Because he has.
Check the reference link for the negative feedback he left you for abusing the trust system.
I get it, you don't agree that with him - but he's already explained why he did it and it's been explained to you countless times. Continuing to ask won't change anything. He really hasn't. The reference is nutlduuh making assumptions about why I included people based on nothing whatsoever. As you can see above Nutilduuh freely admitted it was nothing but an assumption. If assumptions are the standard of evidence then I guess we can assume you and Vod both get together to rob children of their milk money. Making baseless assumptions is fun! |
|
|
|
You're pretty anti-government though. It has nothing to do with the virus.
Back in Feb/March, what actions could the government have taken to control the virus that you would've supported?
I assume blocking travel from countries with outbreaks right?
What about things that would affect you directly? Like reducing number of people allowed in a restaurant, or requiring masks when unable to social distance? I don't know what I would do without you here to tell me what my own opinions are. I support recommendations and guidelines. I do not support illegal unconstitutional mandates. You will note I was the first one here on the forum raising the alarm over the issue, and I was supportive of these actions until they became illegal and destructive mandates. |
|
|
|
See: In order to "manufacture timelines", one has to first operate on the assumption that your timeline means anything other than more assumptions on your part. You feel you have some kind of right to not only demand I explain why I included these people, but that it must be done in such a manner commensurate with your demands, or else I am "manufacturing timelines". It is not that you are making baseless assumptions, no, not at all, it is because I am "manufacturing timelines" that my replies don't meet the standards of your demands. Not only that there were private communications as well, there is also the fact that I thought their trust lists were also positive additions. Some of the users I added for the simple reason that I agreed with their trust list. Is this where you tell me again what is a valid reason for me deciding who I do or don't include based on your own personal preferences? Nothing you are accusing me of is anything that couldn't literally be applied to any other member actively using custom trust lists. Much like a fed uses process crimes to charge people with crimes when they have no evidence, you are using the idea that I don't meet your arbitrary standards in your interrogation as "proof" of my guilt. This is all just a game you are playing to pursue your own vendetta. 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. There is no "body of evidence". There are a string of assumptions, with accusations stacked on top of them upon which even more assumptions were based. That is not evidence, that is at best theorizing and nothing a trust rating should be based on. Once again, I manufactured nothing. You seem intent on this being some kind of deception, just like all your other assumptions here.
Some of the users I included because I thought their trust lists were beneficial, some of them I included because of their response to the advice concerning the removal of support from a frivolous flag. It is as simple as that, no "manufacturing of timelines" needed. This is purely a projection on your part designed to impugn my character to serve your own personal vendettas, and the vendettas of people like Vod.
Vultures like you saw I was achieving something positive and did a deep dive into my toilet bowl looking for any peanut fragments you could find in order to tarnish this effort that yielded positive results, because if I have a say in the default trust, I will erode the unilateral control and protection from being penalized for your own abuses that you and your friends currently enjoy. All the same people abusing negative ratings against me are all the same peanut hunters that are the most vocal in opposition to my calls for an objective standard of evidence before leaving negative ratings. This is about serving yourself, not about protecting the forum from me. So Vod, clearly I abuse the trust system according to you... why is it whenever anyone asks you to substantiate your claims you can never do it and always default to just claiming you already have? |
|
|
|
TECSHARE, I told you I'm reconsidering my position on your exclusion from my trust list; if this conversation continues with your tone of aggravation, I'm afraid my current position is only going to be reinforced--and yes, there is a personal aspect to this because of that interaction we had years ago. That got my attention very quickly, whereas I might easily miss a thread or a feedback left for someone else. That shouldn't be surprising.
I'd actually like to hear the community's opinion on this if it can be done in a level-headed manner--and believe me, I understand why you made this thread self-moderated and made that local rule, but I'd genuinely like to hear some feedback on whether I should keep excluding you or not.
