@OPI can see you're a relative newbie here. I've been here since 2011 with this name and year before that under another. I haven't been too active in the past couple of years mainly due to the meds keeping me compliant and suppressing the various personalities in my head. Three out of the four voices in my head are telling me to remain in retirement but one voice in particular is getting louder compelling me to come back...... but I digress. Back in the old days, even before there was an Alt Forum with Namecoin being the only "altcoin" at the time, everyone knew the secret code to getting Theymos' attention. You have to use red helvetica font, 24 point, wide and all caps. Works like a charm. So you should reformat your entire OP in red helvetica font, 24 point, wide and all caps. HEY THERMOS, YOU STILL AROUND BRO?Theymos usually answers in 24 hours or less with this technique and YES I misspelled Theymos on purpose, there's a history there. ~BCX~  Been around for a while You don't sound like the "old" bcx though @ Legendster https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5176043.0Please don't sully our threads with your turd world servile slobbering. Address the central points pajeet or get back to feltching your masters for merits and clawing your way out of the gutter. @Viper1 Spoetnik was crushed by a true legend so badly in public for being a paid off dark shill he never seemed the same after that. Shame since once he was a semi valuable member. Theymos has only demonstrated time and time again. 1/ he is afraid to debate or discuss his brilliant decentralized control systems because they are pure garbage 2/ he is afraid to tackle and remove blatant scammers, scam facilitators and other financially dangerous members from positions of trust. 3/ he is allowing corrupt mods to blatantly and flagrantly abuse their positions to protect their sig campaign spots and create echo chambers. therefore opening himself and this board to legitimate criticisms about free speech and agendas being pushed here. Hence why he may blurt out a couple of one line false accusations or poorly researched and undeniably incorrect statements before hiding up again and deleting threads that ask for presentation of the evidence he claims exists. If you can debunk anything we have just said. Bring your evidence and we can examine it together. Of course you will not because meta board only attracts the spineless bullies and their servile rag tag turd world felchers. Don't need his attention. Simply looking at prior engagements and discussions is all you need. Not to mention the results of his brilliant designs are clear for all to verify by themselves. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.msg52014561#msg52014561He also gives merit to posts that are clearly a faux rebuttals https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.msg48852692#msg48852692Here go read and digest. If you can debunk anything there again bring your argument. Nobody has as yet. Theymos is a mixed bag. Seems though people need to be part of a crowd or be popular. They put this before doing the right thing. That is frustrating. His latest merit = volume design is one of the most damning yet really. More rev streams for merit cycling, more control to push the merit cylers agendas. Merit cancer. The social credit system but lacking any transparent clear rules and all the subjective rules now applied differently to the different "tiers" of members. LOL what a total mess. The reason there is no debate FROM ANYONE is because there can be no serious debate in light of the overwhelming evidence is terms of undeniable implications and current results of these broken designs. There can be no rebuttal that holds up under even mild scrutiny hence why derailing and off topic garbage is spewed out by those that are currently the beneficiaries of this ill conceived experiment. Theymos is opening himself and this board up to legitimate criticism and it is already spilling out past the boundaries of this forum to other places. This is not good for bitcoin and not good for the entire movement. Transparent clear rules that are applied equally to all members is the only acceptable way forward. You can not build control systems on top of a metric that is wide open to gaming and abuse and continually incetivize financially (and in other ways) the gaming and abuse. There can really be no argument about this, only a person with very unrealistic expectations with regard human nature would even attempt to do so. Either that or someone that deliberately wants an echo chamber and abuse and no accountability. |
|
|
|
I do think that TEC has a point in regards to the perceived trust of someone that catches scammers.
The issue with applying so much value on those that seek them out is that you almost have a single point of failure. Consider, if you will, what you learn from someone who has caught many scammers in their forum lifetime.
You know:
1) they are good at catching scammers.
2) they are more likely to have better character than someone who does not catch scammers
Neither of these points would aptly make you think, "this is someone I ought to trade with, without using escrow."
If trust scores are of any value to you, then I expect you to send a significant amount of bitcoins to one of the top 10 "most trusted" users and then ask for it back.
As for me, I have only used escrow once over the past year... not because I used the trust system on-forum, but because I used my personal trust system: logic. Just don't put so much emphasis on trust.
This post does have some value however the 2 points you claim are not essentially things you can know are they? 1/ they may just spend more time looking for small time scammers 2/ they may not be spending time doing other far more important things for this community that would have a far greater positive impact 3/ they are only doing it with motivation of gaining position from which they can conduct a larger scam or just to ensure their position into power/thus greater rev streams 4/ their alts could be responsible for setting up " potential scams" for them to bust. You really know NOTHING or very little because a person has busted a lot of small scams. Case in point lauda?tman? nutildah?. Do we really need to analyze their entire observable past history and the proven financial wrong doing and highly probably financial wrong doing? 5/ I see a direct correlation between obsessive scam fighters in many cases and those that demonstrate clear double standards, at times being scammers or scammer supporters themselves. Not to mention their character seems to be shaped from a life of being bullied or rejected or some other form of damage that made them the kinds of kids at school that told teacher if your swore. Willing to support any argument they can benefit from financially themselves. The valuable part of your post is There is no reason to TRUST these people in a trade/ or trust their opinions any more than people who are not scam fighters who have conducted many successful high value trades, or many others that have contributed in a large way to this community... That also have zero observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing. Sure you may trust some of these scam fighters with small amounts since they value their power and chipmixer et al payments. Trust them with a 5 BTC or greater trade without escrow ? no. Trust OG or Tecshare or a long term legend with lots of trading history and a ton of post history to examine, then yes that would be possible. I notice ALL the obsessive scam hunters are busy spamming the highest paying sigs they can or perhaps 2 or 3 if they can keep their sock puppets from posting using the same receiving addresses. This demonstrates greed and sneaking to us. We notice many are supporting trust abuse and scammers. This is not a good character. What you can likely assume about obsessive scam finders here. 1. third world or poverty cases seeking to gain some merit and recognition RAISING YOUR OWN PROFILE 2. will be spamming the highest paying sigs they can from the outset 3. will be supporting the arguments of anyone handing out merit or DT members 4. will be applying to chipmixer asap 5. may well wind up on the dirty turds poll thread. 6. will abuse the trust system if you ask about inconvenient historical events in their post histories or those histories of DT members 7. will be cycling merit with the best of them 8. employing clear double standards 9. some could be AUTISTIC ( a positive thing in some scenarios) these do not apply to all but actually a nice big proportion of them that we have looked at lately. Usually your points are pretty strong and robust. We feel saying you know those 2 things in the light of the observable behaviors here... are less robust than usual. Morobozo is likely semi autistic ( it does not come across positively in his case) then again perhaps if one were to go to a casino with him ?? I mean if you went with him , lauda, tman and nutildah... then that casinos odds don't look great. |
