 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
So will you be paying out soon, or not?
|
|
|
|
|
Easy Free Bitcoins (currently no. 12, for me), should be removed. I marked it "too confusing", but that doesn't begin to describe the mass of popups, some of which commandeer my computer for ages and won't let go, plus the fact that it redirects the rotator to a non-rotator screen from which it is impossible to navigate back. It's a complete nightmare.
|
|
|
|
|
Cryptosinc resolves to an unrelated page; Bitcoin Puddle does not pay.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoinpuddle is just a waste of time
They have paid me, maybe you haven't click the adds. I did click them. Plus, they only said "we won't pay you unless we decide that you have clicked enough ads" on Fri. or Sat., well after the ad-clicking was supposed to have occurred. If they don't have enough money, they should just say so. |
|
|
|
(sorry for my bad english)
Warning for BitcoinPuddle : i'm waiting my 100.000 sat payement since yesterday.
I have decided to stop my visit to that site until my money will be there.
They have promised now to pay on friday. Well, they didn't. |
|
|
|
An evil sociopath is a psychopath, I am pretty sure most people over 15 should know the difference. I hope.
Actually, this isn't right. Neither psychopathy nor sociopathy is a recognized psychiatric diagnosis (in the US, at least; neither is included in the DSM. They fall under Antisocial Personality Disorder, which includes non-psychopaths who, for instance, have poor impulse control and get into a lot of fights.) Psychopathy is relatively well-defined: there's a fairly standard checklist that's used to diagnose it. Sociopathy is less well-defined: many people in psychology and related fields use the term interchangeably with psychopathy, but others want to distinguish it, not always in the same ways. Summary of the psychopathy checklist, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_ChecklistFacet 1: Interpersonal Glibness/superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth Pathological lying Cunning/manipulative Facet 2: Affective Lack of remorse or guilt Emotionally shallow Callous/lack of empathy Failure to accept responsibility for own actions Facet 3: Lifestyle Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom Parasitic lifestyle Lack of realistic, long-term goals Impulsivity Irresponsibility Facet 4: Antisocial Poor behavioral controls Early behavioral problems Juvenile delinquency Revocation of conditional release Criminal versatility Other Items: Many short-term marital relationships Promiscuous sexual behavior |
|
|
|
http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html#10 signs for spotting a sociopath
#1) Sociopaths are charming.
#2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people.
#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse.
#4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences.
#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs.
#6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them.
#7) Sociopaths are incapable of love and are entirely self-serving.
#8) Sociopaths speak poetically. They are master wordsmiths, ...
#9) Sociopaths never apologize.
#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth
8 is not right. There are a lot of sociopaths out there who are not master wordsmiths at all. Sociopaths tend to be charming and persuasive, but not always because they are poetic or in any way gifted at using language well. |
|
|
|
|
I seem to recall Benjamin Price from the email dumps, but I have deleted them. (It or some similarly white-bread name was the name Josh seemed to be using to get emailed love letters from some service.)
|
|
|
|
Nope. Some of the worst advice ever is on Hashtalk, where the XPY community used to hang out (and some remnants still do.) As XPY was plummeting in value, and its scamminess went from obvious to blindingly obvious, there were lots of people saying lots of stupid things. My favorite was always: buy more, that way you will get your average cost down and you'll ROI more quickly. |
|
|
|
About the question who knew what: I have deleted the email dump, but while I was skimming it, I did see an email in -- August? if not August, then late July or early Sept. -- from Josh Garza to Joe Mordica, with the subject line 'Dan Pease'. In it, Garza basically says: whoa, did you actually tell Dan Pease how our "mining" works? [Scare quotes mine, of course.] Mordica says: yes, he said you wanted me to. Garza says: well, yes, I wanted you to fill him in a bit, but not *that* much. Do NOT do that again!
Since Dan Pease was pretty heavily involved, the idea that he didn't know that the mining was virtual, and that Garza was horrified to learn that he'd been told, says a lot. On the other hand, what it does not say is that Joe Mordica didn't know.
