I am aware of specialized ammo for paintball guns and that the PSI can be cranked up, it is still an inferior self defense weapon. The primary reason being is your ammo is limited and you can only (unless full auto) fire as fast as your finger can pull the trigger. Second, paintball guns and their tanks and hoppers are usually very large and cumbersome. With a full auto BB gun, you spray someone with that once and they will be very motivated to leave, and the chances of it killing them are very low if you aren't aiming at the head. If you use it carefully you could use it to fight off a whole crowd of people, unlike a paintball gun.

This is the largest internal training exercise/public conditioning session they have done domestically yet.

This sounds like a good way to get shot to death and have no defense. If you had no other options available, maybe... but I would suggest something like this if you absolutely can't get or refuse to get a firearm.

http://www.drozdmax.com/bb-machine-guns.html

Why don't you combine a few more ideologies in there so you can be absolutely sure that if your logic is questioned you can just default to another belief system to escape from self examination or admission of the flaws in your logic. I am quite positive Libertarians and socialists are not at all compatible, they are quite antithetical. You might as call yourself a short, tall, long haired, bald, man, woman.  Additionally the claiming of logical supremacy is also a nice humble touch, especially considering you have not backed a single one of your arguments with facts or logic, just more emotional appeals, claims of superiority, repetition of buzzwords, and deconstructions of other people's logic without declaring your own standpoints. It really does not get any more cowardly than some one who claims superiority but is too afraid to detail their own ideology. In my opinion, most "social justice warriors" are just supremacist totalitarians wrapping themselves in the warm fuzzy cloak of humanitarianism to prevent detection of their psychopathy.



1. I never called myself a libertarian. You declared me a libertarian. I agree with many libertarian ideals, but I don't think I would go as far as giving myself the label of libertarian.

2. This is a logical fallacy called equivocation. You do not have a right to use the same word to have one meaning for others while another meaning for yourself. Words have definitions which are static and mean things. Words are not just tools you can use to mean anything you personally choose while telling everyone else how they should use them.

3. Regardless of your statistics, you are still wrong and are still guilty of racial bias.

4. Again, you declare me libertarian, I did not.

5. This is a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption.

6. See number 5

You can try to use unsourced statistics to try to defend your prejudice, but the fact is you are prejudiced. Also, you never explained why it is you assumed I am capitalist. You seem to be very willing to apply labels to others, yet it seems you are no so fond of labeling your own ideologies, or backing them up with facts. You also repeatedly make statements about the horrors of capitalism that I don't think even the most ardent capitalist would be in favor of, as if they would be. This is quite disingenuous and presumptive. Instead of having a discussion with individuals, you have a compulsion to categorize every statement from the standpoint of your preexisting biases, and then place those individuals within your ideological framework of choice, then act as if it is undeniable reality. This is the definition of confirmation bias.

Look I can post pictures of the horrors of socialism too!

Everyone stay calm and get on the train cars which will take you to the concentration   detention center   reeducation   happy fun time camp. This is just a drill.

The Gender Equality Paradox - Documentary NRK - 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

The problem with your logic is twofold:

1. He, as you said is the ADMIN of the site. He claims the trust list is not moderated, yet he, as the admin, stepped in to damage my trust score as a result of a trust rating I left. I was removed from the default trust, why is it then also appropriate to exclude me from a centralized position of authority?
I take issue with his claims of not moderating the trust when he clearly went to exceptional lengths to do so in my case.

2. Yes, I could just leave, but then the 3 years I spent building a reputation here would be wasted now wouldn't they? This effort is used as a method to extort anyone who has spent time and money into building a reputation here. Everyone knows if they speak out, they risk having their hard work destroyed, therefore there is a constant state of chill effect against speaking out about abuses from the staff or their buddies like Vod. Anyone else who does not have a reputation that they can threaten to take away, they can simply cast as sock puppets or scammer, then declare the debate over. I just happen to have an exceptionally long and honest trading history, so they have more difficulty marginalizing me (hence the exclusion).

