|
One thing I don't often see discussed in this debate, is the significant influence that profit plays in this conflict. Selling fetal tissue is EXTREMELY profitable. One thing being overlooked almost completely is the financial motivation for supporting partial birth, or post birth "abortions". This methodology allows the baby to be kept alive longer, giving the peddlers of baby parts more time to find a buyer and arrange delivery the very valuable biological material.
When examined in this context, this whole system that has been implemented has been crafted into a horrifying organ trafficking scheme literally selling dismembered babies for profit. Of course, if you just call it "abortion" and all the moral implications of such a vile scheme are washed away, and protected behind a veneer of "women's rights".
|
|
|
|
It looks like the left is getting a taste of its own medicine. Conservatives have long been warning this unjust extrajudicial witch hunt would eventually be turned on its supporters too, but they were too busy frothing at the mouth over the prospect of "getting Trump" to consider that. Now it is your turn to enjoy the Russian collusion hysteria. https://bracingviews.com/2020/02/22/smearing-bernie-sanders/ |
|
|
|
|
Considering some of the discussion regarding Wuhan being the first place to roll out 5G in China, I thought it might be an appropriate time to resurrect this thread. Resonance is very powerful, and 5G allows for a tremendous amount of dual use cases which are capable of achieving many biological effects, which includes exacerbating or mimicking symptoms of diseases. The strong resistance to allowing China to have control of these systems and deploy them internationally is for very good reason. They are effectively a duel use communication, total surveillance, and weapon system.
|
|
|
|
He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging. I've never left a "frivolous" tag, but I appear to have ended up on his "Guild" hit list, presumably as a member of some conspiracy or other. The fact that I decided (all on my own) to ~ him from my trust list and he immediately retaliated is obviously purely coincidence. Like other posters here, I don't accept the pulled-out-of-someone's-ass assertion that trust tagging has a net negative effect on the forum, so yet another gang/conspiracy/whatever to include me in. I leave feedback based on the mainly scam investigation stuff I post for one reason only: to help awareness levels among newbies. I would like to stay on DT so that they see that, otherwise IDGAF. No coincidence. I excluded you because you excluded me for defending myself against false accusations. Much like with Direwolfm14, it demonstrates to me you are more worried about silencing people with legitimate grievances to avoid conflict than what is right. That is why I excluded you, and that is why I put you on that list. I excluded you because you excluded me for defending myself against false accusations. You have absolutely no basis for the belief that that was my motivation for excluding you from my trust list. Pure assumption. It wasn't. (I actually know my motivation for my actions). you are more worried about silencing people with legitimate grievances to avoid conflict than what is right. A completely baseless assumption, with no supporting evidence, to justify a trust or exclusion negative action: exactly what you criticize others for doing. Yes, I am sure it was just a total coincidence you excluded me and Vod at the same time drawing a false equivalence between him making baseless accusations against me and me defending myself against him. So am I free to choose my exclusions as I please or not? It seems you like having this right for yourself, and of course no explanation is needed. Yet here you are condemning me for exercising the rights I have within the system and demanding explanations. Like I said before, you are all free to make your trust inclusion and exclusion choices, but when I do it, regardless of what is it, it is evidence of some kind of malpractice according to you and I am required to defend my choices. Very convenient you are trying to blur the line between exclusions and abusive negative ratings so you can demand an explanation and evidence for yourself for not a rating but an exclusion. This is exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty that lead me to exclude you and put you on that list. I excluded you because you excluded me for defending myself against false accusations. Much like with Direwolfm14, it demonstrates to me you are more worried about silencing people with legitimate grievances to avoid conflict than what is right. If you are going to continue to make accusations against me, please provide substantive evidence. I have never shied away from explaining my inclusions or exclusions, and every time it's brought up I've explained yours. There was a time (about a year ago) when I had you included in my trusted list. Then something happened that caused me to really scrutinize my trust list a bit more thoroughly. Someone popped up on DT2 that really surprised me, at first I thought it was a bug, and I even started a thread about it. But then I found the connection and made an adjustment to my trust list which I felt was necessary. ETA:
I found the connection, I guess I didn't realize the depth of trusted users.
