I'm saying that 3 nautical miles is the maximum distance a 6 foot observer can see a 1 foot object and, that the sun is 32 nautical miles wide.
Did you know that Joe Rogan being so short, has his horizon closer than yours? The man literally lives in a smaller world than everybody else.
Did you know Joe Rogan is taller than the average human? |
|
|
|
^^^ The angular resolution limit of the human eye is 1 minute, which corresponds to 1 foot at a 1/2 nautical mile distance. For a 6 foot observer, this equates to a horizon only 3 nautical miles away. This is that farthest the human eye can see.
Then add the limiting effects of the atmosphere to a locally illuminating 32 nautical mile wide sun.
The earth is large, the sun is small and we can only see so far.
Are you saying the sun is only 3 miles away? |
|
|
|
The reader should read this post and note there will be NO DEBUNKING OF THE CENTRAL POINTS there is no IRREFUTABLE PROOF of what they are claiming took place ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. It is all speculation the critical evidence is the "word" of a convicted "scammer".
You should really go back and read the thread man. The court document where pirate said he paid Og back isn't crucial evidence. It's entirely possible pirate was lying. The crucial evidence can be found in the forum archives and block chain. Nothing else you said is directly related to whether or not Og scammed pass-through 'investors'. I could be the biggest scammer piece of shit in the world and it wouldn't change the facts. I hadn't made any conclusions until yesterday. If you'd have read the thread you would've known that I was open about the fact that I could be wrong.
Right now (as of yesterday) there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Og stole BTC144 and I don't need Pirates statement about paying out OgNasty in full to prove it. (There is evidence that he took more, but it's not strong enough (yet).)
We have pirates ledger for every transaction.
We have ogs thread archived.
We have both Pirates and OgNastys wallets indexed on wallet explorer.
We have the block chain.
Og was receiving weekly interest payments from Pirate, and making monthly payments to his pass through investors.
The last interest payment Og sent to his investors was on August 2, 2012.
On August 6 Og received an interested payment of BTC66.8
On August 13 Og received an interested payment of BTC39.2
On August 17 He received a withdraw for BTC38
On Sept 2 he paid out the insurance he had been collecting to 4 investors. BTC9.92, BTC4.59, BTC22.95 and BTC27.54
We know that was the insurance because Og posted on the same day 'reserves have been paid, pirate has defaulted', and they total BTC65, the same amount Og listed as the 'current reserves' on August 2.
You'll find transaction ids to all of these in the thread if you decide to bother looking into it.
Bump^^ Reference Material: OgNastys WalletExplorer Transactions from August 2012OgNasty transactions with pirate from April 2012Pirates Ledger . (ctrl + f 'ognasty') OgNasty Posts June Payments in pass through threadOgNasty Posts July Payments in pass through threadAugust
If you're taking Ogs character into account, consider what he put in his OP: "You should [use in Bitcoin Savings & Trust]. pirateat40 is a great asset to the community and if you have the BTC to establish an account, a current member willing to refer you, and are willing to wait for your invite, please do"Now go read the first page and a half of this thread. And keep in mind the 'insurance' he mentions was BTC65 total. Let's make this VERY SIMPLE Striking away pirates claim You are claiming you have CONCLUSIVE PROOF of clear and undeniable financially motivated wrong doing by OG nasty.