I'm on the fence. I already told you the main two reasons why I've excluded you, which have to do with your judgement when leaving trust feedback (and nothing else). I don't have a "global" distrust for you, because you have a very long track record of not screwing people over in deals or scamming anyone. If I thought you were a scammer, I'd have left a red trust. The problem I have with you, TECSHARE, is that your judgement often seems extremely clouded by anger, defensiveness, and a touch of paranoia--though that doesn't mean you're always wrong on some points. And as I said before, you've got a history of this when it comes to leaving feedback.
I think I've seen some improvement in the time I've been a member here, and I'm inclined to follow Theymos's edict that hatchets ought to be buried. If you ask me for evidence of that, I wouldn't be able to produce it without doing some serious research; it's just a feeling that I've gotten over the course of time, sort of like my feelings toward cryptodevil.
You've already got this thread self-modded, so might I suggest you rescind your local rule of only allowing me to post here? You do whatever you want. You have to live with your choices and face the fact that you are making your decisions about the trust system based on your personal pet peeves rather than accurate use of the trust system. I feel I have made it pretty clear I am not going to change the way I approach these situations because of the trust system being used as a carrot or a stick to motivate me to not address issues that might upset some people or make them uncomfortable. One would think that would be valued in a system of trust, but apparently not. No, I don't need the community's opinion about this, and frankly neither do you. This is your choice. Furthermore the results are more than predictable. There will be a parade of clowns thirsty to grasp at any opportunity to deride me. Anyone who might speak otherwise won't because either they already have, or they are afraid of being targeted as many have simply for speaking in my defense and are not willing to put their own reputations on the line for doing so. "A history" you say. So far you have mentioned one questionable rating from 5 years ago. Is there anything else? Fuck getting "angry" (as if you can judge that via text over the internet), the question is if that is true, do I let it effect the way I use the trust system and use it reflexively in anger? I think my track record shows one of the most moderated uses of the trust system in the whole forum. I speak out for people even when I don't like them if I think they were wronged and attempt to acheive a mutually restorative solution wherever possible. When it is not possible, I don't couch my words because people willing to speak difficult truths are rare, and I refuse to make myself common for the sake of niceties. Some times conflict is required to solve problems, and pathological aversion to conflict causes problems. Conflict is simply something I do not shy away from for the sake of convenience or to maintain a popular facade for personal gain. There is not a lot of subtext with me, what you see is what you get, and some people really don't like that and prefer to hide behind those niceties because it is what makes them most comfortable. This results in stagnation and greater long term conflict rather than simply addressing those issues directly. Again, if your complaint is purely my tone and the fact you don't like that I some times upset people, just admit you exclude me for your own personal dislike of me and the general way I conduct myself. Don't lie and pretend it is because I abuse the trust system to satiate my own personal impulses to absolve yourself of accountability. Own up to it and I will drop it, otherwise account for your actions. |
|
|
|
What trust abuse Vod? Be specific.
The negative trust you have left for people you do not like. Or the refusal of the same type of explanations you demand from others. That is not very specific Vod. |
|
|
|
But what's the other way of dealing with this issue? I understand the anti government sentiment and all of that, but I'm unsure what the plan to fix this if you aren't just sitting at home minding your own business. This virus spreads when people are out and about with one another.
Would you support an order to wear masks while you're in public (as NY and many states have done)
What would you support to stop this from spreading?
Because as of right now in the US we're at approx 100k deaths, and by June 20th models are predicting we'll be at another 20k deaths putting the grand total at 120k deaths. Refusing to be a subject of unconstitutional government mandates does not equal being anti-government. |
|
|
|
I think you're missing a key element of the trust system and that might explain why you're having such a hard time understanding it and keep blaming everyone who dares to disagree with you. I don't claim to be serving the community or whatever straw people you're making up. It's other users who decide whether my trust list, my actions, my opinions are valuable to them or not. Whether those decisions collectively result in a default trust position is completely out of my control unless you believe in some cockamamie conspiracy of a secret cabal controlling DT.