|
|
|
Setting aside the arguments regarding MemoryDealers' character, the scammer flag is not a correct use of the system, and should not be active. Supporters of the flag affirmed that this statement was true: MemoryDealers violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. MemoryDealers did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around August 2017. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance. Where is the written contract? Who are the victims? Hypothetically, how could MemoryDealers make the victims of the act whole or receive their forgiveness? The strongest case for a scammer flag AFAICT is when bitcoin.com (MemoryDealers' responsibility) was set up in a way which could've confused people into thinking that they were buying BTC when they were actually buying BCH. But you need to identify specific victims so that MemoryDealers could hypothetically say, "Oh damn, you're right. Here's some compensation for the mixup." If you just throw out a vague statement of, "Confusing information existed, so someone could've been scammed into buying BCH," then reconciliation is impossible. Scammer flags are for extremely clear cases with obvious victims, not cases which are impossible to definitively resolve due to political divisions and vague claims. Oftentimes MemoryDealers expresses the opinion that BCH more accurately follows the original vision of Bitcoin than BTC. This is just an opinion, no matter how wrong it is, and it should not enter into the trust system at all. On several occasions, I think that he's crossed a line where he's implied that when people say/think "Bitcoin", they mean BCH, even in contexts where this is not actually the probable meaning; this perhaps reasonably contributes to a type-1 flag, as do many of the other things mentioned in this thread such as the MtGox incident, the bc.i doxxing, the spreading of misinformation, supporting CSW, etc. Sensible and courteous reply. Imagine you took the time to research and structure such clear insight into all matters here. You seem to be directly inline with what we have said here on this core issue. If we were a merit source then your clear and correct insight is likely the only post (other than our own) that deserves merit and we would have given you some. The important point is: He may believe (rightly or wrongly) bitcoin evolved to what BCH is today as a result of BTC violating or not following certain satoshi principles. Therefore that rightly or wrongly is his GENUINE opinion he believes bch should be called "bitcoin". However, it is highly probable and sensible to conclude that the vast majority were seeking BTC when trying to purchase "bitcoin" and would feel betrayed or even scammed if they ended up with a variant they were not intending to hold. More irresponsible (not foreseeing the implications of not making it 100% clear) than scamming. This matter should also not AUTOMATICALLY invalidate any other unrelated points that he wishes to make in future, although the above point may be part of any sensible debate. The person RV (like it or not) is going to be historically very important in the trustless decentralized movement. Having a big SCAMMER notices above his threads and scam tags giving misleading and over stated damning almost defaming remarks should be fixed to a lemon flag and sensible accurate descriptions in the trust feedback. They should say " irresponsible actions that resulted in people purchasing bch rather than the btc they wanted" It would be interesting though to see some kind of comparison chart matching btc and bch against KEY points and requirements of the original satoshi white paper. It is also interesting that both sides seem to be making the same claims about each other in some areas like " it will lead to it being centralized and controlled by X" The network effect (of both) would certainly flow with less friction if a truce could be negotiated for each side to just get on with their own project and seek out their own adoption. It is also worrying to have proven scammers and scam facilitators screaming "scamming scumbag" regarding what would seem to be far less dangerous and self serving motives than they have shown willing to employ themselves. Also finding ways to shut down peoples free speech and ability to even conduct and objective debate without derailing with off topic irrelevant insults and false allegations. Reign these people in before they really do open this board to criticisms that will be impossible to deny. That would certainly damage btc and the entire movement. Stick around theymos and start sorting the real enthusiasts from the self serving scum bags that have almost seized full control of merit/trust and even moderator positions. We support your position on this matter and many other matters (not our own) IF people are incorrectly supporting flags THEN REMOVE THEM FROM DT. Start to get the message across that if you consistently make poor judgement calls or engage reasoning that collapses under scrutiny then you are not fit for a trust position (leaving aside the fact proven scammers should not be part of a trust system). You should have done this with the old system also. SADLY you have grandfathered this kind of abuse into the system now. If you have more negs than + before the flagging system you still get a THIS IS A SCAMMER message on all of your threads. This is very strange, when you consider we have a flagging system BECAUSE the old system was being clearly abused? makes zero sense and punishes a lot of innocent members. |
|
|
|
Good thing that he apologized to theymos however I see his attitude never changed. He changed his direction to the flag warning visible from the guest profile. Now Google takes the hit. He made Google the culprit because they did not give him the right topic in his search 🤪 By the way Roger, use incognito from now on. Lesson learnt, isn't it?
Thanks for proving our points.
You do not present a central point of ours that was debunked via a debate?
You rather rely on a bunch of debunked statements that a bunch of PROVEN SCAMMERS and their supporters have plastered on our profile in the form of red trust.
Our! You mean you and Ver made a joint venture to create another shitcoin? TOAA, in the early time I really wanted to help you but it seems all my try wasted. Sorry brother, people do not take your words seriously at all. Sorry for claiming a persons points deserve objective debate and not to be written off on the basis of some " tag" applied by proven scammers. That is clearly our central point. People only need read our words and then independently verify them. If they are untrue then you can dismiss them. If they are true though...... We ask for no trust or belief. Check each statement independently and then if it is true = accept if it is false = dismiss. This is how each members should be treated here. It is the only fair way. Same for roger ver or theymos. Each persons words need to be analysed and objectively verified. We would ask some more "objective" and "non scamming" DT members to comment on the situation. Let's bring some semi credible people to the conversation. Roger should take NOTE that theymos is opposing his flag. This is a measure of theymos's character even after being attacked. Although he seemingly only really gets involved with members he feels are important. Others he leaves to the wolves he has unintentionally birthed via the merit and trust systems. Members should note we are not opposing or supporting at this time. Only that he deserves to have his points debated and debunked not just dismissed on the basis of what some proven scammers have labelled him. |
|
|
|
Try learning what a debate is.