I am talking about the fact that most of the trust ratings I have already received have now been made invisible by anyone on the entire default trust tree UNLESS they explicitly add me to their trust list. If some one already trusts me, what good does it do to have my trust score show for them? They already know I can be trusted. So in effect from the perspective of the VAST MAJORITY of the users on this forum, my trust rating is at about at a quarter of its former visible score, in effect punishing me by taking trust ratings from me that I have already earned by preventing them from displaying in my visible trust score number.

Play with your trust list, try adding me to your trust list and removing me along with removing the default trust, or anyone on level 1 default trust. You will see the massive difference.

An emoticon is not a reply. Nor is an emoticon a quote of this claim you are making about my statements. You swear over and over I did this yet you can never present it. I wonder why that is.




So now it is acceptable to leave negative trust ratings for your INTERPRETATION OF the meaning of my words? You interpreting unspoken words is not a lie. That is called you getting upset. Please learn the difference. This is not proof of anything except that you can not back up your allegations and are simply covering for your obvious abuse of the trust system.

The real question is, why did Theymos feel it was necessary to have me excluded even though I am already removed from the default trust list? Why is it necessary for these exclusions to cascade down the default trust tree instead of just removing me from Theymos's personal trust? If the trust is not moderated, then why is the ADMIN of the site punishing me with an exclusion for a trust rating as some one not on the default trust any longer? I understood not removing my rating for Armis would result in my removal from the default trust list, but I didn't care about that as much as I cared about the staff attempting to extort me into removing it with threats of removal, so I let them remove me.

Unhappy that I dared to have an opinion of my own Theymos then added a brand new feature just for me (I was the very first person that a trust exclusion was used on) so he could then moderate my trust ratings by neutralizing the trust I had already earned by making it invisible to anyone on the default trust tree. This seems a whole lot like trust moderation from my perspective. On the forum, Theymos is the admin, he is not just some guy like the rest of us some times when convenient, and the admin when appropriate. Even as just another user he still carries the authority of admin of the site. Why did he feel it was necessary to use all of this force against me personally over a SINGLE trust rating? This is not something he does often.




As far as my PGP key, it is already on MIT key servers, and in a thread in the Reputation subforum. I realize there are issues with it thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I paid for the right to leave my rating there for Armis with my removal from the default trust. Why should I remove it? I will never be put back on the default trust, and I gain nothing from removing it. Theymos clearly is willing to go to exceptional lengths to damage my trust reputation here, and any kind of compromise I present is rejected repeatedly. I stand by the rating I left, because it is true, and I used it in no different of a way than anyone else who uses the trust system here does, yet these rules only apply to me, not people like Vod.

1. I do not dictate to BadBear what to do, Badbear does what Badbear wants. If you were removed from his trust list you should discuss that with him. You can not place responsibility for this at my feet. Even though you so vigorously and repeatedly claim those lies exist, you have lots of trouble quoting them. The two examples you have given are in fact hardly directly about you, and do not even mention you by name for that matter. Your reference also claimed that the lie you left your rating for was left as a result of a statement I made AFTER you left it! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg10890256#msg10890256

2. I NEVER ONCE called for you to be removed from the default trust until you left me a negative rating, NOT ONCE. I challenge you to quote me on this previous to the opening of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0
I was critical of your behavior, but this is not at all equivalent to calling from your removal from the default trust.

3. You are just trying to play tricky word games here to confuse the situation. You originally left me a negative trust on January 6th, in which you included exactly the same statement that is there now (only with no reference). The reference you most recently added, referenced a post made IN THIS THREAD made AFTER your original trust rating which is almost completely identical accusing me of lying. If you were just replacing your original rating, what was this lie before January 6th that I made that caused you to leave it in the first place?

First of all I am not the admin of this site, so your little refractory victim card doesn't really apply about "nuking 3 years of your trust". You are on the default trust, I am a regular nontrusted user. Under this system you have FAR MORE ability to damage my reputation, so please spare me the act about how I am victimizing you simply by being critical of your behavior.