It wasn't personal, it had nothing do with whether I trusted you or not. It was solely due to your inclusions, which lead me to conclude your judgement for inclusions is in conflict with mine. And again, that's the only reason I excluded you when you finally made it to DT1. I didn't want your inclusions to influence the reviews I see. I've explained myself many times, and provided this evidence before, which you continue to ignore when spinning your narrative. The real reason you excluded me was because I excluded you. In fact, you excluded me from yours mere hours after I adjusted mine. It was retaliation, pure and simple. Any other excuse you suggest is a demonstrable lie. The way I used my trust list is exactly how it should be used, the way you suggest it should be used in your OP. The trouble is you're not following your own standards. And furthermore, you attack belittle, and flat out insult anyone who does follow your standards, but doesn't agree with your inclusions. The trust system is subjective, it relies on people using their own judgement, and picking people who's judgement they trust. It's not right or wrong, it's their judgement. I've never asked you (or anyone else) to revise your trust list, because even if I disagree with some of your inclusions or exclusions, I don't believe it's any of my business. So, again, please provide substantive evidence if you are going to claim you know why I excluded you and especially when it conflicts with reality. Or better yet, stop lying about it. It only forces me to expose your own narcissism and hypocrisy. Once again, your exclusions are above reproach, and my exclusions are required to be substantiated and are evidence of malpractice. Your excuse doesn't explain why you didn't simply exclude the parties you objected to, or for that matter simply send me a personal message about your concerns. Instead, you participated in an exceptionally well coordinated and very public clown show, joining in the public smear campaign in this thread, of course not having the spine to call me out by name but instead hiding behind the pretext of a theoretical scenario that just so happens to match the exact situation you had an issue with me over. Of course you were taking a page out of marlboroza's nutless slandering tactics. This was two days after this false and baseless accusation here that no one ever substantiated, but multiple people have used as an excuse to negative rate me over. Also lets not forget this, this, or this. I am sure I am missing at least one or two other threads. You swear up and down you weren't participating in a coordinated public attack attempting to smear my character in perfect synchronization with those who have a documented history of abusing the trust system against me, but not only the timing of your actions and the method they were carried out demonstrate to me very clearly your intent to attack my character, not just to see positive change made with in the trust system. You are disingenuous and talk out of both sides of your mouth, and I don't trust you, which is why I excluded you. |
|
|
|
Well Vod, according to your own website, I am trusted about twice as much as you. If what you say is true about me, what does that say about you Vod? Topic slide and more accusations... As you know from your constant visits there, trust is only one attribute. Jealous? Your words have less respect here than mine. I know you think being refractory counts as being clever Vod, but it just makes you look like a brain damaged parrot. No Vod, I am not jealous of the formula you invented to put yourself at the top of a meaningless list. Whatever you say sad children's party magician. You keep pulling quarters out of your ears, eventually you'll be rich. |
|
|
|
I noticed you finally removed the off topic post I reported that you refused to act on for several weeks...
I actually removed the post you reported because it was in the Q when I handled the rest of the reports and I agreed with the report! I know this isn't something you consider but it is reality! did some one get a talking to for abusing their authority? If some one got a talking to about abuse of authority it wasn't me! I am not privy to details about anyone else getting a talking to. That is funny how any time I report a post it always seems to be stuck in the queue for weeks, but when a post of mine is reported it is often removed in seconds. I am sure it is just another coincidence along with all the coincidences that most of the posts you removed would be things that would be counter to your political orientation. You never answered my question about this post either... A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. I am not a doctor, but it seems to me like you are using this fascination with this subject as a diversion from issues some part of you knows you are having. If you can't get medical assistance, I would suggest finding some kind of support group. Good luck. I am clearly on topic and simply offering some helpful advice to the OP that I think he could benefit from. What is the issue here besides your compulsion to interfere with my ability to use that subforum as much as your pretext of moderation allows you? |
|
|
|
Yes Vod, we all know you are a very old man slipping into dementia.