Yape! Demonstration is very clear looking at your profile reputation 🤪 Sorry TOAA, you have nothing left to prove here. In fact, this topic is not about you at all. Ver does not have a ground to argue here with valid logic. The false impression he gives about the support and stuffs about his altcoin (BCH), is all lie. Not many people care much about BCH. If anyone is holding it then they are holding it with the hope that some day the price will spike and they will sell it for Bitcoin. Thanks for proving our points. You do not present a central point of ours that was debunked via a debate? You rather rely on a bunch of debunked statements that a bunch of PROVEN SCAMMERS and their supporters have plastered on our profile in the form of red trust. This is sub optimal and to be honest it is completely net negative and damaging to this movement. It only serves to mask the truth. This is why you can not possibly rely on the trust score (on this old system) and that is why we entirely understand and sympathize with roger vers points. The people here are not interested in the TRUTH they are interested only in pushing the narrative that supports their own selfish gain. You do not have the technical understanding to objectively demonstrate BCH does not hold to the original satoshi principles more than BTC does. Or do you? then why not offer RV a chance for you to debunk his points in public? That is speculation however probable you believe that is. We speculate most holding BTC are only waiting to sell for 100k usd levels and will unload in droves when that happens. That again is speculation. Let roger present his points in debate. If you can clearly debunk them then that is fine. Screaming scammer does not invalidate ALL of his points. You need to objectively debunk each one. If he repeats his points that you have debunked as being true then only at that point can you call him untrustworthy. Yes that video termed "theymos is the worst thing to happen to bitcoin" is indeed ill advised and inflamatory. This kind of thing benefits nobody. Theymos has political views that we mostly support and seems reasonably fair. To try to brand him as the worst thing ever for bitcoin is certainly going to prevent people from treating you fairly. This needs to be addressed by Roger. Theymos also seems to be a person that is not hostile in an aggressive manner and not overly emotional. Better to have a measured and civil public debate. Then if no clear winner and no agreement just go separate ways and focus on the success of your own projects and leave the other to get on with theirs. Our point of coming to this thread is only to say that each person must have fair chance of objective debate. Not instantly be dismissed just because a tiny proportion of members (some proven scammers) want to fix a certain label to your account. Get some FAIR AND HONEST people on DT then we can start to perhaps have some faith in their statements and judgement. Even then each person should investigate for themselves. Where are mikey, eddie, actymyname, dark_star, and some of the others we have previously noticed actually care to give some thought before arriving at judgement? although we disagree with some of their points we find they will offer some attempt to justify their decisions. What do these members say about the situation? Certainly though roger should change that video title. That is pretty bad considering theymos has provided or watched over this forum for many years and given millions of people the chance to learn and benefit from the projects here. I'm sure if theymos was really this bad he would have lost a lot more support by now. Most people here feel he seems a fair and decent person. I suspect any unfair treatment you have had here roger would not be directly at the hands of theymos. Indirectly though theymos is guilty of allowing innocent members punished, this he certainly need to improve on. Come on though roger you can't expect objectively fair treatment here if you make a video like that about theymos it is going to inflame the entire thing. Rather just present observable instances you believe are wrong that theymos or this board has done towards you or bitcoin and leave it at that. Keep though to what you can prove is true. Saying he is the worst thing ever for bitcoin is certainly not sensible. If possible though just focus on your own project and not waste energy on being negative about btc. I'm sure I have seen theymos defend you roger when people have made extreme negative remarks about you. I could be wrong but I think he tries to be balanced about the entire disagreement. Then again I thought roger already said sorry about that video? so why we bringing it up again? |
|
|
|
Hey Roger, you do realize that you are in agreement with the No1 nominated troll bitcointalk has ever seen, right? Not that it would matter to your - already - self destroyed reputation, just saying. When BCH ATL? When zero satoshi? Nominated by the same crew that are trying to defame and give one of bitcoins earliest proponents misleading and over stated red trust in branding him a scammer. Nominated by the same people that when challenged CAN NOT present 1 post where I have presented a central point that they can debunk nor demonstrate is incorrect. That is their trolling.Nominated by the same crew of people that are guilty themselves of scamming and willing to facilitate scamming for a price. Nominated by the same crew of people that have manipulated and gamed theymos's broken systems of control to try and create and echo chamber here, that they use for their own personal gain. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0How can memory dealers be agreeing with a set of questions?? he is giving his opinion. We are merely suggesting reasons some may use to validate the need for leaving him a warning on his account. It is apparent that Roger Ver has a STRONG POINT in that any person that seeks to have a fair debate on "CERTAIN TOPICS" even if they bring observable instances and hard evidence to support their claims, are at times, censored and shouted down by a bunch of rabble. If the rabble can not defeat your arguments or look to have had their own arguments debunked they will then seek to: 1/ give you red trust 2/ seek to have you banned 3/ claim you are a troll 4/ get their moderator pals to delete your posts 5/ enlist hoards of mornic noobs (like you) to scream support for their debunked arguments If pushed and pushed on a point until the above tactics fail they will 1/ claim the opinions they spout in opposition to your views require no reasoning or to be substantiated in anyway 2/ claim they are no longer interested 3/ claim the truth does not interest them 4/ claim it is good when the innocent are punished 5/ change the very definition of words to their opposite meanings In light of the above points. We are saying that Roger Ver aka memory dealers may have some VALID POINTS that can not be dismissed out of hand just because you happen to believe BTC is the real bitcoin ( that could or could not be true and does not impinge on the validity of his other points). The people currently leaving him red trust are PROVEN scammers and have displayed multiple instances of financially dangerous behaviors. You are siding with PROVEN SCAMMERS - this is an accurate statement but still does not null you other points (although you are obviously unable to process information at a level we could even think of being able to rely on) I think his comments have demonstrated he is following his beliefs based on principles he truly believes in. That to us in this instance does NOT warrant him having a message screaming he is a scammer. If NON SCAMMING members here believe he needs a warning on his account it should be accurate. I don't think a person with a huge amount of bitcoin or crypto wealth would be deliberately trying to scam people. The returns on such behaviors would be net negative. We also think calling every alt a shitcoin is quite foolish. Some projects have developers that have created some very interesting designs. We tend to stick to