YES OR NO?? If you say YES and you do NOT have conclusive proof. That is defamation and lies according to DT precedent here. So you accept you should be flagged and tagged?? I mean in our case we had conclusive undeniable proof they did not even dispute that but still gave us red for asking a QUESTION. So be very careful. Then again you do not need to be careful as you currently support them. You are correct though that if you have CONCLUSIVE IRREFUTABLE PROOF your motives do not really matter and can be struck away. Those motives only MATTER if there is NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF. Just read the post man. I already said it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he pocketed BTC144 and there's evidence that the the number is higher, it's not as strong, but still worth discussing. As far as the BTC144, it's not impossible that after receiving the last 3 payments from Pirate in August he used a completely different wallet with completely different funds and paid the 4 investors to completely separate wallets from all the other payments they received (even though he said all payments would go to the address the investor provided when they invested) and then on Sept 1 paid out the reserves from and to the original addresses that every other payment had been made in previous months, and didn't mention it in the thread, unlike every other payment. Look at all the evidence and decide for yourself how likely it is that that is what happened, and let me know if you can think of any other scenario where he didn't steal any funds. Also, scrutinize all the evidence yourself - it's possible I made some stupid mistake somewhere. If someone finds one I'm happy to admit it and go back and edit my posts to reflect that. I've already admitted I made a mistake about him deleting posts in the original thread when he found out I was looking into it. It was just content in the OP, not any actual posts. |
|
|
|
The reader should read this post and note there will be NO DEBUNKING OF THE CENTRAL POINTS there is no IRREFUTABLE PROOF of what they are claiming took place ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. It is all speculation the critical evidence is the "word" of a convicted "scammer".
You should really go back and read the thread man. The court document where pirate said he paid Og back isn't crucial evidence. It's entirely possible pirate was lying. The crucial evidence can be found in the forum archives and block chain. Nothing else you said is directly related to whether or not Og scammed pass-through 'investors'. I could be the biggest scammer piece of shit in the world and it wouldn't change the facts. I hadn't made any conclusions until yesterday. If you'd have read the thread you would've known that I was open about the fact that I could be wrong.
Right now (as of yesterday) there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Og stole BTC144 and I don't need Pirates statement about paying out OgNasty in full to prove it. (There is evidence that he took more, but it's not strong enough (yet).)
We have pirates ledger for every transaction.
We have ogs thread archived.
We have both Pirates and OgNastys wallets indexed on wallet explorer.
We have the block chain.
Og was receiving weekly interest payments from Pirate, and making monthly payments to his pass through investors.
The last interest payment Og sent to his investors was on August 2, 2012.
On August 6 Og received an interested payment of BTC66.8
On August 13 Og received an interested payment of BTC39.2
On August 17 He received a withdraw for BTC38
On Sept 2 he paid out the insurance he had been collecting to 4 investors. BTC9.92, BTC4.59, BTC22.95 and BTC27.54
We know that was the insurance because Og posted on the same day 'reserves have been paid, pirate has defaulted', and they total BTC65, the same amount Og listed as the 'current reserves' on August 2.
You'll find transaction ids to all of these in the thread if you decide to bother looking into it.
Bump^^ Reference Material: OgNastys WalletExplorer Transactions from August 2012OgNasty transactions with pirate from April 2012Pirates Ledger . (ctrl + f 'ognasty') OgNasty Posts June Payments in pass through threadOgNasty Posts July Payments in pass through threadAugust
If you're taking Ogs character into account, consider what he put in his OP: "You should [use in Bitcoin Savings & Trust]. pirateat40 is a great asset to the community and if you have the BTC to establish an account, a current member willing to refer you, and are willing to wait for your invite, please do"Now go read the first page and a half of this thread. And keep in mind the 'insurance' he mentions was BTC65 total. |
|
|
|
You brought up price and CO2, TECSHARE brought up efficiency. Which is fine, I was literally just trying to have a discussion. Jeez. As you are often fond of telling me, calm down. We are just having a discussion, you just don't like the direction it went. I am afraid you are just going to have to learn cope with that. Half convo, half 'lets bash TwitchySeal' party lol Was just pointing out my 'bouncing around' was just responding to you guys. Do you have any data that shows electric vehicles are ecologically worse or less efficient? Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do. The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner. I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you. Overall price is definitely an indicator. But I guess we could argue Gas is too high or electric too low and it won't stay that way? Seems likely electric cars are still coming down in price though. |
|
|
|
good find. So it's fair to say that the 'downstream' energy costs are reflected in these prices.