You asked a question, I answered, no need to keep making shit up if you don't like the answer. ~suchmoon and move on (same goes for everyone who thinks TECSHARE is a victim here and not a bitter deluded troll trying to stir shit up). The point of the trust system is to serve the community, not to be a tool to perpetrate your vendettas. I am not making anything up. There is absolutely no explanation for those users to be excluded by you except for the fact that I included them. Other people who don't deserve to be excluded being excluded by you doesn't victimize me, it victimizes them, and only because of your petty vindictive attitude treating the trust system like your personal plaything. There are lots of others on your exclusion list I suspect are there only because I include them, but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here, proving that your only contact with them was via viewing my inclusions. Excluding people because of who includes them is not only childish but abusive of the trust system. |
|
|
|
...If you seek redress from the community for the abuse of the system, they add the abuser and treat the system not only like a joke, but as a tool to harass people...
There is your disconnection, troll. Why would the community help you when you abuse trust? Clean your hands.What trust abuse Vod? Be specific. |
|
|
|
I didn't mean that quote as a jab to you. Quite the contrary, it was meant to suggest that I might change my mind about your status on my trust list (if that matters to you at all, which it probably doesn't).
I don't want to get into a battle with you about my exclusion of you from my trust list, because I'm well aware that such a discussion could go on forever with no progress ever being made. Instead, the two main factors that have influenced me are 1) The reason you got booted from DT a number of years back, which was for abusing the trust system (and I don't have a link to the thread where that was decided, but I do remember reading it), and 2) Our first "fight" which was basically just a disagreement over something, which led to you PMing me multiple times until I blocked you, and after which you wrote a fairly aggressive comment as a neutral trust on my trust page--which you apparently deleted, because I tried to find it just now and couldn't.
Props to you for doing that. So one rating about 5 years ago left over a user harassing me in my sales threads, which I offered to remove if they stopped shitting up my sales thread? Weird how you have tons of other people on your trust list with tons of clearly abusive ratings... it almost seems like I am excluded by you for personal reasons rather than my misuse of the trust system. |
|
|
|
I called the Boersma Funeral Home, and the person who answered confirmed that he knew Bruno, and he had passed. I just thought people would like to know so we can end the speculation about Bruno himself.
|
|
|
|
even though I have you ~'ed in my trust list, it's not because I don't trust you in matters like this. It's because I don't really trust your feedback-leaving history, and that's something I may review in the near future. So what ratings that I have left in the past do you find objectionable exactly? People looking for any excuse to demonize me often talk about this mythical trust abuse I supposedly perpetrated, but never seem to be able to quantify or quote anything. So tell me, what exactly is your judgement of me based upon? In before the "why didn't you just PM" comments. He addressed me off topic in public, sliding in a "by the way" type jab in a passive aggressive way like he usually does, and I want a reply in public. Local rule: Only "The Pharmacist" may post. |
|
|
|
Seems moderators don't want to remove your post, but I will tag you for lying and maliciously trying to move this topic into different direction, unlike you, I care about default trust system and I don't want abusers and abuser supporters in it, let this "DONE" serve as reference:  @TECSHARE I am asking you again to leave this topic. You are not allowed to post here. marlboroza 2020-05-26 Reference Liar. Maliciously hijacking topic. So this is what the trust system is reduced to now is it? If you disagree with people you get a red tag. If you seek redress from the community for the abuse of the system, they add the abuser and treat the system not only like a joke, but as a tool to harass people. This system which is supposed to protect people from fraud is simply a toy for you to play with, and like all naughty little children you should have your toys taken away. If this is the standard for the trust system now, Theymos should probably just scrub negative ratings and go exclusively with flags backed by evidence of theft, contractual violation, or violation of applicable laws. If this community has proven anything, it is that it simply is not mature enough to enforce any kind of self restraint or equitable standards. |
|
|
|
You completely sidestepped addressing Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. Never mind that these things have nothing to do with the facts of the matter, what is important is that I demand you address them as if they are real! If you don't address them as facts then you are just side stepping them!