developers that are also trustworthy and honest. That is one area for improvement for roger in the future. Although again investing in projects without doing your DD can not perhaps be reason for a scam tag. Let him present his views and then analyse them by objective standards and through fair debate. No more branding people with some bullshit term like TROLL or SCAMMER and trying to invalidate their statements and points without objective analysis. That is bogus and sub optimal for the entire movement. Try learning what a debate is. This board operates more like an uneducated mob than a community of individuals looking to collaborate and contribute to building an end to end decentralized trustless arena. Every argument and point should be analysed and debated on its own merits. Not dismissed out of hand on the basis of some title that "some" members feel appropriate. We have been as fair as possible. Better not to have war between the 2 projects. He should stop perhaps being so negative about theymos and we should stop screaming scammer at him and rather engage in sensible debate. To those claiming we are negative about theymos himself, you are wrong. Would be better if theymos and roger have a sensible open discussion on the amicable route forwards for both projects. No point having further debate on the designs since that has been thrashed out and there seems no agreement. Just better to discuss how both projects can move forward without causing friction that hampers both sides. A treaty if you want to call it that. bch says we appreciate btc believes they can make some changes to improve in certain areas we wish them well btc says we appreciate that bch believes they should stick more to the original design we wish them well more highlighting the positives of your own approach rather than focusing on the negatives of the other approach. People will likely end up holding a bit of both and using them RATHER than fiat eventually (along with a few of their fav alts)- what's the problem? Let's co-operate. We hold several alts and never feel the need to drum up fighting over the different design ideas. It is counter productive for the entire sphere. I don't think being so hostile to roger on this board is productive when looking at the bigger picture for BTC. People tend to become negative about you when you attack them as visa versa. We still trust in theymos to a large degree, even if he is in our opinion fucking up this board with merit and other experimental designs. Still we look at his individual assessment of other issues and topics here and find we are often in strong agreement with him, and especially his political views. He seems on a personal level a "fair person" so roger needs to keep in mind theymos is doing what he feels is correct also. People simply will disagree at times. Less hostility from both sides = better chance of success for each. |
|
|
|
|
This median of the top 28 merited users is excellent work. Thanks for presenting it and clogging up meta with more merit stats.
It was very interesting indeed.
Perhaps you should consider confining yourself to one stats analysis thread for meta? and then just update that will all your new vital analysis of merit?
What is the reason to start so many threads ALL analyzing the distribution of merit?
Have you consulted with loyceV about this? maybe you could collaborate on a merit distributional stats thread together?
|
|
|
|
Notice you don't dispute the rest of our post.
Sorry, I'm scared to tackle your undeniable points, so I will try to say something that requires I need not attempt a rebuttal. This will save me being humiliated again. Ran your reply through the old truth filter. Was your last post even long enough to qualify for $7.60? I mean is there not a minimum character requirement? How many posts today so far suchsigspammer? Around 25 or so yesterday? that's a good spam rate. I hope you don't cause chipmixer to go under. Think of those poor wretches like pharmacist. He must be shitting bricks now you and robovac are spamming the shit out of chipmixer. They will surely drop the rates soon. Oh i see they only pay max 50 per week.  At least you can ease up a little now. It that small amount of btc dust worth it? I mean either you are the worst trader of all time ( except the ANTI MIDAS) or else you are just being greedy. Let some of the newer ass felchers have your spot. Come on now. |
|
|
|
Going forward it is important to recognize that the majority consider btc to be bitcoin. Historically the majority have believed all sorts of stupid and wrong things. The majority previously thought the sun goes around the earth, and they literally forbade Galileo from pointing out the truth. This sounds a lot like the censored Bitcoin forums today. I think bitcoin.com can be used to promote bch, but it should make clear the majority of people consider BTC to be BITCOIN and both are clearly mentioned. I don't think anyone is confused by this point. We have entire articles on the site explaining exactly what the history is, and where we are today on this topic. We don't know if bch or btc holds more closely to satoshis principles. But we do know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeM92bfJwIf objectively from a more trained and capable point of view roger is correct then we understand your frustration. Just imagine how frustrated Galileo must have felt. We entirely agree. This forum and your own forum must not prevent people from presenting their views if they can support them with a credible argument. We agree this forum is actually starting to become an echo chamber on certain issues. I do not think you should be prevented from presenting your case. It is unlikely theymos is directly censoring you since he seems open to allowing any one to present output that does not break the rules. Other admin although are certainly not as open to free speech and we have witnessed this greatly of late. Theymos himself seems to just be interested in keeping the peace and if that means sub layers of control get to abuse their positions he is willing to look the other way UNTIL it gets too blatant or effects some members he does care about. I think the problem is as we stated. You "may" be correct that bch upholds more firmly satoshis original principles. However, because the majority (even if they are wrong) consider bitcoin to be BTC at this point, then it is important not to add any confusion when they are first becoming involved with the decentralized trustless movement. Confusion could and has contributed to new investors losing money and feeling (rightly or wrongly is certainly up for debate) betrayed . That is why there are these accusations and red marks on your account. It could just be that you believe (perhaps correctly) that bitcoin (the original set of principles) lives on truly as BCH and not BTC, so when you called BCH bitcoin, and called BTC bitcoin core... then you were not being dishonest at all. You believe this to be the case. So that on it's own does not require red trust. I think the issue is that new members unaware were duped into buying bch believing it was BITCOIN as the majority see it ( even if they are wrong) which has financial consequences. So as we said. 1. the warnings should correctly state what happened NOT brand you as an intentional scammer. 