Your words are have no weight anymore so you pretend others feel the same way?  Well Vod, according to your own website, I am trusted about twice as much as you. If what you say is true about me, what does that say about you Vod? |
|
|
|
I am objectively and observably being persecuted. You aren't reading what I am saying. It doesn't matter if I cave to EVERY SINGLE ONE of their demands, they will INVENT new things to accuse me of, they have already done it before, and they will continue doing it until their ability to abuse these ambiguous standards is removed. So rise above it. The alternative, if you don't amend the prior tags, is that people might assume you still feel those tags were justified despite not being objective. Meaning that sometimes subjective tags are appropriate. This would sadly undermine the argument you are trying to present. From the way you describe "them", I suspect overhauling the tagging system will not change their attitude or behaviour towards you. Is that what you're hoping to achieve? They'd stop persecuting you if they had to tag objectively? I think you're going to be left disappointed on that front however the tags might be used going forwards. Same goes for CH/TOAA/etc. None of the people objecting here want to have an honest debate about the topic, that is the problem. This is just more control freak behavior in an attempt to dictate my behavior to me as they habitually do worse things on a daily basis, or defend others who do. I could cater to every one of their demands and they would just invent fake issues. Their goal is not a legitimate conversation. Their goal is to derail the legitimate discussion while they distract from the much worse abuse they are doing themselves or supporting. What will it acheive? It will make it much harder to leave abusive fake ratings under false pretenses. If they are required to provide evidence, they can't rely on subjective baseless accusations. Manufacturing evidence is much more difficult than simply making accusations without substance. He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging. I've never left a "frivolous" tag, but I appear to have ended up on his "Guild" hit list, presumably as a member of some conspiracy or other. The fact that I decided (all on my own) to ~ him from my trust list and he immediately retaliated is obviously purely coincidence. Like other posters here, I don't accept the pulled-out-of-someone's-ass assertion that trust tagging has a net negative effect on the forum, so yet another gang/conspiracy/whatever to include me in. I leave feedback based on the mainly scam investigation stuff I post for one reason only: to help awareness levels among newbies. I would like to stay on DT so that they see that, otherwise IDGAF. No coincidence. I excluded you because you excluded me for defending myself against false accusations. Much like with Direwolfm14, it demonstrates to me you are more worried about silencing people with legitimate grievances to avoid conflict than what is right. That is why I excluded you, and that is why I put you on that list. o_e_l_e_o I don't think tecshare realized that you are open to adopting an objective standard so long as it affords the opportunity to produce an objective warning that members are being placed or are being requested to place themselves in direct financial danger. I am definitely unsatisfied with the current amount of frivolous, retaliatory, and opinion-based red tags which are handed out, but I completely disagree that we should be waiting for scams to be successful before tagging them, and I disagree with the unproven implication that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers is counter-productive. The problem is that TECSHARE is entirely unwilling to even consider a compromise. It's either his way or you are wrong. * free speech is not destroyed under threat of undeserving red tags for voicing an unpopular opinion Completely agree. This thread was initially created in response to the "gang" thread, which was initially created because of comments regarding people growing thicker skin. No one should be trying to police what other people say. You disagree? Fine. You are offended? Also fine. Argue against them, grow thicker skin, ignore them, but no one should be trying to silence them by using red trust as a weapon. * high level scammers on DT can not make red tagging removal deals It depends where you draw the line of "high level scammers". There are some scammers who I agree should never have their red trust removed, but there are more than a handful of DT "feuds" consisting of red tags which are either entirely frivolous or blown way out of proportion. Even scammer flags expire after 3 years or 10 years for type 2 and 3 respectively. You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. - Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.
- De-escalation: If some people end up locked in a feud where they're only really giving negative trust to each other in retaliation for negative trust, then one of them should propose burying the hatchet and removing the negative trust. Otherwise it never gets resolved, and everyone is worse-off for it.
Your other bullet points I more-or-less agree with. All the infighting and ever more frequent retaliatory ratings achieve nothing useful and simply cheapen the entire system. Similarly, people shouldn't be afraid of red trust when it comes to raising points of contention. So far I have noticed that you have been prepared to debate the positives and negatives and have been reasonable. This is how each member should be willing to engage. As have you. I don't know if you are or are not an alt of CH/TOAA as many users suspect, but this more reasoned approach is much appreciated. Now try arguing the logic of the other points I made. The supposition that there is a huge net negative to the forum does not logically follow from the proposition of pre-emptively tagging scammers, regardless of how many times you repeat it. I know you want it to be true, because such a thing would support your already reached conclusions, but if you can't provide some evidence to support your opinions, then there really is little point in arguing. You have already made up your mind, and there is nothing I can say which will make you even consider alternative points of view. Since you are so focused on your demands I prove my claims, how about you try. Prove to me mass tagging prevents fraud and is not a net deficit. This request is no more unreasonable than your demands that I some how document the internal mental motivations of others some how proving that negative rating spam creates signal noise allowing real cons to hide in it. You are after all advocating for more actions to be taken, I am advocating for less. Why is the default assumption that mass tagging prevents these people who don't do due diligence from fraud just a given? Clearly it is a fact frivolous ratings are used to abuse and result in massive amounts of conflict. You wouldn't argue this point would you? |
|
|
|
Vod, please quote anywhere where you substantiated any of the claims you made in your negative ratings against me. Surely quoting the substantiation you claim to have presented is not that difficult now is it?
