You must be spamming people such as @LoyceV and others on a daily basis then with your prude police PM's? spamming disgusting stuff in other people's topic Your "proof" is a link to a twitter post (twitter is not the forum) your sexcoin activities are getting exposed The sexcoin thread is not a hidden thread and complies with the Forum's policy of being clearly labelled NSFW as set out by @theymos therefore theymos approves Your arguments are weak and make you look like you are trying to impress others. |
|
|
|
Your argument was displayed like a child crying on my cognition, very poor logic, like this look ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So no dot points on why we should invest in your business proposal - just school yard banter. Thank you for confirming you are a Troll seeking cheap laughs. Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3188 |
|
|
|
WOW, you all are really very low IQ, I expected more deep accurate logic debate about operational entropy volume momentum on markets moves.
Your OP says a 90% success rate yet you then go on to explain you system but don't factor that loss in therefore your scheme is flawed. Given you stoop to name calling and or berating others who express concern for your claims, I can only surmise you are an alt Trolling for cheep laughs. |
|
|
|
Well, if you think I live by loan you are totally out.
Please - elaborate.
Make that one merit
Fuck me! If I thought he was incorrigible before!  My merit circle rank on BPIP has consistently stayed at 77 or 78 for years now. I only merit a user once or twice, so it's unlikely I'll merit that user again any time in the next five plus years it takes them to post another five hundred posts. |
|
|
|
well thank god he's not like you right hedgefx going from loan to loan 
In almost 300 messages you have written you have not received a single merit: this should be enough to make you understand how little your contribution is worth in this forum.. (and no understanding or financial gain written or implied occured to cause the merit to be issued) ps34 correctly mentions you are living beyond your means taking out loans as soon as you repay your previous loans, the majority of which are repaid late. Recently, you have taken out simultaneous loans from multiple lenders then rinse and repeate. Glass houses and all that.
I think you need to check ninjastats before making such erroneous claims. He's written over 500 posts, but over 40% have been deleted.  I'm out of merits, otherwise I'd merit that one and this one too: and can cause cognitive damage, because of that I'm here seeking for a gambler/investor.
This is what really made me fall in love with OP  |
|
|
|
elmanchez It'd be interesting if it is ps34 and or elmanchez. Any clues (grammar etc) with which you base that on? Given the OP said their *cough* husband would cover their losses then offered no proof to back that assertion it shows how dim elmanchez / ps34's imagination has become. If it is them. |
|
|
|
Might be splitting hairs, but I can't see a post where they acknowledge receipt of the "internal" transaction (or not as the case may be)
I've decided I won't be supporting the flag as the loan was without collateral which means as long as you don't ask for collateral you are going to be "scammed" by users who will cashout near useless UID's.
I won't support it, but I won't oppose it either as you are expecting us to clean up a mess you have created.
Upon reflection I'll support the flag if only to deter copy cat scamming. But I still think the entire no collateral or multiple loans policy that lenders have needs a rethink. |
|
|
|
think myself and Timelord talked about doing something a while back Yeh, I suggested a two of three wallet or something like that to hold the bag. If @Welsh jumps in I wouldn't object to sending the pot to him as I think he's escrowed in the past? Will over 47.5 @ 1.7 be a worthy bet? Not on a $1 bet it isn't. I think for a $100 or even a $1000 bet it might, but I get a little hesitant withose kinds of bets. The team wins, but not as much as you think, so you loose anyway. I play the safe bet and just pick who is going to win. 🤔 Tonight, I'm going with the Sharks ($1.05Vs$10) and tomorrow I'm backing the Raiders ($1.24Vs$4.10) |
|
|
|
|
OP: I wouldn't loose any sleep over it, I know I don't.
Wear yours as a badge of honor. Out of all of those who distrust rby (myself included) you're the only one they distrust?
If you placed DT distrust first, then theirs can be construed as being retaliatory.
