If we wanted to limit our possibilities to an antiquated technology we would use Bitcoin Cash. BSV is completely redundant and a sham. |
|
|
|
Hello Techole, I travel a lot. Sorry I can't dedicate the entirety of my online existence to pointing out the ways in which you are wrong. But I can address this one: I never said shit about the subpoena (non) issue, so how can I be wrong about it? I can also tell you this: sitting around playing constitutional lawyer has zero effect on the outcome of the impeachment inquiry. |
|
|
|
Have you noticed your buddies Nutilduhhh, TwitchySeal, and SuchGoon have gotten really quiet all of a sudden? Do you wonder why that is? I will tell you why. They are doing one of two things. They are either desperately searching for an ACTUAL subpoena that never existed, or they have realized they were wrong and wisely decided to shut the fuck up rather than embarrass themselves arguing what they know to be false, much like you should.
Option #3: we have a life outside this forum. I know you didn't consider that one, but its the correct answer. Don't worry techole I'll get back to you. I don't care about the subpoena aspect BTW. And I don't have the time or desire to read your 1000 word replies when I know they are mostly snarling, emotionally-laden attacks on your critics. I think this is more interesting: “As vocal as the Europeans are about supporting Ukraine, they are really really stingy when it comes to lethal aid. And they weren’t helping Ukraine and that’s still to this day are not. And the president did not like that … So those are the driving factors,” Mulvaney said. “Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it, and that’s why we held up the money.” |
|
|
|
No idea why the mods are letting this stay up. Eliminating all other issues about it, it's still a ban evasion so should be gone.
Updated: BANNED! |
|
|
|
Here's one that's a bit more bitcoin-centric.  Its Bitcoin from Bitcoin and Friends. Too meta? even for Meta |
|
|
|
A question just came to my mind. Please accept my apologizes if it's off-topic.
I have seen many users banned for plagiarism. But this is the first user I've ever seen banned due to scamming. Scammers are usually get negative trusts. But they are not banned. Am I right?
Generally, I am in favor of banning scammers. But if scammers should be banned, why is game-protect not banned?
He wasn't banned for scamming. As far as I can tell, he was banned for making death threats (scroll down to post #32). |
|
|
|
This is the last reply you are getting from me on this matter. You are refusing to refund h4ns as you previously promised and have trashed what little was remaining of your reputation as a result. There's nothing more to be said. You are a thief and a scammer. Real world definition for thief: A person who steals another person's property, especially by stealth and without using force or threat of violence. What property did I steal and how? You stole 210 euros from h4ns by promising to refund the money he paid to you and then keeping the money for yourself. Real world definition for scammer: A person who commits fraud or participates in a dishonest scheme.
How did I commit fraud?
Real world definition of fraud: DECEIT, TRICKERY
specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal rightYou lied by saying you would give h4ns a refund. You didn't do this. You committed fraud, which thus makes you a scammer. There's nothing left to be said. |
|
|
|
Kind reminder The 210€ were refunded the same day September 3rd!
That's not a refund by any definition of the word. Please quote the real world definition where it says that deducting claims from each other is not refunding? You are clearly out of your mind at this point. That's not how "real world definitions" work. Definitions aren't made out of a list of things a word isn't. Besides, both sides of the equation are not equal claims. You took money from this person. You said you would refund it -- you lied. Instead of repaying them, you made up an arbitrary figure that you said was owed to you as an excuse to not have to follow through with your word. You are a thief and a scammer. |
|
|
|
BTW: He said this shit use and hard drug markets as well as crap like Wikileaks was reason to leave Bitcoin
Silk Road wasn't launched until well after Satoshi left the forum, and Craig said that he "left" bitcoin. Just another one of Craig's lies you've swallowed, hook line and sinker. I've already corrected you on this issue before yet you keep repeating the same garbage take on it. That's why you are untrustworthy -- you continue to lie for the sake of promoting your scamcoin. Speaking of transaction formats: The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.
.......
Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them. All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.
.....
The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc. If Bitcoin catches on in a big way, these are things we'll want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later.
