In order to "manufacture timelines", one has to first operate on the assumption that your timeline means anything other than more assumptions on your part. You feel you have some kind of right to not only demand I explain why I included these people, but that it must be done in such a manner commensurate with your demands, or else I am "manufacturing timelines". It is not that you are making baseless assumptions, no, not at all, it is because I am "manufacturing timelines" that my replies don't meet the standards of your demands.


Some of the users I added for the simple reason that I agreed with their trust list. Is this where you tell me again what is a valid reason for me deciding who I do or don't include based on your own personal preferences? Nothing you are accusing me of is anything that couldn't literally be applied to any other member actively using custom trust lists. Much like a fed uses process crimes to charge people with crimes when they have no evidence, you are using the idea that I don't meet your arbitrary standards in your interrogation as "proof" of my guilt. This is all just a game you are playing to pursue your own vendetta.

You and your friends have demonstrated there is only more punitive action taken when I cede to ANY of your demands. Why so obstinate?

So now 9 years of work building a positive reputation = "trust farming"? Sounds more like you are annoyed you can't dictate to every single person who they should be adding to their trust list. Speaking of trust lists and standards, I noticed now that I demonstrated Vod had comitted a criminal act, you vaporized from that thread. I wonder why. Again, what is important is you don't like me, not that Vod, marlboroza, or Lauda are abusing the use of negative ratings as a form of retribution for speaking critically of them. Retribution only matters to you when it goes the way you don't like.

TL;DR

"I don't like who you decided to add, so I am going to make up a plausible but unsubstantiated accusation to punish you for it."

So now you decide for me now what is a good reason to add people? This justifies the use of a negative rating how? Also, BTW, I never said those were the exclusive reasons I added them, I actually explained several reasons why I did which predate the flag event, but that doesn't work well with your accusation does it, so you have to accuse me again, this time of  "manufacturing" reasons. I think you are "manufacturing" yourself, lots of bullshit to serve your personal vendettas. Also notice you totally ignored a neutral 3rd party, why is that Nutilduuuh? Is it because you can't simply just accuse them of things and pretend as if they are trying to cover something up as your sole form of argument?

P.S. - AMAZIN'!

For what reason exactly? That is other than your compulsion to attack the source of pretty much anything I post in an attempt to discredit it, whatever it may be. Is it a secret the media is state run in China?

Unless of course this case has further implications, and Harvey knows where some bodies are buried... This could just as well be a message to him that secondarily serves as a chill effect for anyone willing to cooperate in these sorts of prosecutions. He did in fact know Jeffery Epstein after all.

Actually, yes it does. It specifically enumerates what powers the government has, an outlaws anything outside of those specified mandates and authorities. Again, none of this makes making the people dependent on the government a good idea, regardless of how you see the law.




That's the part you don't seem to grasp. Socialism is ALWAYS the candy coated protein shell on the virus the elite want to introduce to the people. It is ALWAYS a lie to fool the people into accepting a totalitarian system. It was DESIGNED to operate that way. It is the same reason so many dogs die from drinking anti-freeze leaking out from cars, because it tastes sweet, that is until it causes organ failure.




It is in fact radical, because this nation was founded on independence and the protection of individual rights via a constitutional republic. None of the other UN countries have the constitution the USA has, it is most certainly an outlier. In the USA, the people are sovereign, in the rest of the world the people are subjects to the government. Creating a system of dependence on the government undermines the base concept of independence this nation was founded on.

This sounds an awful lot like what you and your red nosed friends are doing to silence any criticism of your trust system abuse. You seem to be a fan of projecting JollyGood. Marlboroza is even using the fact that I disagree with him in his "investigations" (read retaliatory peanut hunting expeditions) as justification for negative ratings. This thread itself documents several instances of negative rating abuse by Marlboroza, of which he was forced to remove under public pressure. This is just his latest attempt to reinstate those abusive ratings.

Whoopie. So is literally every Chinese news outlet. Exactly what news source from China isn't a state puppet? So tell me, what is the political motivation for them to fake info about lung and immune system damage?

In your "opinion" based on assumptions, based on even more assumptions used to leave a trust rating for something that should be addressed with exclusions, not negative ratings, even if it were true. Your opinion is meaningless as you have demonstrated your bias and willingness to use forum politics to attack me as an extension of your disagreement against political opinions you can't tolerate in the Politics & Society section.

Yes, anyone who gets tired of your endless peanut hunting interrogations at any point is automatically guilty.

I would be happy to have a point by point discussion of any of these multiple instance of trust system abuse, but as you know one of your favorite past times is deflecting from the main issue of the topic with the very intent to create these diversions, which is exactly why I insisted on a very clear and unambiguous response. That is in fact me focusing on the facts of the matter and attempting to chase you down to do the same.

I am not manufacturing anything. Your continual accusations are based on nothing. I was adding and removing users. Case closed! Again, this is proof of nothing other than the fact I was using the trust system like everyone else has a right to, unless of course you and the clown car disagree with those inclusions, then I am "manipulating" the trust. According to you, if I add some one, I am fishing for reciprocal inclusions, if I remove some one it was because I didn't get an inclusion or for retaliation,  if some one adds me and I add them later, I only added them because they added me.