2. The red trust should certainly not be from those themselves that have scammed here in the past or tried to facilitate scamming for a price. Now that you have made things more clear as to prevent new members not being confused. I think in future the red marks and red flags should be perhaps revisited to perhaps a low warning level. I don't think it looks good for one of the most famous bitcoin proponents should have THIS PERSON IS A SCAMMER warning on his threads. The true story should be there and people can make up their own minds about your actions. Honestly though, the people leaving you red tags are either proven scammers or scam facilitators. These should not even have positions on this boards trust system. It is sad that the project the majority consider bitcoin lost one it's more vocal and famous supporters. One could wonder where a single project called bitcoin could have been if all the fragmentation of the original supporting group had not taken place. Then again in life one must do what one thinks is correct. Surely though you must still consider btc > fiat Even if you consider bch > btc ? Perhaps there is room for both projects anyway. I certainly don't think that either side should be sniping at the other. Fighting against each other is not the way. Sort of like "hey we are bitcoin original, since we feel it essential to hold closer to the original design of satoshi for these reasons..", or "Hey we are BTC we feel we can improve the design in a few ways". We support bitcoin and hold BTC and some BCH. We also hold a few other projects that seem to have great developers and very interesting potential. It is perhaps not a case " of there can be only one". Bitcoin cash does not seem to get your message across as much as if you had called it bitcoin classic or bitcoin original... or something like that to demonstrate what distinguishes it from btc and why it is essential people read and understand this before they decide if they want to go for one or the other or get a bit of both of them. Anyway hope you get fair treatment from members that have any business being in positions of trust here. A sensible and accurate message if they feel you must have red trust not screaming scammer. What can you expect from these morons (real scammers) that have taken over the systems of control of this board. |
|
|
|
The impartial Global mob that is meant to be an objective and impartial enforcer of the boards rules LOL
They don't call him Don Hilary for nothing. Notice you don't dispute the rest of our post. You are getting too easy. |
|
|
|
Most people here likely do not have the tech chops to know whether BTC or BCH keeps more strictly to satoshis principles or not. Either way it would have been sensible and correct when one was trading at 10x the price to make sure people understood that the majority of people considered BTC as just bitcoin and never attempted to confuse by calling any other variant bitcoin alone. Even if you believed the majority were wrong to support BTC as bitcoin since it could result in losses for those that were not familiar with the entire debacle. I think if it is claimed that bch keeps more to satoshi principles than btc it should have just been called bitcoinclassic. If people believe his intention was to mislead others into believing the majority considered bch as the original bitcoin and the one with the most abundant support then that could be seen as red trust worthy. I do not think it looks good for bitcoin though that one of the most avid and original supporters of bitcoin has glowing red trust with such over blown terminology it looks very negative for the entire movement. A better wording could be something like. Roger believes that bch holds more true to satoshis original principles and in his exuberance showed extreme lack of care that lead other people to understand that this was a view held by the majority which is was not. So caution is adviced when dealing with roger. I think a big scam warning header on his threads looks pretty fucking bad for bitcoin jesus too. Going forward it is important to recognize that the majority consider btc to be bitcoin. If that were ever to change in the future then there could be argument for revisiting this but I think bitcoinclassic is a better name. Looking at the support for both that looks unlikely to happen any time soon anyway. There is certainly a case to argue this board is losing its free speech if you dare to approach the wrong set of people or topics. That should not be the case and this must be closely observed. There is also possible cause for concern regarding some of the other projects roger has supported. This may be due to lack of research but even so you leave yourself open to criticism if you openly support projects where there is strong evidence the project is scammy or that any scammers are part of the leadership. Since the influence and scale of roger is considerable then it is likely his actions were perhaps scrutinized and the reaction was stronger than if it had been an average member, on a personal level his actions seem LESS deliberately untrustworthy than many of the people choosing to leave him red trust. This statement can be validated by carefully reading this thread and looking for the names of those insisting they paint him red. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0I think bitcoin.com can be used to promote bch, but it should make clear the majority of people consider BTC to be BITCOIN and both are clearly mentioned. We don't like the projects (alts) he became involved with, but he was obviously once a very big force behind bitcoin and contributed to bringing a lot of attention to the trustless decentralized arena we are trying to develop. It is sad to see him given red tags by documented deliberate scammers. At least have some people with zero instances of observable financially motivated wrong doing leave the red . This is bitcoin jesus we are dealing with. He should only be nailed up by those with clean hands if it must be done. We don't know if bch or btc holds more closely to satoshis principles. It seems there is strong argument for both sides. If objectively from a more trained and capable point of view roger is correct then we understand your frustration. Still it is important to make others aware this is not the view held by the majority of investors or miners at this time even if you can prove it is true. Since the new influx of crypto supporters should be protected from any misconceptions, we don't want them instantly put off if they feel they have been lead into making a mistake. Surely either variant is way better than what the mainstream currently use. |
|
|
|
Ah, suchmixer, nice of you to spam your flagrant abuse of the trust system which draining away revenue that could be going to members that are not net negative.
Ironically it's the shitposting assholes such as yourself that motivate me to stick around and to help clean the forum up. Well, that, and the 25kg of cookies per week. I'll bring some to the debate, please bring a gallon of milk. LOL come on cookie munching sig spammer stop making us laugh. You clean up the forum by 1. allowing us to humiliate you and debunk your arguments over and over 2. Helping bump our valuable threads 3. reporting on topic relevant truths to deprive the reader of important information 4. Refuse to remove a proven scammer, probable extortionist, probable escrow scammer from DT and accuse the warden of the board of being sneaky and heavy handed because he suggested doing so. 5. Include other observable scammers and scam facilitators into the trust system. 6. make ludicrous moronic statements that even you must be embarrassed about. 7. derail threads with selfies of yourself without the blonde wig 8. try to spin that discovering the largest scam and forcing a 2 000 000 000 USD compensation offer to the entire board is net negative 9. exist at all, so people have to endure more of your haters posting the ugly truth of your DNA sequence (before your pal deleted it in under 2 mins) 10.Now helping increase the density of chipmixer sigs in meta for less than 8 bucks per net negative slobbering you make. Yep more cleaning up please suchMIXER you sig spamming broke down fool. Who would need spam a sig after all of these years and 2 huge bull runs. What a loser? have you been following The ANTI MIDAS aka nutildah trading tips recently or let lauda find your priv keys? OR just greed has taken over?? At least though you are not a full on coward like your pal and sig spamming reference for chipmixer enrollment.. hilarious and co(ward) Let's quote some impartial and mod worthy out put from this snivelling dreg... I hope you accept suchmoon if only because it will annoy cryptocunter to no end. He's also a great poster and fellow meta merit felcher. I am also willing to offer you a bribe in merits for your co-operation.