You again completely ignored my post where I pointed out exactly how you were lying while using verifiable evidence to do so. 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.
This is not what happened. With the exception of 1 member, (Blacknavy), he added all of them first, before he knew how they would respond to his "mediation" (or well before the entire thing took place). The real order of events is this: - TS gets included by Turkish members and ends up back on DT1 (with a positive score) - TS "mediates" dispute between Timelord on Turkish community - TS's reciprocal trust inclusion history is exposed- TS falls back off DT1 (with negative net inclusions) ...7 months later... - TS ends up " back on" the default trust list with +2 inclusions You were back on DT1 before the dispute with Timelord. Just because my reply is not consistent with your delusions doesn't make me a liar. It just means your assumptions about my intent are not only meaningless but incorrect. I responded to your accusation more times than I can count now, but some how you expect me to be able to prove my intent, but since I can't I am a liar according to you. You have ZERO evidence of anything except your determination to craft these series of events into some kind of malfeasance to serve your own personal petty vendetta. In order to "manufacture timelines", one has to first operate on the assumption that your timeline means anything other than more assumptions on your part. You feel you have some kind of right to not only demand I explain why I included these people, but that it must be done in such a manner commensurate with your demands, or else I am "manufacturing timelines". It is not that you are making baseless assumptions, no, not at all, it is because I am "manufacturing timelines" that my replies don't meet the standards of your demands. Not only that there were private communications as well, there is also the fact that I thought their trust lists were also positive additions. Some of the users I added for the simple reason that I agreed with their trust list. Is this where you tell me again what is a valid reason for me deciding who I do or don't include based on your own personal preferences? Nothing you are accusing me of is anything that couldn't literally be applied to any other member actively using custom trust lists. Much like a fed uses process crimes to charge people with crimes when they have no evidence, you are using the idea that I don't meet your arbitrary standards in your interrogation as "proof" of my guilt. This is all just a game you are playing to pursue your own vendetta. 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. There is no "body of evidence". There are a string of assumptions, with accusations stacked on top of them upon which even more assumptions were based. That is not evidence, that is at best theorizing and nothing a trust rating should be based on. Once again, I manufactured nothing. You seem intent on this being some kind of deception, just like all your other assumptions here.
Some of the users I included because I thought their trust lists were beneficial, some of them I included because of their response to the advice concerning the removal of support from a frivolous flag. It is as simple as that, no "manufacturing of timelines" needed. This is purely a projection on your part designed to impugn my character to serve your own personal vendettas, and the vendettas of people like Vod.
Vultures like you saw I was achieving something positive and did a deep dive into my toilet bowl looking for any peanut fragments you could find in order to tarnish this effort that yielded positive results, because if I have a say in the default trust, I will erode the unilateral control and protection from being penalized for your own abuses that you and your friends currently enjoy. All the same people abusing negative ratings against me are all the same peanut hunters that are the most vocal in opposition to my calls for an objective standard of evidence before leaving negative ratings. This is about serving yourself, not about protecting the forum from me. Good thing I have you here to tell me what I am saying, I certainly couldn't do that without you selectively interpreting my words into what you wish them to be. I explained myself several times, Nutilduhh is intent on pretending that they caught me in some kind of ulterior motives when it is based on absolutely nothing but their own assumptions and bias against me. I don't need to explain myself because I have done it 100 times already and Nutilduhh doesn't want to hear anything except the narrative that serves their personal vendetta.
