But seems to me that Twitchy has presented evidence and logic to undermine those presumptions of innocence that could allow members to conclude that OGNasty might be guilty of the alleged conduct.
You are largely asserting to stop the investigation because it is a witch hunt. There could be some burden of production and persuasion upon you in that regard, also, but whatever, the evidence is still being presented here and members can decide for themselves whether the evidence is persuasive. Undermining presumptions of innocence is not proving guilt. Agreed. Do you see how you are consistently inverting the burden of proof from the accuser back to me?
No, I don't see that. Seems that you are the one who brought up this idea of burden of proof, and I am just responding to that. I have no burden of anything.
I would suggest that if you raise an issue, and say: This is a witch hunt, then you have the burden to show that. Of course, you can express that "this is a witch hunt" as an opinion, but if you are trying to persuade someone, then you have the burden, no? I don't care if anyone believes me.
Why would it matter if anyone believes you about anything. You said that you have no burden, so therefore, you would not be trying to convince anyone of anything, right? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it too? I do however care if people believe accusations of scamming based on speculation.
Fair enough. What I am doing is not stopping anyone from presenting evidence. What I am doing is however making rhetorical and sophist persuasion ineffective.
You are attempting to rebutt any evidence (while proclaiming that there is not any evidence, even though there is). Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous?  I brought up the burden of proof, therefore I must prove that the accuser is engaged in a "witch hunt"? What? I never characterized this as a "witch hunt", Twitchy Seal did BTW. Yes, you are in fact inverting the burden of proof from the accuser on to me. I don't have to prove shit. End of story. Twitchy has to prove his accusation, he can not. This is not having my cake and eating it to, it is how burden of proof works. The one presenting the premise (theft) has the burden to prove the accusation. I don't have to prove it is a witch hunt, and your lack of belief in this premise is irrelevant to the fact that the burden of proof has not been met on the accusation of theft. The only thing ridiculous is your continual inversion of the burden of proof. |
|
|
|
But seems to me that Twitchy has presented evidence and logic to undermine those presumptions of innocence that could allow members to conclude that OGNasty might be guilty of the alleged conduct.
You are largely asserting to stop the investigation because it is a witch hunt. There could be some burden of production and persuasion upon you in that regard, also, but whatever, the evidence is still being presented here and members can decide for themselves whether the evidence is persuasive. Undermining presumptions of innocence is not proving guilt. Do you see how you are consistently inverting the burden of proof from the accuser back to me? I have no burden of anything. I don't care if anyone believes me. I do however care if people believe accusations of scamming based on speculation. What I am doing is not stopping anyone from presenting evidence. What I am doing is however making rhetorical and sophist persuasion ineffective. Kind of seems like you are admitting that your conclusions rely on speculation. I would love to hear you explain how the fact that your accusation relies on speculation is not addressing the central issue of burden of proof, which by definition relying on speculation you have not met.
Speculation happens when no compelling facts are considered, which is not the case here. You've been given the resources to educate yourself on the evidence of what happened but are unwilling, unable, or you did educate yourself but can't refute anything I have claimed, so you just call everything 'speculation'. This is what it actually looks like when someone makes false assumptions just to attack someone: I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway.
~snip~
All of your claims rely heavily on speculation, assumptions, and perfect hindsight.
If you're capable, just put a little effort into looking into the facts. Maybe you'll find something I missed and then the next time you insult me it will feel even better than normal. If you're not capable, then please stop making statements as you did consider the evidence. Wrong. Facts can be presented in addition to speculation. They are not exclusive. My point is your facts alone do not follow to prove the conclusion that theft occurred or people were victimized. This is completely an assumption on your part. You can argue about how likely it is or is not all day, the fact is this you can not prove. The fact that I do not support your conclusions doesn't mean I haven't reviewed the information you have presented, and your patronizing tone is noted. I am refuting everything you have claimed because you can not prove your accusation as I have already explained. 1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds. 2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft. 3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return. Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so. only worth $1,800 at the time
So you want me to find him a scammer, because you cannot trace the blockchain evidence of $1,800 at the time worth of BTC past a dead end, but he just returned 500 BTC @ $7,500 = $3,750,000 +BCH forks and +++ and he is a scammer? Come on man. These loaded questions are part of the reason this thread is going to shit. If you care, just look at the evidence and come to your own conclusion - then try to prove yourself wrong before you try to prove anyone else wrong. If all you've gathered from this thread is that I "cannot trace the blockchain evidence of $1,800 at the time worth of BTC past a dead end" then I don't know what to tell you. If you don't care that he stole it because of the value, or that he didn't steal a lot more from theymos, then don't bother. (btw, I was wrong, it was only worth $1700 - bad math) This isn't a "loaded question", he is addressing the heart of the issue. You don't know what the fuck that transaction was or who it was to. That is a crucial piece of information you are SPECULATING about. You can prove a transaction occurred, but not what it was for, who it went to, or why. Notice again the attempt at inversion of the burden of proof back on the people criticizing your lack of evidence. The facts you have are ambiguous at best. No one needs to prove themselves wrong, you need to prove yourself right, and you haven't done that. Theymos can speak for himself if he feels he was harmed. This is just another example of this being about attacking the character of OGNasty by shifting focus to another accusation rather than addressing this accusation at hand. The volume of unsubstantiated accusations does not magically make them more valid. |
|
|
|
This is exactly what I am talking about. A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft.