I tried. You are too dense and you won't ask for help.  Thanks for the wonderful demonstration that you are in fact a liar. Show us where you asked for help then? You are, in fact, the one lying.  And topic slide and additional accusations right on cue. You need a new act sad children's party magician. |
|
|
|
Are there rules I can read about these contracts and bids on the forum? I'd like to know where it says a seller can't cancel someone else's bid?
No there are no "official" rules other than the rules he and his other silver seller buddy's try impose on a new seller. Yes, there are. It is called contract law. Auctions also have their own set of legal obligations. This is the case on and off of the forum. This is not some magical place where laws cease to exist. Right now I have to take YOUR word that you send funds to some escrow I have had NO dealing with in the past.
No way to prove there was any transaction so I won't be sending out my product without being able to verify the payment.
No one would do this no one..
What are you talking about... many have used minerjones escrow, he's one of the most trusted here. You already agreed to use him as escrow. If this deal goes through, at one point he'd be holding BOTH the item and the funds so you have to trust him regardless of any TXIDs. Just drop this nonsense and ship it. No need to waste everyone's time on something so trivial. Sent to MJ escrow... I await a reply. Hello MJ.
What is you shipping address so I can have the bar send out on Monday.
It will require a signature on delivery to you.
I only wanted verification that escrow was holding payment nothing more.
You have been given good rep by a lot of people but I have had no dealing with you so I hope you can understand my concerns over being able to validate the payment to you..
Can you send me where the bar is to be shipped to and on Monday I will provide you with tracking and proof of postage.
Best regards
Magic.. Wonderful. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Your demands are noted and rejected. Honor your contractual agreement. Your demands are noted and also rejected along with you bid.. No way to verify no sale simple.. The whole point of the escrow is to protect the BUYER & SELLER.. Right now I have to take YOUR word that you send funds to some escrow I have had NO dealing with in the past. No way to prove there was any transaction so I won't be sending out my product without being able to verify the payment. No one would do this no one.. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how auctions and contracts work. You don't get to unilaterally dismiss my bid after the fact. You are absolutely protected, by the most trusted member of the forum serving as escrow. Your claims of not being protected are fallacious. Honor your contractual agreement. |
|
|
|
Ignore the troll. This site has a lot of info: https://fightgangstalking.com/what-is-gang-stalking/Heres some of the topics they cover, from their table of contents: "1. A brief explanation of “gang stalking” 2. America’s “deep state” 3. Crimes by U.S. law enforcement & intelligence agencies 4. Oversight of law enforcement & intelligence agencies 5. Published news reports *** 6. History: COINTELPRO, MKUltra, Red Squads, & the Stasi 7. The national & international scope of gang stalking 8. Investigation, Surveillance, & Harassment Tactics 9. Mobbing & workplace violence" In spite of what you might think I am not trying to troll you. I agree gang stalking is a real thing, and a lot of the things in your numbered list are real. I think however you personally might benefit from medical treatment. If my advice is not welcome I will not engage any further. Take care. |
|
|
|
Your demands are noted and rejected. Honor your contractual agreement. |
|
|
|
And I WON'T be held over the fire by you and your friends tecshare.
I'm not TECSHARE's friend by any means but it looks to me (as it did to pretty much everyone in your own auction thread) that you're the one stoking the fire. Your auction format was ludicrous. At one point you seemed to recognize that but now you're trying to justify it again. Let it go. TECSHARE's bid was the only bid on that item anyway, so the format dispute doesn't even matter. He won the item, he paid, ship it. How much simpler can it possibly be? He even agreed to your condition of having the item shipped via escrow. The TXID doesn't matter. The escrow guarantees the payment. On the other hand, if you want to back out of this deal then just say so, stop clinging to the TXID demand, let MJ return funds to TECSHARE, and get your deserved flag. You'll get it anyway if you don't ship - it's just a matter of time. Minerjones isn't holding my funds against my will. He will release it at my request, as he should because the seller has not met his obligations. I don't want my funds back though, I want the seller to honor his agreement. Magicbyt3 is literally just arguing with himself about nothing and is the only thing holding up this transaction. |
|
|
|
You can post what ever you want techshare your the one being unreasonable here..
Can you show me where it says I even accept escrow on my sale?
Can you show me where it says I will SHIP WITHOUT SIGNATURE.
You sir... are the one who changed the terms to YOUR own.
I'm not playing your stupid games tecshare you everyone else has there bars already but your trying your hardest to change the terms to suit you..
If you don't trust me don't deal with me simple.