Shrug your shoulders and move on.
|
|
|
|
. I left that post in Poker Player's thread rather brief on purpose, because there seems to be this attitude among some DT members than anyone with an undisclosed alt is up to something nefarious. I find that assumption simply absurd.
As do I. As I said to The Sceptical Chymist they are critical of other user's trust feedbacks yet of their own 3,050+ trust feedbacks there are many of the type they are critical of. I have given examples of more than a dozen at a time The Sceptical Chymist has done, so they are not isolated incidents. I have suggested The Sceptical Chymist needs to trim their own trust feedbacks down to about 400 maximum using the ten questions I posed a couple of weeks ago. This is the type of negative trust feedback others have started threads against me in the past then the DT echo chamber sings in a lipsinc chorus... Incorrigible, entitled troll and spammer insisting on being given a loan despite the only collateral he claims to have to offer is an obsolete iPhone that's not worth the amount he wants to borrow, and stolen or hacked identification documents of others. A similar post Troll seeking attention, and obviously an account of someone who's trust is already ruined. May I suggest again that you go back and review your own 344 trust feedbacks, please based on my post to The Sceptical Chymist, please?
With regards to negatives on alts I can only suggest you look back over the last few pages as the issue came up and each of us has chimed in to remind a newer contributor that having alts does not mean they are out to scam. Any negative trust feedback on alts has been where there is a solid connection for claiming in a campaign etc. Feel free to review ALL of my ~350 trust feedback and tell me where they are wrong. |
|
|
|
|
When you start your "prude police" thread it will be self moderated so you can lecture from on high so your question is kind of redundant.
|
|
|
|
Your fixation on this member is, once again, borderline psychotic.
And yet you continue to Troll me in my threads... |
|
|
|
You want something independent from your husband so you're looking for a retard online. No collateral, no loan.
Except you don't actually mean that or you wouldn't be lending to HedgeFX (sly wink) now would you? |
|
|
|
Repaid! @hopenotlate : please confirm repayement @DireWolfM14 : please update trust after confirmation Transaction details, or it never happened. 🤔 |
|
|
|
This is a discussion topic, not an accusation to Dabs. Might as well be a reputation thread ... It seems Dabs has done a runner with what seems like an outstanding non-collateral loan of $15,000 with lender darkstar_ and another non-collateral loan via zazarb more recently. |
|
|
|
@DireWolfM14 Go tag the borrower so at least people know he has an active loan  Do you mean like your two simultaneous loans? | | DireWolfM14 | | 2023-06-23 | | Reference | | HedgeFx currently has an unsecured loan in the amount of $500 that was granted to hom by user hopenotlate. I'll remove this review once the loan is paid. |
| | shasan | | 2023-06-28 | | Reference | | 200$ active non-collateral loan. Repayment should be made on or before 30th June 2023. |
The second loan is now due. |
|
|
|
I hope you know what you are doing... | | DireWolfM14 | | 2023-06-23 | | Reference | | HedgeFx currently has an unsecured loan in the amount of $500 that was granted to hom by user hopenotlate. I'll remove this review once the loan is paid. |
|
|
|
|
|
Another blood bath by the Sharks tonight with a thirty six point win.
The Sharks are top four as far as I can tell contenders and are very much quietly going about their business winning most of their games while their players aren't getting into strife on or off of the field.
Top four:
Eels, Sharks, Panthers and Warriors.
Top eight add
Broncos, Storm, Raiders and either the Rabbitohs or the Dolphins if Redcliffe stage a comeback in the next few weeks.
|
|
|
|
I would say that if a new precedent is set, then it should be from July xxx 2023. Everything prior should be considered ancient history.
To a point I agree with that notion, but would say negative trust feedback from now on and minimum neutral trust feedback for historic or negative trust feedback if they were prolific or their sold accounts went on to scam. With regards to default trust (DT) I would suggest continuing to place negative DT on all newly uncovered account sellers to deter their trust feedbacks from showing up as trusted on the pages of those they transact business with. You could probably make a case for negative DT on historic as well as those sellers will have also provided trust feedback to those who bought their accounts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
