So a user specifically invokes all DT1, and even lists me by name, and I comment in his self moderated thread in disagreement with his actions. Not being content to simply delete my comment himself to maintain his illusion of everyone being in agreement with him, now he expects the moderators to be his servants and janitors. Whats more they actually did it! I mean is marlboroza secretly a moderator or something or is this really what they think is a good use of their time now running around deleting on topic posts users could delete themselves? How much more bias can they possibly get? To all DT1 members, please exclude another abuser from DT systemA reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. P.S. Weird how those NSFW imaged are still embedded in this thread as if no one ever really even found them objectionable to begin with and only removed them because I was the one who posted them. |
|
|
|
I am very much on topic, you just don't like my reply. Social media platforms want to curate content like publishers while also receiving the safe harbor protection from liabilities as a public platform. They can't have it both ways.
They're not having it both ways. Moderation is allowed by the same law that provides the protection. They're not creating the content themselves. Publishers don't enjoy that protection. What was it a while back you guys were arguing was a FEC violation by Trump? Because he paid off some stripper to shut up out of his own money? You want to claim that is a FEC violation, but not the millions of dollars of in kind donations of promoting liberal candidates and silencing conservatives on social networks? How much do you think that is worth in advertising dollars? I mean, after all Russia spending like $3000 on Facefuck ads was supposed to be a big deal, but not this election interference right? Really, you people brought this on yourselves. We have been telling you for a long time this has been happening and you pretended it wasn't real because you thought the ends justified the means. Well here are the ends. Hope it was worth it. |
|
|
|
[baseless]
One only needs to review this thread to find documentation for my claims. |
|
|
|
If someone had pulled that on me I'd be very, very angry. Apparently most Democrats have never heard of the "sunk cost" fallacy, AKA " escalation of commitment".  |
|
|
|
[I have been here for a whole three years and I know absolutely everything about the inner working and dynamics of this forum!] You asserting your assumptions to be factual when it is not, does not make my denial of it a lie.
That's the thing though -- the real timeline of events is not based on "assumptions". Its based on documented words and data that is accessible by all, and runs contrary to your assertions. You can selectively edit my posts and leave out the parts that contradict your vendetta all you like, it doesn't make you any more truthful. Some of the users I added for the simple reason that I agreed with their trust list. You see this? I posted this months ago, well before your cherry picked quotes above. Both things are true, you just want to pretend only the parts you selectively included apply. Let me point this out again... But since I admittedly can't prove that I know what you were actually thinking or what your actual motivations were, I ask that people look at the body of evidence presented and come to their own conclusions. Here you are admitting you are making your conclusion based on assumptions. You some how think you have the magical ability to know my inner thoughts and goals, and if I disagree with those conclusions I am a liar who is up to something nefarious. There is no "body of evidence". There is you vomiting up the same lies over and over again in the desperate hope that if you repeat it enough times people will believe you. Archived for future reference: [ 1a], [ 1b] Who said I talked to you via PM? I convinced several members of the Turkish community to drop an invalid flag on you, and this was your response. Just because you were the only unreasonable one in the equation doesn't mean mediation didn't occur independently of you. Has anyone else noticed the link Tecshare posted as "proof" of my fantasy response was actually a link to a quote by Tecshare.?? quote author=TECSHARE link=topic=5247427.msg54514850#msg54514850 date=1590642536]
Who said I talked to you via PM? I convinced several members of the Turkish community to drop an invalid flag on you, and [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181723.msg52379325#msg52379325]this was your response[/url]. Just because you were the only unreasonable one in the equation doesn't mean mediation didn't occur independently of you.
[/ quote]
I'm laughing at you Tecshare. (or whatever your main alt is) I posted it to document your response to me getting an invalid flag against you removed was to shit up my trust page. Do you dispute that this was your response? FYI, I have no other alts, but feel free to make another one of your infamous lists of baseless guesses. |
|
|
|
Except I did do the slightest bit of research, at least to the extent that I went through Everhere's listing process myself. Anyone can seemingly create a listing there without legal verification. The only time I saw you needed to verify the death was if you were collecting donations.