I don't care what you guys have against each other. I just looked at this and just respectfully trying to understand your viewpoint. You call it "selective interpretation" because maybe you don't agree with it. Which part? I have only asked you to reconsider adding people for the sake of bringing balance or diversity. You keep saying that the "Clown Car" is opposing you because they don't want you on DT-1. Maybe, just maybe, that is because people expect more frugal judgement from someone on DT-1. I have just presented my opinion on it above. In the same vein, I only asked you that you should reconsider whom you empower. Gave you examples above too. You have said earlier: (emphasis mine) You want to REALLY know why I added those Turkish users? Because they were just barely off the DT and I wanted to see it more diverse. Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in. The Turkish community was obviously being targeted. I don't believe it was for racist reasons though, I just think the clowns feel like they can't keep their iron grip of nepotism if more groups are included. All this circus is, is punishment for working to bust up their little clown cartel, and it is painfully transparent.
That is why i said: If we only talk about the trust with the Turkish users, he says that he may have added them for his own reasons. At one point, i think he has said that he wants the forum to have more diversity in DT1. That diversity also seems to be primarily targeted on having sufficient opposition to the "clown car" or whatever. LOL.
I just wanted to present a case before you (thinking you are an old, influential member). In any case, its your own judgement. You don't have to be rude. You don't know me enough. Our only previous interaction has been business that didn't go through. I hope to buy a mystery box someday as they have rave reviews generally. PS: Calling someone with an Amish" in name, a rube. That is rude even by DT standards, LOL.. The fact that you don't care that nutilduuh is pushing a personal vendetta here is relevant regardless of you caring about it or not. Disinterested third parties love making lazy casual observations not knowing the entirety of the story, but feeling perfectly confident giving their opinions about the situation anyway. The selective interpretation is where you tell me what I meant and cherry picking my replies to fit in with your half assed assessment. I don't know you and I don't care to. You are a muppet that just repeats what you see people like nutilduuuh say and treat it as fact. I have no interest in knowing people that don't have any ability for independent thought and pretend to know things when they are just casual 3rd party observers skimming the surface as lazily as possible. Maybe, just maybe you don't have any fucking clue what you are talking about and should keep your opinions to yourself. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks everyone posting for making it public knowledge you treat the trust system as a plaything and actively add people explicitly because they abuse the trust system by leaving negative ratings for the high crime of disagreeing with their accusations.
|
|
|
|
|
I called the Boersma Funeral Home, and the person who answered confirmed that he knew Bruno, and he had passed. I just thought people would like to know so we can end the speculation about Bruno himself.
|
|
|
|
|
Weird how you feel the need to be able to accuse people over and over again while never allowing anyone with an opposing view to be able to chime in so you can maintain the illusion that everyone agrees with you, but I am the troll. FYI, local rules need to be included in an unedited OP to be valid.
|
|
|
|
So do you.
When you plead guilty to a felony in federal court you become a convicted felon. A felony goes on your record. You know that though. Why don't you stop arguing in bad faith and just come out and say the only thing you care about is if they are loyal to Trump or not.
Biden, Clinton, Comey....all criminal who haven't even been indicted.
Flynn, Stone, Manafort... all convicted felons - but the felonies they were found guilty of by a jury don't matter and the felonies they plead guilty to don't matter because a jury didn't find them guilty. Oh, and you aren't going to bother even looking into the actual crimes yourself. Much easier to just google "Michael Flynn is innocent" or which and paste the first 10 results to defend him. "So do you." What? What the fuck does that even mean? That doesn't even make any sense linguistically let alone logically. No one found Trump guilty of anything, but that doesn't stop you from claiming he is guilty of some undocumented unnamed crimes for years now does it? There is plenty of documentation and evidence supporting the guilt of Biden, Clinton, and Comey. I have looked in to the "crimes", probably more than you have. Flynn, Stone, and Manafort were all convicted with manufactured charges and process crimes using extortion of their families as leverage in a pathetic and desperate attempt to get them to bear false witness against Trump in an attempt to have a duly elected president removed from office. This was all done in order to cover up their OWN criminal activity within the FBI as well as other agencies and public offices. That is called treason. |