Looking forward to read what Craig meant by that in another shitty blog post. That's another thing: Satoshi never said Bitcoin wasn't allowed to evolve. By all means it has to in order to remain competitive. I much prefer the approach of elegant technological solutions rather than just the simple, easy modification of a couple of lines of pre-existing code. |
|
|
|
Yesterday was my girlfriends birthday, so we went to the largest aquarium in the Philippines, and the largest I've ever seen. The place was huge, packed with fish, sharks, birds, crocodiles and other lizards. Could probably have spent all day in there.    Later we went to go shoot pool at a sports bar. I met this nice Israeli gent and we got to talking about our respective jobs. He told me he had 300 bitcoin held in a "trust" and showed me this Telegram group he started for people who owned 100 BTC or more. He was doing pretty well for himself obviously. After hearing it was my g.f.'s birthday he proceeded to give her his cue stick, which cost at least $200... Probably the nicest gift anybody had ever given her. She then started to cry, as she was pretty drunk. Then we almost forgot about it, leaving it in the Jollibee before I remembered and we told the cabbie to go back so we could get it! Sometimes I'm pretty amazed by the generosity of bitcoiners. |
|
|
|
|
Its hard to have a debate with someone who is physically incapable of admitting when they are wrong about something. The article linked in your opening post contained several inaccuracies and you stand by them all. You got caught posting flat out inaccurate "news" articles twice and you failed to acknowledge their inaccuracies. There's simply no debating you because you won't stand for rational criticism of your argument. You think posting a slew of personal attacks suffices for a counterargument. It doesn't.
|
|
|
|
The 210€ were refunded the same day September 3rd!
This is a lie. If this was the case, it would have been the first thing you said instead of dancing around the issue for over an entire month. If this is the truth, provide us with the transaction ID of the refund payment you made. Still waiting for this: You are a scammer. Who did I scam? How did I scam? When did the scam happen? We've been over this several times already, and you know the answer better than anybody. |
|
|
|
Wow, you just got proven wrong and then you called the person who proved you wrong "Captain Obvious." The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding. Wrong. An impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. You were wrong, now admit it. Hey look at this tidbit I found in The Constitution of the United States of America. "An Indictable Crime The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms. There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that " the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed. Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature."https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.htmlYou are wrong. Are you going to admit it Nutilduhh? Hi Techole: You are looking at one of several interpretations of the constitution. The main reason why an impeachment cannot be a criminal proceeding is because it is being determined by the house of representatives and not a judge, or as pointed out in your quotations, a jury. According to this particular interpretation, an impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense; that does not necessarily imply that it is a criminal offense. Later, your article entertains a completely opposite interpretation: The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses. Here's a recent article by the WSJ to help you understand why you are wrong, because obviously you don't understand why yet: What’s the difference between impeachment and a criminal trial?
The impeachment process provides a way to remove an officeholder through a majority vote in the House of Representatives followed by a trial in the Senate. Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict to remove an officeholder. Because impeachment is handled by Congress, it is more of a political process than a legal proceeding.
A criminal trial, by contrast, is held in local, state or federal court to determine whether an individual violated criminal law. Defendants in criminal trials must be granted due process of law, access to an attorney, the right to confront their accusers, and the right to a trial by jury, according to the Constitution.
A conviction in a criminal trial can deprive someone of their freedom—or even their life in a capital case. The only possible punishment resulting from conviction in an impeachment trial is removal from office. |
|
|
|
He asked you to refund him. You refused.
h4ns himself confirms that I did not refuse his request!  I immediately asked him to refund my money. But his only reaction was that he closed the tickets of my pending cases which generated an automatic email notification. He's not made any further comment on this. Closing his support tickets upon request is confirming his request and not refusing it! He asked for a refund. You refused to provide it. Instead, you threatened to file a lawsuit against him and with-held the refund as part of collecting imaginary monetary damages. You are a crook and the worst kind of leech the forum has to offer. Get the fuck out of here. |
|
|
|
Its scammers scamming scammers. This particular bumping service has been around for over a year. They have over a hundred accounts. I've (along with JollyGood and MaoChao) tagged about 40 of them for promoting scams. They have failed to inform their clientele that their threads are no longer being bumped to the top of the Alt ANN section as they used to. I've linked them to a merit salesman and am in the middle of an extensive investigation of them... Funny how they can continue to find clients that aren't deterred by the (now orange ) negative trust mark, and who don't think to check if their thread is actually being bumped. The projects that hire them are basically getting ripped off, but they themselves are also likely also scammers, so I don't feel bad for them. When I saw the ann thread of lohncontrol.com, one of my words was OMG! Hundreds of newbie accounts are bumping their ann thread everyday. It is like one liner post's flood! Looks like ann bumpers paradise in this place. ... There are about 500-600 accounts involved in this bumping flood.It is not an easy task to give post history of all accounts. This looks like the work of Vitor Services as they write in the exact same style, but I haven't looked into it to confirm yet. Same deal: scammers scamming scammers. |
|
|
|
the documents and statements h4ns published confirm that I did not cheat him! The documents and statements proved you promised to repay h4ns. In the real world, to offer to give something back is not a scam! He asked you to refund him. You refused. You are a scammer. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