You could just remove your negative rating for me, or be more careful of how you choose to leave negative ratings for people, but you refuse to do either of those things. You have choices. I have no other choice to resist your abuse but to make your abuse a matter of public discussion. Just because you do not like this does not make it a lie. Furthermore you haven't proven a single supposed lie I have made (as if that is a reason to leave negative ratings). Just because you repeatedly declare you have does not make it fact.

You are confusing being on the "default trust list" with having your ratings visible on the "default trust tree". These are two different things, and not having your ratings visible on the default trust tree is a serious repercussion, especially if you spent years building that trust.

You summed it up here. the feedback which would have been visible to those in the default trust is not not visible, effectively lowering my visible trust rating for the VAST MAJORITY of the users here. So no, it really does exist because I earned those trust ratings, now suddenly they are effectively negated, but of course "trust is not moderated".

I know it is hard for you to have an original thought, but please try harder than this refractory drivel. Here is how it went:

1. I criticized your abusive behavior (multiple abusive ratings for personal issues that were non scam related)
2. You left me a negative trust rating because you did not like me talking critically of your behavior, ironically trying to prove you do not abuse your position on the default trust... by abusing your position on the default trust to attempt to intimidate me into silence.
3. I then started advocating for your removal from the default trust.

In short, it is not at all the same thing. Sorry to spoil your mindless soundbite type response.

This quote from January when Vod did this to me the first time sums up the situation pretty well.

He claims:
1. I am lying about him ("lies" which he has trouble identifying, and can't seem to demonstrate as false)
2. Those alleged lies resulted in harm (again, he can not demonstrate any harm I have caused him)

Therefore his only recourse was to mark me as a scammmer in direct contradiction of the directions clearly stated when leaving trust? Theymos has already established "lying" about someone is not a suitable reason to leave a trust rating for someone who occupies the default trust:

Why is it that Vod is not also subject to these same standards held for every one else? Why is it that he has already done this once, and did it AGAIN, yet people are still making excuses for him?

It does in fact cascade down the default trust and make sure only people who explicitly add me or do not add default trust, trust me, and even then those people who trust me do not factor into my own trust rating score. You for some reason felt it was appropriate to nuke my years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally did not approve of in addition to removing me from the default trust (which I never once asked to be on BTW, and still don't want to). After all you do not moderate trust right?

I get removing me from the default trust list, that is fine if the rules are the same for everybody, but if you do not moderate trust ratings why did you exclude me, harming my trust score, because of a single rating I left that you demanded I remove but I refused? That sure seems like moderation of the trust to me. I tried to have a private discussion with you, but you are unwilling to communicate with me, turning me to the general public of the forum.

Trust exclusions are just a back door way for you and the highest ranking in the trust to take quiet retribution upon contributing members who have worked to build their reputations while not taking responsibility for it because no one really sees it, unlike a trust rating where you have to explain yourself and everyone can see it.

Unfortunately since war has existed, rape has also been something that comes right along with it. It has happened before and still continues to this day. When your job is to explode people's heads all day, rape does not seem all that bad in comparison.

Personally, I think you underestimate the capacity for ignorance in true believers.

Nope. I was removed over a single negative trust rating dispute. Of course this is acceptable for people like Vod, but not any one else.
I also got to be the VERY FIRST test case for trust exclusions (amazing the timing of the creation of this "feature"). Theymos excluded me over this, basically in effect putting a permanent cap on my trust ranking and nuking 3 years of hard earned trust, because no matter how many people trust me, Theymos will always rank higher. So if some one who trusts me also trusts the default trust, then I become untrusted. Of course, Theymos does not moderate trust ratings!

He has in multiple cases involved himself and ordered lower level people on the trust remove people from their own trust lists because he does not agree with their ratings, therefore this is not hypothetical at all. As a result it is not true that the trust system is not moderated, because Theymos and others on the staff have personally repeatedly taken actions to either attempt to remove ratings or seek to remove those that left them. Considering they have taken these extraneous actions in the past, why is it acceptable to do this for some users, but not Vod, who is very clearly abusing his position on the default trust?

THE RULES ARE IMPORTANT (unless of course it is me then they don't apply at all)! -Forum staff mantra