The impartial Global mob that is meant to be an objective and impartial enforcer of the boards rules LOL Theymos has allowed this boards trust system and moderation to become a laughing stock. His answer? turn the volume down on those that complain and give the abusers more weapons and greater access to the rev streams. BRILLIANT. DT is crammed full of those that are observably financially high risk or outright scammers, mods just openly in league with them. Both working together to cream off their 8 bucks per self serving suggestion and post. That's not enough though since mods are also paid out directly from board generated funds. So everyone elses posts fund this corrupt moderation and assistance of prohibiting the average member getting a fair chance at the pie. haha Come here coward. Join with suchmoon in cleaning up the forum by trying (and failing every time) to debunk some of our central points rather than hiding away with your delete button, deleting our on topic , relevant (inconvenient) truths. |
|
|
|
BRILLIANT. Give his post MORE merits.
Done. Hopefully this puts me back in your good graces. Ah, suchmixer, nice of you to spam your flagrant abuse of the trust system which draining away revenue that could be going to members that are not net negative. How come now a sig spammer of CHIPMIXER's now too? I get the cost of cookies can be substantial if consumed by the KG. Why would such a brilliant demonstration of why merit is bogus put you anywhere but in our good graces? I mean we rely on your contributions to hammer home our central points. Your "contributions" are always welcome. Now that you are getting paid per post in btc dust, we expect we'll hear even more from you voicing "opinions" on how things are brilliant here just as they are. Stick around you know you can't stay away anyway. Let us fill your cookie jar...what is it roughly per post in USD this chipmixer pays you? how much per kilo of your fav cookies? |
|
|
|
We just explained clearly why DT is centralized, you don't seem able to debunk our points. Simply saying you disagree is not an argument.
You misunderstand. My argument is not simply me saying "I disagree". My argument is that the differing opinions between DT members observably demonstrate that DT is not centralised. My disagreement is being offered as evidence of the differing opinions I am referring to. Just like saying " it is my opinion" that tecshare should be black listed from DT and Tman, lauda and Nutildah should not be blacklisted. Not only that but I believe nutildah, lauda , and tman should be included on to the boards trust system, is avoiding and running away from presenting you reason or argument for that statement.
So again are you able or willing to say WHY you believe that? or will you try to avoid it because you know you can present no sensible case for that statement that will stand up to scrutiny?
This is the problem with meta, peoples opinions seem to be based upon reasoning that collapses under any mild scrutiny. Then they get angry, run away screaming troll.
The beauty of opinions is that they don't have to be based upon reasoning. That's what distinguishes them from facts. Your apparent wilful inability to distinguish the two is why we claim you are a troll. You heard it here first folks OPINIONS NEED NOT BE BASED ON REASON you are a troll to believe that opinions offered in debate should be based on some form of reasoning. Brilliant. So just keep voicing your "opinions" that you DARE not present the reasoning upon which you formed "your opinion", or just don't bother with any reasoning to form opinions. LOL Agent foxpoop. THEN just keep spouting them as if they are some valid argument against OPPOSING opinions that are grounded in reasoning that nobody can debunk. This is why meta is the twilight zone. The fact mods have given your post merits clearly demonstrates they do not have the capacity to be mods. Because you "say" you have different opinions on matters unrelated to TRUST and Governance does not refute our point that the decisions DT make now are NOT more decentralized than before. You said the OLD system was NOT decentralized. It clearly was MORE decentralized and we just pointed out clearly why the reasons for that and if you want us to copy the observable areas of COLLUSION from the drity turds thread we can. Thanks for demonstrating your opinion that Tecshare should be blacklisted from DT was unable to stand up to scrutiny and you dare not even present your reasons for stating that. OR you have not employed any reasoning you just pulled this statement out of your ass. BRILLIANT. Give his post MORE merits. Meta board is FULL of people that scream troll at people that present the TRUTH in the form of observable instances and then can present statements based on reason that stands up to scrutiny. TROLLS The fact Theymos sits there giving people that don't need to employ reason to form opinions merit source and DT positions and allowing mods to support this stupidity and corruption is a very poor reflection upon him. Employ reasoning to establish opinions and be willing to debate it = TROLL. says agent fox poop and supported by hilarious and co(ward) (more sniping with merts and NOT correcting his false allegations made earlier in the thread. Come out and debate directly with us hilarious, on the corrupt moderation thread. We can't wait to hear your REASONING on marking deliberate off topic one liner insults BAD reports and then deleting our relevant to the central point / debunking false claims related to the central point. NON reasoning based opinions on how to moderate in action. Merit = zero reasoning employed based opinions points Trolling score= Presenting statements no person can refute supported by observable instances based upon reason. when do we start turning peoples volume down with trolling score? less fighting, less squabbles, less reason, less truth, more fun, more chipmixer sig density on threads.... A fact does not = simply an opinion based upon the persons reasoning. Sorry for not accepting this nonsense and therefore being a troll by definition. |
|
|
|
|
Lots of wild speculation. Nobody knows the answer.
Let's await to hear from the person that banned him.
The posting style and content seems to more closely match a sock puppet account like HugeBlackWoman aka pharmacists other account.
I would SERIOUSLY doubt he was banned for racist trolling since HugeBlackWoman is still clearly a member.
Seems to be mostly posting on the politics and religions boards, I thought it was pretty much impossible to troll there. Who can say what anyone posting their truly believes and there are not simple and correct answers there no many points that are provably incorrect to an objective standard.
I'm not sure I see anything that would cross the threshold of HATE speech. Although some is clearly undesirable.
Obviously not an alt of lafu since it is not pushing an exchange that is going to exit scam you all.
|
|
|
|
Obviously there would be no third party api read access to all those things.. Waaaay to sophisticated  . Oh so somohow you want api access to my computer and development software? ahahah why don't you count to 10 before writing something!
the demo account api has an N=55,, it is not proof of anything, let alone of a stable ROI, or, any ROI at all that isn't based on 100% luck. (the actually n={x} is more like 8 if we only count 100$+ trades)
So, that's all that's verifiable.. or, rather, what you "want" to "verify".
I'm done here. This said it all.