Whilst you're here, do you know if Bruno's family were able to retrieve his coins from his wallet? That would at least cross off one possibility on what happened to his account/funds. I called the funeral home to confirm he passed, which I looked up independently of the listing just to be sure. Are you suggesting that they made up a fake funeral home complete with a manned phone and or the funeral home is in on it? That is the only way that would happen. |
|
|
|
What's funny is that nowhere in your long-winded, insult-ridden response did you demonstrate how my timeline was incorrect. I didn't because it is irrelevant in spite of your protestations otherwise. OK, so me pointing out exactly how you are lying is "irrelevant." Totally trustworthy behavior.  Just give up the lie and admit it for what it is. Peloso has no qualms doing that, neither should you. You asserting your assumptions to be factual when it is not, does not make my denial of it a lie. |
|
|
|
You really need to step back and take a wider view of these events.
This guy was a very short term hire on Trump's team, and that was several years back.
Nobody cares. Nobody SHOULD care.
Ahhh. Just like Flynn. We go through all the evidence, you and TEC go into Johnnie Cochran mode and when it's obvious there's really no defense, you decide not to care. Not me. I'm simply asking you to take a wider view. I really don't care. Why should I? Why should I care about some guy that was on Trump's team for a month or two years ago? If you're only interested in pwning the libtards and being blindly loyal to Trump you definitely shouldn't care. If the chairman of the Trump campaign actually was colluding with Russia (he was)...that would mean the Mueller report was justified (it was) and your whole world would be flipped upside down. Definitely don't go read Pg 66 - 168: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdfAnd if you do, def skip the Paul Manafort section (129- 144). No reason for you to care about any of that and risk getting TDS. That's not how due process or warrants work. Good try though. |
|
|
|
What you said was false so I thought you'd want to weasel out of it with some other theory but I'm fine with you being simply wrong.
Anyway, what's your expected outcome here? I said a lot of things, you have to be more specific. I have already achieved my desired outcome, thanks for asking. |
|
|
|
What's funny is that nowhere in your long-winded, insult-ridden response did you demonstrate how my timeline was incorrect. I didn't because it is irrelevant in spite of your protestations otherwise. Some of the users I added for the simple reason that I agreed with their trust list. As you can see your timeline is not a dependent factor no matter how much you want to repeat it in an attempt to make it truth. [Long winded ball washing and baseless conclusions.] And this is why I called you a rube. You didn't just question me you made assumptions about me. You are a tool, wittingly or otherwise. Archived for future reference: [ 1a], [ 1b] I mediated a dispute between Timelord and some members of the Turkish community, they added me, as a result I ended up back on the default trust list.
No, that's an outright lie - you've never spoken to me via PM AFAIK. Thanks to the person who pointed this lie by TECSHARE out to me, it would have gone unnoticed by me otherwise. Here are my 39 flags https://bpip.org/flaglog.aspx?accuser=Timelord2067 As you can see there is only one Flag that I have withdrawn my original support for - all others remain active with the ones being referenced concerning DT Trust Abuse in conjunction with other extenuating circumstances. At least some are alts that were connected by Yoshi etc in the Known Alts thread. Feel free to view those threads for details. Make no mistake, TECSHARE is lying to you.Who said I talked to you via PM? I convinced several members of the Turkish community to drop an invalid flag on you, and this was your response. Just because you were the only unreasonable one in the equation doesn't mean mediation didn't occur independently of you. |
|
|
|
Senate would pick the VP -- giving it to Pence.
Presumably, the Senate would know in advance who the House will elect as President, so if Biden is going to be elected by the House, the Senate would probably elect Trump as VP. Given Biden's mental state, he is likely to be much more than a figurehead President, and will probably not be able to serve his entire term as just a figurehead. If Biden is President and Trump is VP, you may actually see democrats calling for Biden to either be impeached or to step down so Trump would not be eligible for a 3rd term if he serves less than 2 years as actual President after the 2020 election. If you think politics were filled with drama today.... It is not constitutional for a president to serve a 3rd term, even by this convoluted route. He would not even be eligible for VP. Very interesting narrative though. Prime is correct. If he serves for less than 2 years after replacing Biden, he could be elected for a second time and serve 4 more years. Prime is saying the dems would force Biden out so Trump would be forced to serve more than 2 years and therefore ineligible to run in 2024. (surely Trump would resign 1 day before he hit the 2 year mark though, right?) Here's the constitution: Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.In this context the terms "president" and "vice president" are interchangeable, thus it is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
You need to work on your projecting some more, you are getting sloppy. I don't recall saying you exclude everyone I include, but points for the attempt at deflection. I picked those users because I knew you couldn't craft a believable lie to explain why you excluded them, clearly demonstrating your childish and petty usage of the trust system for personal vendettas.