This is completely arbitrary and could be an accusation made against LITERALLY anyone actively using custom trust lists. These accusations also assume to know what my internal motivation and though process is. This is simply is a round about way for you and your red nosed friends to be able to dictate to me who is on my trust list. If you want to exclude me for this, go right ahead. Using negative ratings for this is not a valid use of the rating system. Your accusations are baseless and designed to retaliate outside the rules of the system because you don't think I should get to have any say in the system and I refuse to cave to the dictates of you and your pals and make choices based on what I think is right. This is about preventing me from using the system, not preventing manipulation of it. More people on the default trust makes it harder for your small group of friends to maintain control of it. You all know this, which is why that specific group of users who wants to maintain that unilateral power are working overtime to attack, slander, and abuse the trust system against me for doing nothing more than exercising my vote.

I seems to be a common theme that certain users here feel they can dictate who can and can not be included onto ones trust list. If they don't comply with demands they are labeled as "manipulating" the trust system. This is hardly the system Theymos designed that was intended to allow everyone to have a vote.

Nope. It is a fact. Read The United States Constitution. Nowhere does it say anything about a mandate to provide for the population. Funny you describe it as a wish/fantasy when that is quite literally what this push for universal healthcare is. That all aside, I clearly outlined why this is a dangerous precedent that is not desirable even if some people are fooled into thinking it is.


On another note:

"Miami to hold ‘anti-Communist’ concert after Sanders defends Castro regime"
https://nypost.com/2020/02/26/miami-to-hold-anti-communist-concert-after-sanders-defends-castro-regime/

Like I said, Bernie just lost himself Florida, a key swing state.

"Autopsies offer key clues for early stage COVID-19 patients "

"Autopsies show severe damage to COVID-19 patients' lungs and immune system, according to a doctor in Wuhan reached by the Global Times, who called for measures to prevent fibrosis of the lungs at an early stage of the disease."

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1181121.shtml

That depends on how you define "healthcare". Lets not forget that the USSR used "mental illness" as an excuse for sending very large amounts of people to gulags for "treatment" based on the premise that opposing the communist system was a sign of mental illness.

All the funding issues aside, it is not the government's job to provide for us. The government doesn't create anything, it only consumes what the population creates. Creating systems of dependency on the government is a dangerous precedent because it changes the balance of power between the government and the people. Instead of the government being the servant of the people, the people become the servant of the government. Furthermore these handouts are used to essentially buy votes, using the voter's own money in a simple slight of hand where they take $20 out of your wallet and hand you back a "free" $5 bill. In exchange they get to institutionalize their control over the population via this system of parasitic dependency.

Yes, this thread is about your trust system abuse. Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't make it a lie or a valid use of the trust system. Threatening even more tags in order to attempt to silence me? No trust system abuse here! Everyone move along, nothing to see here.

Anything to distract from the trust system abuse of your friends, Lauda and Vod.

There is no evidence. You said it yourself, it is an assumption. These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with. Furthermore, the cooperation I received from these users when they responded positively to suggestions to remove support for invalid flags led me to conclude they would be positive additions to the trust system.

Not only that there were private communications as well, there is also the fact that I thought their trust lists were also positive additions. These same accusations and assumptions could literally be applied to anyone actively using custom trust lists and is based on assumptions, not facts. The same accusations could be arbitrarily be applied to literally any user actively using custom trust lists you don't agree with.

These accusations against myself, and several of those users, are nothing more than a transparent attempt to maintain control of the trust system so they are free to abuse it at will. Including more users into the default trust dilutes their ability to abuse it against others. These accusations were made as a back door attempt to main control within a small group of users, not as accusations based in fact.





By definition they aren't identical then. The rating I left for you is based on factual events not under dispute. Your ratings for me are based on assumptions, creative writing, and a desire to attempt to extort me into removing the valid rating I left for you. You have a years long history of abusing the trust system against me. I have only ever left you this one negative rating, and it is absolutely valid.




Theymos's exclusion choices are not justification for a rating. His specific statement that his behavior would be a valid rating is a totally different circumstance. I didn't rate Vod because Theymos said that, I rated him because his behavior in doxing and reporting OGNasty to the IRS was despicable, dangerous, illegal, and should not be an acceptable precedent for the forum. The fact that Theymos stated it would be a valid rating is simply supporting evidence, considering he is the one who outlined all of the parameters for the use of the trust system.

Are those the standards of the current system or not? On one hand you argue I should follow those standards because it is what I am advocating for, but in the same breath you excuse the lack of these standards when used against me in a transparent attempt at extortion. What Vod did was in fact illegal.

"18 U.S. Code § 2261A provides:

    “Whoever—

    (2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—
    (A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person …; or
    (B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person …

    shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.”"

As many have already pointed out, he was well known to be a forum treasurer, holding a significant amount of funds, announcing his private residence in public could quite reasonably be considered putting him at significant risk. This combined with Vod's clear attempt to harass and intimidate puts his actions well within the realm of this statute.

As far as the "mentally ill" part, that is directly observable, but in spite of that I have already offered to remove the rating, edit that part out, and replace it with the factually documented rating for doxing and reporting OGNasty to the IRS. If I do this would you then consider the rating valid?

Funny this is leads you to conclude this is "an attack in your 5-year long personal squabble with Vod." Yet in all that time I never once retaliated with a negative rating in spite of him being documented abusing the trust system against me over and over and over again, and begin forced to remove those abusive ratings. Of course I must stand by stoically for years while being attacked, but when there is a very valid reason to rate him, some one who is constantly impugning the actions of others, it is just me pursuing a vendetta and unilaterally judged invalid by you. This man runs around constantly judging others and destroying reputations. He shouldn't be allowed to treat it as his personal plaything, and he shouldn't be above being punished under the same system he regularly, repeatedly, and continually abuses.