I know you still have the issue of what's best described as "lifecycle energy costs" or "lifecycle emissions," or "lifecycle costs including disposal of Li batteries" etc. He is bouncing freely between co2 emissions, price, and actual energy efficiency. I find the concept of anthropogenic global warming to be nonsense and meaningless, but it takes many years for an electric vehicle to make up for the emissions created during the construction of the vehicle. The price (currently ) is in favor of EVs, but that could change any day as the market shifts. As far as energy efficiency he likes to point about the extraction and delivery cost of fossil fuels but also wants to ignore the immense amounts of energy required to mine the rare Earth elements required to build an EV, as well as the multitude of other disastrous environmental side effects of mining these types of minerals. All very true, but the pinnacle of the AGW circus is the training of people to be stupid, to think stupid and act stupid, and think they are wise, and wonderful. Where people once were taught the mechanisms of weather and climate, including the short, medium and long term oscillations and the reasons for them, now they are drilled with a mantra, a prescribed dogma, and questioning it is bad. Where there might have been serious discussion about electric cars versus gasoline, now the "good green option" is pre-decreed, regardless of whether the electric car where sited must run off a downstream coal combustion process. Where an offshore adversary or an enemy within the US wants to weaken us, they need only agitate and spend a few million to destroy or stall the issues (not building new nuclear power, the pipeline from Canada, fracking, offshore drilling, shutting down existing nuclear power, wasting money on windmills and solar farms) that if cleverly manipulated, directly lead to the US being economically dependent on oil from the Middle East, with all the consequences of that. You brought up price and CO2, TECSHARE brought up efficiency. Which is fine, I was literally just trying to have a discussion. Jeez. |
|
|
|
I hadn't made any conclusions until yesterday. If you'd have read the thread you would've known that I was open about the fact that I could be wrong.
Right now (as of yesterday) there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Og stole BTC144 and I don't need Pirates statement about paying out OgNasty in full to prove it. (There is evidence that he took more, but it's not strong enough (yet).)
We have pirates ledger for every transaction.
We have ogs thread archived.
We have both Pirates and OgNastys wallets indexed on wallet explorer.
We have the block chain.
Og was receiving weekly interest payments from Pirate, and making monthly payments to his pass through investors.
The last interest payment Og sent to his investors was on August 2, 2012.
On August 6 Og received an interested payment of BTC66.8
On August 13 Og received an interested payment of BTC39.2
On August 17 He received a withdraw for BTC38
On Sept 2 he paid out the insurance he had been collecting to 4 investors. BTC9.92, BTC4.59, BTC22.95 and BTC27.54
We know that was the insurance because Og posted on the same day 'reserves have been paid, pirate has defaulted', and they total BTC65, the same amount Og listed as the 'current reserves' on August 2.
You'll find transaction ids to all of these in the thread if you decide to bother looking into it.
Bump^^ Reference Material: OgNastys WalletExplorer Transactions from August 2012OgNasty transactions with pirate from April 2012Pirates Ledger . (ctrl + f 'ognasty') OgNasty Posts June Payments in pass through threadOgNasty Posts July Payments in pass through threadAugust
If you're taking Ogs character into account, consider what he put in his OP: "You should [use in Bitcoin Savings & Trust]. pirateat40 is a great asset to the community and if you have the BTC to establish an account, a current member willing to refer you, and are willing to wait for your invite, please do"Now go read the first page and a half of this thread. And keep in mind the 'insurance' he mentions was BTC65 total. |
|
|
|
Hong kong protests are not a person, they are a political movement. Time Person of the Year doesn't actually mean 'person'. It just means the thing the had the most influence. Last year it was 5 journalists. 2018 it was 5 women. 'The Computer', 'You', 'American Women' all won also. Their cause is to not be held accountable by the Chinese government. The whole protest started because they didn't want extradition from Hong Kong to China to be possible. Meanwhile, most people in the world can be extridited from their local authority by their federal authority.
Hong Kongs local authority is Hong Kong, not China. The Chinese government does not have the right to hold them accountable. Imagine if people in Portland didn't have to pay taxes and wanted to be exempt from all federal laws.
