I am sure this bait is just a lame attempt for you to distract from your own issues. BTW, I didn't call you a nazi, I said the Stazi would have loved you. Quite a difference, not like facts are important to you though when you have a narrative to push.

You know what makes the forum worse? Pushing out people before they even get a chance to learn the rules here by shotgunning negative ratings. Scammers will always return, the legit users you burn won't.

I am sure this is all just a coincidence that all these people promoting this invasion caravan stuff suddenly are all getting "bombs" in the mail, right before the elections. Gotta cast yourself as the victim just like the invasion caravan. Funny, Soros's employee was pretty ballsey moving it rather than following the standard procedure of leaving the device in place and contacting law enforcement. Of course moving an IED is a little less nerve wracking if you know it won't go off...

Also notice the FBI nor the ATF are confirming that they were ACTUAL explosive devices yet, only that they "appeared to be explosive device(s)". Since standard operating procedure is to blow up the devices, there would be little way to know if it was actually armed or not. This reeks as yet another desperate last ditch attempt to salvage midterms for the Democrats.

Thank you for being my first Steam game mystery box customer! See you soon!

As usual the same characters have trouble having a discussion like adults and resort to personal attacks. I didn't even say this guy was innocent, I said I could see how he could be. Lets not pretend like you all carefully investigate each and every claim before rating. Sorry what happened 4 years ago or whatever it was does not invalidate my words in perpetuity. Especially in consideration of what the system has turned into since then (but who knew it would happen, not me!). I find it hilarious people pointing out the speck in my eye when they have a redwood lodged in their own. I have opinions you don't always agree with. Deal with it.


No, my argument is I have been here for the entirety of the system and before it, hence I have seen its degradation, and warned about much of this early on, and as usual was attacked for pointing this out, much like you are doing now.

Interesting you accuse me of a logical fallacy while in the same breath using a false choice fallacy, as if not shotgunning negatives left and right is equivalent to letting go "thousands of abusers, cheaters, and attempted scammers". Oh, I see now I am the PERPETRATOR here, and after anal retentively searching my ratings that is all you could come up with I'm sure. The Stazi would have loved you.

If a monkey takes a picture, is it art? Who owns the rights?

Personally I don't care of the user's language skills are poor as long as they are producing something of substance useful to others and not whoring affiliate links. It just so happens the people who do that stuff most also have poor language skills so they tend to get grouped together easily.

Yeah what do I know I have only been here since before it existed and watched it degrade every step of the way from pretty much every angle. The only real way to demonstrate trust is by having an exchange where the ability to steal is there, but does not happen. Otherwise what you are describing is a system of belief, not a system of trust. By the way, speaking of trust, you think you might find that missing BCH any time soon?

This is kind of at the essence of the problem, the people the rating system effects the most, traders, are pushed to the side and lots of political games are played to the point it becomes less useful for those that need and use it the most. IMO there needs to be a requirement of some kind of material loss that can be documented to leave valid ratings. Either this or some other form of feedback that is purely for anything OTHER THAN trade.

Or perhaps he supports equality of opportunity and has the good sense to know equality of outcome is impossible.

Oh believe me I have no trouble visualizing your fantasy, the problem is you have ZERO methods for reaching that goal. You are telling me a lot about what you think Socialism is not, but very little of what it actually is (in your mind). I keep asking how it is implemented and how we get there but all you have are nebulous buzzwords and some scoffing like I am just too obtuse to understand your advanced ideology. Get over yourself.

If this is a real thing, that can really be done like you imagine it, then you should have no problem explaining exactly how we get there. Then there is the minor fact that every time this was ever attempted at scale millions died. I am sure this time though will be all cupcakes and fireflies.

What do the police do with intoxicated people (of any substance) wandering the streets now? There people are already all around you guy, and you don't even realize it, unless you live in like Singapore or Saudi Arabia.

Rather than respond bluefirecorp_ just continues to move on, not bothering to support his premise with proof. It is much easier to sell bullshit when you stay away from facts and debate stuff that has no demonstrable direct causal connection.

Stop running away and making excuses.
QUOTE YOUR EMPIRICAL DATA SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

Don't speak for me, I will do that myself thanks. Why don't you try answering my question instead of telling me what I mean and what I should think instead.

So far your attempt at a response, if I can call it that, is to say oh yeah Communism is stateless, but we need the state to get there. EXPLAIN IN DETAIL how funds are collected for the common good without the state and without the use of force.

Communism/Socialism/Marxism CAN NOT exist without the state. If people were contributing to the community voluntarily it would be called charity. For Communism/Socialism/Marxism to work, resources have to be taken BY FORCE, and this of course requires the state. Now certainly roving gangs of people could also do this, but then that would be the state, because they are in charge.

Disagree? Explain to me then how resources are collected politely by force under your stateless Communism.

Unfortunately this shotgun type approach to leaving negative feedback is just designed to enhance the social status of the leaver by making it appear they are doing more, at the expense of simply uninformed users making simple mistakes. It happens constantly. The real problem is scammers will come back with a bought account in 30 seconds, people who made an honest mistake will just not return, leading to an increasingly scammer saturated environment.

These specific circumstances could go either way, I could see this just being an honest mistake. Often these higher ranking users have no respect for the time invested in creating a reputation and will default on destroying it rather than erring on the side of caution. After all to keep track of the user is an actual investment of time. Shotgunning negatives to make yourself look good is easy.

Yes, I suppose your ambiguous statement was my fault. Really my goal wasn't to say the worst thing.

If you have already produced it, it should not be hard to quote then right? Show me empirical data supporting the premise that global warming is a result of human C02 production. Not evidence of correlation, not simulations, not projections, not opinions, empirical data.

Well Mr. Bond, you seem to have figured out our little scheme. BTW where do you usually LARRP? It sounds like fun.

What "basic facts" am I denying exactly? You only wish the stories were unrelated, but they demonstrate a long history of corruption within the FBI regarding politically motivated spying based on illegal warrants funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat party. The stories are VERY related.

This whole Trump Russia narrative is right out of Rules For Radicals, accuse your opponents of the crimes you yourself are guilty of. This information was getting out for years, but no one would prosecute it because it was dangerous as a result of complicit higher ups who supported her.

Now all of their asses are on the line, and their last hope is to keep this charade on long enough to steal the midterms in some last ditch effort in a desperate hope to stay out of prison.

Tell me, what "proof" was that exactly? Please quote. I carefully reviewed all your posts and I saw no proof of anthropogenic climate change.

How unhinged must you be to insist some one literally only asking for a source is trolling. Some times you make this too easy for me. You call it trolling, I call it showing the world your complete lack of logic or critical thought by asking simple questions, and repeatedly demonstrating your inability to answer them.