I believe that was Capuano, not Mordica, IIRC. It was Mordica. From July 27. Josh Garza: (Subject: Dan Pease): "He said you explained to him how zenminer works?" Joe Mordica: "Yes sir. He said you wanted him involved enough to run it. Is this correct?" JG: "I did, but I never told you to tell him. Things are fine, but I want you to know for the future. Disclosing confidential information, even to another staff, is in breach of our confidentiality. Do yourself a favor and just to don't talk to anyone with out specific direction from me to do so. I don't want to have an issue  " JM: "Sorry about that. I now understand the scope of the situation. If it was anyone but Dan I would not have. But now I see what your saying. Thanks for letting me know this way." JG: "It's good " [Edit: I have no dog in this fight; just wanted to make sure I didn't have early onset Alzheimer's or anything.] |
|
|
|
About the question who knew what: I have deleted the email dump, but while I was skimming it, I did see an email in -- August? if not August, then late July or early Sept. -- from Josh Garza to Joe Mordica, with the subject line 'Dan Pease'. In it, Garza basically says: whoa, did you actually tell Dan Pease how our "mining" works? [Scare quotes mine, of course.] Mordica says: yes, he said you wanted me to. Garza says: well, yes, I wanted you to fill him in a bit, but not *that* much. Do NOT do that again!
Since Dan Pease was pretty heavily involved, the idea that he didn't know that the mining was virtual, and that Garza was horrified to learn that he'd been told, says a lot. On the other hand, what it does not say is that Joe Mordica didn't know.
I believe that was Capuano, not Mordica, IIRC. Anyone who has the emails want to check? I could download them again, but ... |
|
|
|
|
About the question who knew what: I have deleted the email dump, but while I was skimming it, I did see an email in -- August? if not August, then late July or early Sept. -- from Josh Garza to Joe Mordica, with the subject line 'Dan Pease'. In it, Garza basically says: whoa, did you actually tell Dan Pease how our "mining" works? [Scare quotes mine, of course.] Mordica says: yes, he said you wanted me to. Garza says: well, yes, I wanted you to fill him in a bit, but not *that* much. Do NOT do that again!
Since Dan Pease was pretty heavily involved, the idea that he didn't know that the mining was virtual, and that Garza was horrified to learn that he'd been told, says a lot. On the other hand, what it does not say is that Joe Mordica didn't know.
|
|
|
|
Is he that dumb, evil or both?
Yes. |
|
|
|
Did you read the part about Fraser asking Garza to hide some funds?
Actually -- because I think this is important -- the part where Garza claims that Fraser asked him to hide some funds, and then asked that he, Garza, be given $150k. (One of the completely baffling things about Hashtalk is how many people assume that just because Josh Garza says something, it must be true. There's no earthly reason for anyone here to make the same mistake.) |
|
|
|
"I think you read it wrong.
It clearly follows this route in the email:
1. Stuart borrow money from Josh.
2. Stuart apparently ask GAW to pay Josh the money that Stuart borrowed from Josh.
3. Josh says Stuart will then pay the money back to GAW that GAW paid to Josh for the money Stuart still owes Josh.
Its a clusterfuck, and makes absolutely no sense."
Why not read it this way: Josh *says* that Stuart Fraser borrowed money from him, and Josh asks GAW to pay him $150k, and also says that Stuart Fraser will pay GAW back. Given Josh's tenuous relationship to the truth, why not assume that this might just be a cover story for embezzlement? |
|
|
|
|
I'm just a lurker really, but I wanted to say this: I'm pretty uncomfortable with posting personal stuff that does not have anything to do with GAW or Paycoin or anything. If Jessica Garza was unhappy for some non-XPY, non-GAW-related reason, I don't see why what she imagined were private emails about her unhappiness have to be plastered all over the internet.
It's hard to read about what Josh Garza has done to his investors without thinking: does it never cross his mind that these are real people? It's similarly hard to read this without thinking the same thing.
If nothing else, his kids will one day be able to read this, and the internet is forever. They will already have to deal with what their Dad did. I can't see how adding all this stuff will help.
Relurking now.
|
|
|
|
|
Coinfire: his emails are just so breathtakingly dumb that it's hard to know where to start. The apparent ignorance of the first amendment, or of basic standards of journalism? The idea that if his stress levels rise when he reads your work, "a solution must be found" that involves something more than a brisk run or a hot bath? Or maybe the endless repetition of claims about your being totally wrong without, at least in what you've posted, even a gesture at evidence?
Wow.
|
|
|
|
Edit: We won't be publishing on this message board any further. Our reporting will simply stand for itself.
Please do note here when you've published a new story. |
|
|
|
|
Does the torrent (or any archive) include the complete version of the second group? I was reading fast, but didn't make it even halfway through.
|
|
|
|
|