Yup you right, 24 wins in a row that perfectly match the stats of over 500 trades in backtest of 0.5% avg win as coincidence can't be anything else than luck. Also is still clear you don't know how a market maker makes money! (Which is total bullshit obviously, you could’ve simply recreated another read api for your “other” (nonexistent  ) bitmex account. You are the only one that never understand even a tiny bit. Let me try again: You can't access the backtest trades via API because, guess what, they are BACKTESTS. It mean the bot didn't existed during that period of time. This proves you don't even understand what a backtest engine is. Please leave and take your ignorance out of this thread once for all Can anybody else that is reading this say what they think? This thread has 600 views and is just me roasting the same 4 users over and over againAs you have witnessed, there is not the opportunity to present on topic and relevant replies. The mods will simply delete them. Welcome to meta board aka the twilight zone. Stick around it can be fun. |
|
|
|
After marking bad our reports from this thread ranging from - 1. telling people not to reply on thread and ADMITTING they never read the initial post 2. making false accusations 3. admitting they don't read the OP before making random insults 4. strange speculation on what we look like (suchmoon taking her wig off to post a picture of herself) all blatantly attempting to derail and deter others from posting, all low value off topic garbage https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181755.0These posts all remain and our reports marked bad?  ?? This fucking sig spamming chipmixer sponsored corrupt moderator hilarious and co goes and deletes to clearly ON TOPIC , RELEVANT and truthful posts. We have noticed he does not permit ANY truthful debunking of the pharmacists lies and misinformation, and it looks to hilarious and co is touch about chipmixer being mentioned in a negative light. This is the problemm with allowing broke down bums as mods who need to spam 2 sigs ... who are also scammer supporters. Get this piece of shit away from any moderator position. The posts linked below are the most recent on topic and directly relevant posts deleted when the above examples demonstrate he marks bad totally off topic, irrelevant garbage that seeks only to derail and deter others debating the points in the OP. Anything ANTI sig or CHIPMIXER related is quickly removed from this chipmixer spamming corrupt mod. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5135599.msg52477681#msg52477681Disgusting little parasite that he is. Come debate here you fucking corrupt pussy hilarious. We will crush your mind in public as we have many times your scamming pals. |
|
|
|
Delete 20 More clear evidence of on topic relevant information being deleted to conceal the truth. This is why moderators like hilarious and co should not be employed by chipmixer. He will not remove 1 line insults and off topic low value garbage that seeks to derail from our threads and marks them BAD. Fucking pussy and weasel that he is. A 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. This probably isn't anything too interesting for other people, but it is for me. I'm leaving my signature campaign and will not join any other ones for some time. Mind you, I've been in a signature campaign constantly since 2014, so it's a pretty big step for me to just walk away from them. I just don't want to deal with the hassle anymore, you know, having to post X amount of times per week... Now, I doubt I will be any less active, but now I can purely post for fun without actually having to post. The campaigns I've been in, were always great, never had any issues with the campaign managers, but after a while the obligation to post starts to wear on you. I've probably spend some time responding to topics I wasn't really interested in, so it's great that I don't have to do that anymore... I just thought this deserved to be put in a topic, hehe, I could almost shed a tear because being in a signature campaign was part of my life for so long. Anyway, this might inspire others to take a break from signature campaigns and just enjoy Bitcointalk for what it is, without expecting payment for it  I'll probably have way more time to spend on my Steemit blog now and to participate with interesting projects here on Bitcointalk. Had my first Bitcointalk meetup the other week, plus I'm participating in a very cool project, so I doubt that I'll spend any less time on here. See y'all around and this time you can be 100% sure that whatever I say is because I mean it, instead of upping my post count. (Really, you can never be 100% sure when someone's in a signature campaign, no offence) This is a good move. We agree that UNLESS you find a project you really believe in and wish to support then there is no reason to be wearing a sig for financial gain. You should only make posts that you feel add value and not feel you HAVE to post to meet a quota OR that you are wasting the opportunity to make money. What the pharmacist just said above is CLEARLY NOT TRUE. He is a financially motivated shit poster and has been caught red handed being extra greedy and sneaky and using his racist trolling sock puppet HugeBlackWoman. He was caught because he was NOT SATISFIED with spamming 2 sigs he was trying to spam for the maximum rates he could get and was swapping from one scampaign to another. This clearly demonstrates you can not trust what he tells you. I mean is he claiming now that he would be racist trolling for free ANYWAY? or that he was not trying to jump out of one campaign to another for GREATER REWARDS?? He even admitted here he feels his greatest achievement ever since being a members was GETTING ON TO A HIGHLY PAID SIG CAMPAIGN .... You can not trust the "REASONS" these people give for spamming the low value garbage for the highest rates. However, well done to the OP. Become a real enthusiast for this movement and only post when you are certain to be adding additional value. Sadly suchmoon just decided to demonstrate she can no longer resist joining her "pals" to spam CHIPMIXER all over meta board. You have to wonder at the dumbo who thinks having 10 CHIPMIXER sigs per thread in meta is better for CHIPMIXER than 5 CHIPMIXER sigs per thread. LOL At least now you can be free of the forced posting mandate of these kind of campaigns. All meta posters should be sig free. You are setting a good example. Well done. Delete 21 Explaining clearly why the post is on topic and relevant. A 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. I don't know what campaign you were in since I have signatures blocked and never saw yours, and I just looked at your profile and you obviously removed your campaign signature--but what I was wondering was whether they had a minimum number of weekly posts or not. I've been in campaigns with minimum posts, and I always hated that unless it was a very low number. Now, I doubt I will be any less active, but now I can purely post for fun without actually having to post.
If that's the case, why are you going campaign-free? The only reason I've been in signature campaigns was because I figured it'd be better to get paid for doing something I'd be doing anyway. It would be like leaving money on the table if I didn't take part in one. But hey, props to you if it makes you feel more free. By the way, this might be better in Reputation or some other section. I've been in the Crypto-Games & Bitsler campaigns, they both had a 25 posts per week requirement. Yeah, I totally get the "leaving money on the table" argument and that's why I'm still kinda leaving it open to join a campaign in the future. Now it's just that I really do not have any external incentive to post, except pure interest, it just feels liberating in a way.
And wow, how did this turn into a rant against The Pharmacist, that really wasn't my intention. I really didn't mean to shame people who were still active in signature campaigns, heck I have no moral qualms against people who are active in signature campaigns. The posts I've seen The Pharmacist make were always on point, so I really don't agree with painting them in such a bad light. Not every reply needs to be overly intellectual, sometimes people just enjoy to read regular stuff too...
I guess he left to be a bit more free, personally I'd give it a month and then you'd probably rejoin. I've had points where campaigns have closed thsa I'm in and I've just left for about a month for a break. It's quite nice every so often, I still stayed here and kept posting but it's just a bit different from being in a sig...