I have given you a inch and you tried to take a mile with your demands.
You can post all you want about "contractual" agreement but you sir changed it to suit your own needs.
I don't play games and won't be replying to this topic any longer..
My position is clear if I am unable to verify a payment to the escrow I won't ship..
Your call..
Goodnight.
Why would I trust you without using an escrow after the way you conducted your clusterfuck of an auction? Asking for an escrow is not at all unreasonable. Your demands to have transaction information is in fact unreasonable. I have met every inch of my contractual obligations under your auction terms. You already agreed to use Minerjones as an escrow at your expense. I already agreed to you shipping to him meeting your terms for signature requirements. Transaction information was never part of the contract and this is a frivolous demand you are using as pretext to violate your contractual agreement with me under the auction terms. It is unfortunate you are too short sighted to see this is not going to work out well for you at all. |
|
|
|
OP stated signed delivery was required and Techsare refused am I missing anything else?
You again... -_- Yeah, you are missing the part where I agreed he could ship to Minerjones with all the signatures he wanted. |
|
|
|
Tecshare if your escrow will prove payment I will ship I have said this 10+ times..
I WON'T SHIP WITHOUT PROOF ESCROW HAS BEEN PAID..
Is that really difficult? or unfair in any light?
Your bar could have been out the other day with the other but your the one holding this back not me...
Your trying my patience to the max with this and I could just refuse if I don't feel comfortable with the situation that my choice.
Escrow proves funds are there and I ship..
Escrow fails to prove funds the deal is off.
Ball is in your court..
Take it or leave it.. No. Honor your contractual agreement. I read the thread and I'm still not following why he's refusing to ship (I mean not the made-up excuse of needing your TXID or whatever but the real reason). Your bid was the least controversial of the three, there is no doubt you won. He didn't want escrow, but then agreed to it. He didn't want to ship directly, but then you agreed with shipping to escrow. Seems like a decent compromise.
Is the price too low for him, or is he pissed at you for arguing with him? Not that it matters, he's clearly in the wrong, I'm just curious why he keeps digging his hole.
I asked for proof a payment to the escrow his bar would have been out by now but he kept going on about it's my privacy ect. He also wanted me to ship outside the terms of the sale where I require a signature on delivery he didn't want this. I also don't see how the situation is escrow. If I ship Tecshare the bar Directly! and MJ is "supposed" to be holing the funds and I ship WITHOUT signature on delivery how and I protected? What proof have I got that the bar made it there? None.. He only agreed to the escrow being an actual middle man when I said I was not happy shipping without signature. Every turn he's changed the terms I didn't even offer the sale with escrow and now it's at my cost.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225031.msg53886116#msg53886116If anyone thinks it's unfair for me to be furnished with proof of payment then we cannot deal it's that simple. Without proof it's like I am sending out my good BLIND to some escrow I have had no dealing with EVER. Not fair on the seller.. All you care about is what serves you. None of your behavior is fair to the buyer. Exchanges go two ways, not one way where you dictate all of the terms after the fact. Auctions have rules, rules which you clearly violated and refuse to admit to. 3. Your first DM to me was you telling me you wanted to use MJ as escrow but escrow is where the agent holds BOTH goods. I also said I would cover the cost if there was any for this. Who is changing the terms? Looks like you. |
|
|
|
Vod, please quote anywhere where you substantiated any of the claims you made in your negative ratings against me. Surely quoting the substantiation you claim to have presented is not that difficult now is it?
I tried. You are too dense and you won't ask for help. Thanks for the wonderful demonstration that you are in fact a liar. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the pointless screed. Promptly disregarded. Literally no one agrees with you. You have no one to blame for this but yourself. Honor your contractual agreement.
Sorry I don't have to do anything if it's outside the terms of my listing.. And I WON'T be held over the fire by you and your friends tecshare. You dictated to me what YOU wanted when I questioned it you went on attack mode you have made false claims at every turn and now your posting here rubbish to try get people to bit to YOUR thoughts on the matter and NOT the FACTS!!! you also wanted me to ship OUTSIDE the terms of the listing so that void's you bid simple.. I have made my position clear and I won't be engaged in any more of your bully tactics on the forum.. Have a nice day. Magic You keep claiming I want you to do things outside of your terms. I already agreed you can ship it to Minerjones with all the terms in the OP. Asking you to do something you didn't want to do then agreeing to your terms does not void my bid, sorry. That is not how contracts work. You are arguing about nothing as an excuse to weasel out of your obligations. Honor your contractual agreement. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