Not the same. Hong Kong was a British territory for 150 years until 1997 that ran as an independent Democracy with their own laws, constitution, elections etc In 1997 The UK handed them over to China after negotiating the 'One Country Two Systems' agreement that would be in effect until at least 2047: "The two SARs of Hong Kong and Macau are responsible for their domestic affairs including, but not limited to, the judiciary and courts of last resort, immigration and customs, public finance, currencies and extradition" |
|
|
|
For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces. Is this your 'reasons', or am I missing something. Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process? Or just when it combusts in your engine. That is is basic chemistry, results of combustion. There are many other trace outputs, in IC engines these are nominal. With coal they can be quite a problem. So just the emissions of when the coal combusts in the power plant and the gas in the engine. That's just part of the equation, as I've already pointed out. I think you're underestimating how much energy it takes to transfer the potential energy from the coal and crude oil in the ground to a car. It's not simple. Those energies are nicely summarized in a thing called "price."  |
|
|
|
For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces. Is this your 'reasons', or am I missing something. Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process? Or just when it combusts in your engine. That is is basic chemistry, results of combustion. There are many other trace outputs, in IC engines these are nominal. With coal they can be quite a problem. So just the emissions of when the coal combusts in the power plant and the gas in the engine. That's just part of the equation, as I've already pointed out. I think you're underestimating how much energy it takes to transfer the potential energy from the coal and crude oil in the ground to a car. It's not simple. |
|
|
|
For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces. Is this your 'reasons', or am I missing something. Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process? Or just when it combusts in your engine. |
|
|
|
...
Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do.
The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner. I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you.
For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces. If your power plant is coal fired electric is worse. first ask the right question... I meant how much is produced in total, from taking it out of the ground to when it make your wheels turn not just when it combusts. There are a ton of factors to consider. Overall though coal isn't even the biggest generator of electricity anymore. Natural Gas produces 50-60% less CO2 than coal. I don't think Renewable or Nuclear produce very much at all. Total electricity produced in America: Natural gas 35.2% Coal 27.5% Renewables 16.9% Go back and look at my comment. It says exactly this. "If your original source of energy is coal, an electric car is inferior to a gasoline car." Nothing complicated about it. Very simple. I gave the reasons. Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process? Or just when it combusts in your engine. |
|
|
|
...
Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do.
The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner. I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you.
For each kilowatt of energy, coal will produce 2 molecules of co2 for every one that gasoline produces. If your power plant is coal fired electric is worse. first ask the right question... I meant how much is produced in total, from taking it out of the ground to when it make your wheels turn not just when it combusts. There are a ton of factors to consider. Overall though coal isn't even the biggest generator of electricity anymore. Natural Gas produces 50-60% less CO2 than coal. I don't think Renewable or Nuclear produce very much at all. Total electricity produced in America: Natural gas 35.2% Coal 27.5% Renewables 16.9% |
|
|
|
This is exactly what I am talking about. A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft.
If you can actually disprove something specific I said, please do. Your 'A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft' defense is a true statement, but it doesn't directly address anything. Sometimes a discrepancy absolutely does prove theft. And sometimes, like in this case, it's just one piece of the big picture. I'm going to keep editing out and ignoring all the bullshit assumptions and personal attacks from now on, btw. |
|
|
|
So that guy is saying the ICE of a newer car, when it's running at peak efficiency, and not considering how the gas got into the car, will run more efficiently than an electric car that was charged by electricity generated at a coal plant (coal produces ~30% of electricity on the power grid in america, and dropping).
That's best case scenario for ICE cars and a bad one for Electric cars.
You're obviously right about electric cars not being truly 0 emissions, the work is just done at a power plant instead of under your hood. But I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the general consensus that electric > gas when it comes to the environment because of that quora answer which didn't even prove your point. The calculation also leaves out the energy required to mine all of those rare Earth minerals. I think you will find that if this energy expenditure is included, electric vehicles are distinctly ecologically the loser, even if it makes economic sense. Don't get me wrong, I think electric cars are great and are the future, but as they are now they are little more than a base concept with lots of slick marketing and subsidies. Do you have any data that shows electric vehicles are ecologically worse? Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do. The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner. I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
!["You should [use in Bitcoin Savings & Trust]. pirateat40 is a great asset to the community and if you have the BTC to establish an account, a current member willing to refer you, and are willing to wait for your invite, please do"](https://i.gyazo.com/e306d4ed3b3f6ef417db8f44d99e06b7.png){kind=link}