Hey, that could very well be the case, I do think I'd probably join a campaign without minimum post requirements. OR Maybe I'll just advertise a project that I'm really interested in and slap a referral link of my own on that. I won't be making the same kind of money as in a regular Bitcoin signature campaign, but at least I'll have a warm fuzzy feeling This thread has not turned into a rant against ANY person. It is simply how the permitted flow works. You say you left the sig campaign and say you feel better and voice your reasons for this that seem commendable. Pharmacist comes along and give his "apparent" reasons for staying in a sig campaign. Others come along and discuss your reasons you give for leaving a sig campaign and support those reasons. They then debunk BOGUS reasons for staying in a sig campaign offered by someone clearly presenting FALSE information. Threads here are not for presenting false information to the reader. It is VALUABLE to the reader to have the observably FALSE information debunked or given the full context to make their own minds up. This is the issue with " some" mods interpretation of permitted flow. They want to create and echo chamber that is usually based on the echos of FALSE and MISLEADING information and will REMOVE on topic, natural flow that presents CORRECT and TRUE information. So I hope that has explained to you how CORRECTING false information on your thread and keeping it TRUE for the reader to digest is beneficial for you and the entire board. False information that is on topic and related to the OP should be corrected. There is no other possible way of approaching it. So long as you do not bring in UNRELATED and OFF TOPIC examples to debunk the FALSE CLAIMS then of course the thread will naturally flow in the most optimal way. Again well done for leaving paid2post. Your reasons are VALID. Those reasons offered as the personal reasons thepharmacist remains splashing chipmixer everywhere are debunked as UNTRUE or HIGHLY DOUBTFUL in light of the ontopic and relevant information presented. You latest post " would join a campaign without minimal post requirements" is another good point. It is true without being forced to make up posting numbers to hit the payout level then that is certainly an improvement and perhaps something that the board should insist upon. This would cut out needless repetitive low value posting. Pharmacist - to reply to you. You must refrain from making false accusations. That is our contention with you and any other person that continuously posts false and misleading information. That and supporting untrustworthy members. You will be corrected each time that we find you to be making false claims. These rebuttals will be on topic and relevant and highly valuable. It is good you are not posting the max just to increase chipmixer payments. Perhaps you have been improving recently. Keep to posting what you can demonstrate to be true and stop supporting untrustworthy members and improve further. Win win. |
|
|
|
You claim that tecshare should be blacklisted from DT. We are simply asking you to detail the reasons WHY tecshare should be blacklisted but members such as tman, lauda, nutildah should NOT be blacklisted but you say SHOULD BE INCLUDED in DT? This seems unthinkable and totally irrational. However we want to see your reasons for saying this.
Yes, I can see how that would seem unthinkable and irrational to someone who thinks DT is centralised. Let me try to explain it another way: I am a different person to you, and therefore I hold different opinions about certain things. My opinions even differ from those of other DT members, as difficult as that concept may be to comprehend for someone who believes that we're all of a single mind. For more examples of opinions I hold that may differ from other people's opinions, I think that lemons are okay and are the appropriate garnish for a martini, that homosexuality is fine and dandy, and that people who put ice in whisky should be shot. We just explained clearly why DT is centralized, you don't seem able to debunk our points. Simply saying you disagree is not an argument. Just like saying " it is my opinion" that tecshare should be black listed from DT and Tman, lauda and Nutildah should not be blacklisted. Not only that but I believe nutildah, lauda , and tman should be included on to the boards trust system, is avoiding and running away from presenting you reason or argument for that statement. So again are you able or willing to say WHY you believe that? or will you try to avoid it because you know you can present no sensible case for that statement that will stand up to scrutiny? This is the problem with meta, peoples opinions seem to be based upon reasoning that collapses under any mild scrutiny. Then they get angry, run away screaming troll. So what are the reasons why tecshare should be blacklisted and nutildah, lauda and tman should be included on DT? |
|
|
|
You claim Tecshare should be blacklisted from DT do you vixen? this is a view we do not share nor understand at this stage.
Then you should express your view more clearly. I do not share or understand your view that DT is centralised when its own members disagree about who should be allowed in it. It's hardly the ideal model of a single-minded colluding group, you have to admit. This is going to be interesting.. or will we witness a high velocity vile vixen vanishing act?
Only if it ceases to be interesting. You'd better not bore me by repeating the same tired rant over and over again. To summon the agent one it seems need only mention 'vixen' and it appears to assist as best it can.
Good vixens always come when called.  As we explained the centralization of many aspects of control we were referring to the 1-10 listed as now controlled by merit. However, Of course DT1 is very centralized since there is a core of colluding members. This collusion has been explained many times before. Please seek the dirty turds thread for a full explanation. If you still wish to debate that then we will. I mean it can be seen as MORE centralized in our opinion that even the OLD DT system if you look at it sensibly. Theymos makes and changes the rules at any point so clearly he controls it if and when he chooses. In the last DT selection process there were clearly chosen by theymos many different members (not mostly chipmixer pumpers and pals dependent on keeping a roof over their heads with spamming low value garbage) these were old timers many probably super wealthy and probably real enthusiasts not financially motivated plebs. These had less incentive to collude there seemed no real CORE or group that the otheres were all terrified to upset. Sure a couple of bad eggs perhaps. However since theymos was directly accountable for his selection and was required to put in or out new DT then those that ran the day to day trust system were arguably less colluding and more independent. Since they were less reliant on each others support to remain in DT, less reliant on each other maintain their SIGS, and were not accountable to each other. So you can say that their behaviours were likely more decentralized than the new bunch that know their safety depends on supporting each others actions. Anyway let's not get drawn back into discussions we have had numerous times before. We are talking about merit as we explained now. SO NOW LET'S GET TO THE EXCITING PART. You claim that tecshare should be blacklisted from DT. We are simply asking you to detail the reasons WHY tecshare should be blacklisted but members such as tman, lauda, nutildah should NOT be blacklisted but you say SHOULD BE INCLUDED in DT? This seems unthinkable and totally irrational. However we want to see your reasons for saying this. Let's not dance around it any longer. We want to hear your reasoning behind the claims you are making? Will you present your reasoning or will you REFUSE and RUN away? Please present you explanation and we will engage you in civil reasonable debate. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