|
|
|
wait you dont think manafort is not guilty because he pleaded guilty so it doesnt count? Wait do you think you can read my mind and tell me what I am thinking? It is your job to source your own arguments, not my job. You have shown an aversion to sourcing your claims repeatedly in the past. Also when you are forced to source your claims it makes it that much harder for you to move the goal posts after I dismantle your assertions. "Mueller Withheld "Details That Would Exonerate The President" Of Having Kremlin Backchannel" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-03/mueller-withheld-details-would-exonerate-president-over-trump-tower-moscow"“Though Cohen may have lied to Congress about the dates,” one Hill investigator said, “it's clear from personal messages he sent in 2015 and 2016 that the Trump Organization did not have formal lines of communication set up with Putin’s office or the Kremlin during the campaign. There was no secret ‘back channel.’” “So as far as collusion goes,” the source added, "the project is actually more exculpatory than incriminating for Trump and his campaign.” -RCI" "The Trump Tower Moscow meeting - spearheaded by New York real estate developer and longtime FBI and CIA asset, Felix Sater, bears a passing resemblance to the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between members of the Trump campaign and a Russian attorney (who hated Trump), and which was set up by a British concert promotor tied to Fusion GPS - the firm Hillary Clinton's campaign paid to write the salacious and unverified "Trump-Russia Dossier." " "Man Cited As Trump's "Russian Link" Actually Works For The FBI" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-12/man-cited-trumps-russian-link-actually-works-fbi"As Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch noted of Mueller's strategy: ""Mueller seems desperate to confuse Americans by conflating the cancelled and legitimate Russia business venture with the Russia collusion theory he was actually hired to investigate," said Fitton. "This is a transparent attempt to try to embarrass the president."" From " Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" P. 66 "Outreach fromindividuals with ties toRussia continued in the spring and summer of 2016, when Trump was moving toward—and eventually becoming—the Republican nominee for President. As set forthbelow, the Office alsoevaluated aseries of links during this period: outreach to two of Trump’s then-recently named foreign policy advisors, including a representation that Russia had “dirt” on Clinton in the formofthousands of emails (VolumeI, Sections IV.A.2 & IV.A.3); dealings with aD.C.-based think tank that specializes in Russia andhas connections with its government (VolumeI, Section IV.A.4); a meeting at Trump Towerbetween the Campaign and a Russian lawyer promising dirt on candidate Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for [Trump]” (Volume I, SectionIV.A.5); events at theRepublican National Convention (Volume I, Section IV.A.6); post-Convention contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia’sambassador totheUnited States (VolumeI, SectionIV.A.7); and contacts through campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who had previously worked for a Russian oligarch and a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine (Volume I, Section IV.A.  ." So far I see a failed real estate licensing deal with no direct ties to the Kremlin or Putin, and Manafort previously doing some lobbying for USA allies, Ukraine. I don't see this claim supported anywhere: his campaign manager was working with russia to help get trump elected. he told them if trump won, they would have support from america on their invasion of ukraine. |
|
|
|
[google results for 'voter fraud trump won popular vote']
You can type anything into google and find media reports to back up whatever argument you can think of. They're all sensationalized and don't prove anything other than 'voter fraud happens'. And nobody is arguing whether or not voter fraud happens. It does. There is proof it happens. We all know it happens. I randomly just clicked on this one: "Voter Fraud Rampant in Sanctuary Cities" https://www.libertyheadlines.com/fraud-rampant-sanctuary/Continuing a series of reports on rampant fraud in voter registration and participation, the Public Interest Legal Foundation this week reported that more than 3,100 non-citizens registered to vote in just 13 “sanctuary cities” in the past decade.
This comes on the heels of a report last week that 19 illegal aliens were charged with voting in North Carolina in the 2016 presidential election.