Are we playing this game again where I'll never guess what you actually meant and you'll refuse to say what you actually meant? I can't be bothered to care if you believe my explanation or not. We clearly have different opinions of whose judgement can be trusted. I said what I meant, you just want to pretend like it wasn't said because it saves you the embarassment of trying to craft a failure of a lie to cover for it. |
|
|
|
I thought the left liked regulation. I guess they only like it when they are doing the regulating.
I know it takes a lot of effort for you to stay on topic so if you're unable to do it please start a REEEEEEEEE: THE LEFT SENSOR SHIPS TRUMP thread. Trump is the one threatening to regulate social media and he's speaking on behalf of the Republicans. Do you support regulating and/or closing down Twitter? How about Bitcointalk? Should we only post pro-Trump stuff here just so that he doesn't decide to shut us down too? I am very much on topic, you just don't like my reply. Social media platforms want to curate content like publishers while also receiving the safe harbor protection from liabilities as a public platform. They can't have it both ways. "Trump Is RIGHT, Twitter Is Interfering In The Election With FAKE NEWS "Fact Check" On Voter Fraud" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZELaKn4vXrc |
|
|
|
Senate would pick the VP -- giving it to Pence.
Presumably, the Senate would know in advance who the House will elect as President, so if Biden is going to be elected by the House, the Senate would probably elect Trump as VP. Given Biden's mental state, he is likely to be much more than a figurehead President, and will probably not be able to serve his entire term as just a figurehead. If Biden is President and Trump is VP, you may actually see democrats calling for Biden to either be impeached or to step down so Trump would not be eligible for a 3rd term if he serves less than 2 years as actual President after the 2020 election. If you think politics were filled with drama today.... It is not constitutional for a president to serve a 3rd term, even by this convoluted route. He would not even be eligible for VP. Very interesting narrative though. |
|
|
|
Actually the feedback I left Vod is documented fact. No one disputes Vod doxed OGNasty and claimed to have reported him to the IRS. As far as the comment regarding his mental state, I have repeatedly offered to modify the rating and replace it excluding that part if he feels that would make it a valid rating, but he refuses to respond. Vod avoids a direct response at all costs, because he is well aware his actions are indefensible.
 How is what vod will do in the future a documented fact and not an assumption? Do you have a crystal ball or something? Does vod have access to everyones doxx? I understand he doxxed OG, but that's not proof he will doxx anyone else who criticizes him. He did it. It is a valid reason for a rating, not trust abuse. You enjoy your semantic gymnastics. |
|
|
|
You must be really desperate to lie about something so blatant that anybody who cares to look at those trust lists can see right through. There are users included by both of us and there are users included by you that I neither include nor exclude so it's quite obvious that I don't exclude "people because of who includes them". Cherrypicking three users out of 80+ doesn't prove any of the bullshit you're making up about me, at most it shows your bizarre need to be a victim and your poor judgement.
You need to work on your projecting some more, you are getting sloppy. I don't recall saying you exclude everyone I include, but points for the attempt at deflection. I picked those users because I knew you couldn't craft a believable lie to explain why you excluded them, clearly demonstrating your childish and petty usage of the trust system for personal vendettas. but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here And why would anyone except you want to see the trust ratings of users whom, but your own admission, have had zero interaction with anyone except you? You need to learn to read. ...
So, you're saying you "distrust me" not "dislike me"? Really? How so? I think very little of you as a person one way or the other. Your spastic overzealous use of the trust system is why I distrust you. |
|
|
|
Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265601611310739456That's right, let's close down businesses we don't like, fuck the constitution and all its amendments. A wonderful caricature of what the Republican party used to stand for... pretended to stand for... something like that. I thought the left liked regulation. I guess they only like it when they are doing the regulating. |
|
|
|
Yes it's an assumption. But it's not baseless.
The feedback you've left him is also an assumption. And also not baseless.
We all make assumptions all the time, including you. There's no need to point it out every time. Yes, baseless. It is like seeing a guy eating a sandwich, and some one yells "HEY YOU STOLE THAT SANDWICH!" Only he didn't see the sandwich get stolen, he just assumed it was, either because the person yelling doesn't like the guy eating the sandwich or has some issues of their own. Then when asked for proof the only response is "Well it looked like a sandwich I saw stolen before, so it must be!" Actually the feedback I left Vod is documented fact. No one disputes Vod doxed OGNasty and claimed to have reported him to the IRS. As far as the comment regarding his mental state, I have repeatedly offered to modify the rating and replace it excluding that part if he feels that would make it a valid rating, but he refuses to respond. Vod avoids a direct response at all costs, because he is well aware his actions are indefensible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