The article is more about immigration than any voter fraud, but we learned that there were 19 illegal aliens that voted in NC. They were charged. Over the past 10 years 3,120 names were removed from the voter registry because the person requested it themselves, it was a mistake at the dmv or shit like that. So yeah. Voter fraud happens. Good job. [You can put "space aliens" into google! Proof space doesn't exist!] This is such a pathetic strawman argument designed to avoid addressing any of the information I presented, because you know you have no response to it. I wasn't talking about NC, I was talking about California, and I presented LOTS of evidence voter fraud is RAMPANT in California. It just so happens that without California, Hillary Clinton would have no "popular vote" advantage whatsoever, but lets keep pretending these things can't effect elections, because you can find "space aliens" in google. Eh I don't think that all of the Republican ideas about securing the voter system is bad. I do think that it is very important to ensure that every vote in the US is done by a citizen of the US that has the right to vote by the guidelines established by their state.
Do I think that you should be required to have an ID to be vote? Yes - but if this is a requirement in your state, I think the state should pay for the ID card for all people (or I guess those under a certain income level)
Do I think that you should purge the voting rolls at some point that is determined by independent researchers / experts (and not the governor) yes.
So, yeah. Yet every time some one tries to pass voter ID laws, the Democrats prevent it and call it racist and claim it is disenfranchising poor/black voters. They play the same games when they try to clean up voter rolls. You need an ID to get a gun. You need an ID to buy liquor. Needing an ID to vote though, that is unacceptable! The idea that this $10 or $15 it costs to get issued an ID is disenfranchising any legitimate voters is fucking asinine. Yeah, I agree with you on the voter ids.
I'm just saying if more voters benefited Republicans instead of Democrats, it would be the Democrats pushing for voter ids and Republicans pushing back.
I'm not sure what the 'best' system looks like, but it's somewhere between what the dems want and what the republicans want. Oh, and (eventually) it involves some sort of block chain. No paper ballots. You know what that is called? An assumption. Weird how simple things like voter ID laws and cleaning up voter rolls are so heavily resisted by Democrats even though you seem to agree these are prudent steps to assure election integrity. I guess as long as none of the illegals voting are Russians it is fine right? |
|
|
|
Nursing homes/hospices have banned all visitors, so it is just patients and nurses. When a patient dies, someone will clean his room of the deceased's personal belongings. My guess is someone from the hospice stole Bruno's phone when cleaning his room.
I seriously doubt this is what happened--starting back up with a post like the one that was made is a lot different than some random person finding a phone and, say, stealing bitcoin from a wallet or using the phone to pay for things via an app or something similar. His password has not changed recently, which means someone either knows his password or has physical possession of a device he was logged into the forum with when he passed. When he created a thread asking for donations, he asked that donations be sent to 1FkHCFv8PN1kerJct3RsQQpMcRoTnx2vWe, and the coin in this address moved yesterday. The address the coin was sent to, 1MZh187t7Lkz3Zn5cpWFmQbqowfL6ReP29 received other transactions, presumably from various services that Bruno had coin on deposit with. The transfer of coin means whoever has his phone at least knows what bitcoin is (many people do). I am pretty sure there are some people who work at nursing homes also have forum accounts at bitcointalk, and some others probably know what bitcointalk is. Even if whoever stole Brunos' phone hadn't heard of bitcointalk previously, s/he could have done some research. Nursing homes/hospices have banned all visitors, so it is just patients and nurses. When a patient dies, someone will clean his room of the deceased's personal belongings. My guess is someone from the hospice stole Bruno's phone when cleaning his room.
But how did that person exactly know that Bruno was a bitcointalk forum member and immediately got to his browser and logged in? How did they know that once they log into bitcointalk, will first have to delete the last OP made by Bruno's account? How did they know about changing the custom VIP title from " In Memoriam" to " Back to End CO-VID Struggles"? My guess? The person could have been accessing Phinnaeus Gage's account or for a while. It is probably a fair assumption that someone didn't start using a random noise generator to start using his account. Whoever has Bruno's phone likely did some research prior to posting. Based on my above blockchain analysis, they have had his phone for at least a day prior to posting. He did state he was getting help posting, and was dictating his last posts didn't he? Isn't it possible whoever was assisting him simply used this knowledge to take the money and try for more? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