If you can actually disprove something specific I said, please do. Your 'A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft' defense is a true statement, but it doesn't directly address anything. Sometimes a discrepancy absolutely does prove theft. And sometimes, like in this case, it's just one piece of the big picture. Kind of seems like you are admitting that your conclusions rely on speculation. I would love to hear you explain how the fact that your accusation relies on speculation is not addressing the central issue of burden of proof, which by definition relying on speculation you have not met. |
|
|
|
|
I am sure you two are having loads of fun obsessing over me, but back to the part where you prove your accusations against OGNasty...
|
|
|
|
I am more focused on everyone else observing getting the full backround of the motivations behind this targeting, and the long term consequences for this community if this kind of Stalinist behavior is tolerated.
To everyone else observing it looks like you are barking at anyone who questions is presenting assumptions and speculation as facts. Fixed that for you. Also what is it like speaking for "everyone"? Sounds like a cool job. I doubt that you are really saving anyone or clarifying matters with your ongoing unsupported conclusions, ie that this is a witch hunt, and your other various convolutions and ad hominems etc. That is all irrelevant. Any conclusions I make are independent of the fact that the conclusions against OGNasty require assumption and speculation and are not conclusive proof of anything. I don't have to prove my conclusions. You have to prove your conclusions, that is how burden of proof works. Look at all the evidence and decide for yourself how likely it is that that is what happened, and let me know if you can think of any other scenario where he didn't steal any funds. Sure thing. As far as the BTC144, it's not impossible that after receiving the last 3 payments from Pirate in August he used a completely different wallet with completely different funds... It's entirely possible pirate was lying. There is a lot more but that is not the point. The point is it is your burden to prove that there is no disconnect, not for everyone to prove your assumptions wrong. |
|
|
|
Hi people I know someone who might be interested in selling acrylic paintings. Here is their entry to the bitcointalk.org 10 th anniversary art contest: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5193860.msg53021809#msg53021809 which won them some BTC. The idea of this post is to see if there's interest on the forum. if there is, I don't know if the art pieces will have a fixed prices or may be auctioned. The art is not crypto related but it could be if needed, I guess interested people could ask for custom paintings to be made. Here is an example of what they make: https://i.imgur.com/RgTGLgI.jpgSo thanks to anybody who have any suggestion or feedback. Those are very nice washes. Might I make a suggestion that you paint on top of the wash and use it as a background. I have seen others use this method before with very impressive results. |
|
|
|
|
I haven't looked into this project, but linking a crypto with religion would in fact give it significant legal protections under US law. I predict this will be an increasing trend in the future.
|
|
|
|
People are being illegally detained and held in cages with conditions that violate every health code. They are being held based on just the color of their skin. People who are doing drugs out in the open and committed instead of being taken to jail after being taken in is what you are talking about. Most states have laws like this but they are never misinterpreted the way that video has done. Here is the Texas law, for comparison For “temporary” (90-day) inpatient commitment, a person must be mentally ill and EITHER:
likely to cause serious harm to self or others; OR
suffering ALL of the following:
severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress;
substantial deterioration of ability to function independently; AND
(iii) inability to make rational and informed treatment decisions. Horse shit. Illegal entry to the country happens regardless of race or skin color. Additionally your claims of health code violations is completely unsubstantiated. The California law says nothing about a requirement for people to be taking drugs out in the open. You cited a law covering a temporary involuntary commitment, the California law as written allows for an indefinite amount of time for this hold. Temporary holds have many protections in place to allow release. The only one misinterpreting things here is you. You are literally supporting concentration camps as you call everyone else nazis. |
|
|
|
~
What actions? You mean my words? Last I checked words required a state of thinking to interpret but maybe you have some special way of reading where you don't use your brain. I am quite focused on the topic, just not the parts of it you wish to emphasize. Calling it evidence and logic doesn't make it evidence an logic. There is transaction data yes, but the part where it is assumed there was wrongdoing, victims, or other malpractice is absolutely assumption, not facts or logic. I am not particularly interested in convincing you. I am more focused on everyone else observing getting the full backround of the motivations behind this targeting, and the long term consequences for this community if this kind of Stalinist behavior is tolerated. More operant conditioning presenting no new information The quote you keep referencing from theymos was made in relation to OgNasty vs Vod at a time when insults after insults were being hurled at each other and no real facts or evidence were being presented of anyone having "a real trade complaint", it was certainly not productive for the forum to have 2 of its veteran members going at each other like that. Just because their feud may have spurned up someone like TwitchSeal who has shown newer evidence to suggest OgNasty is much worse than a liar, if what I'm seeing is accurate with the numbers pirateat40 confirmed under oath, and what OgNasty publicly proclaimed to his investors, I think there would be a valid trade complaint here. Trendon Shavers (pirateat40) would have made a very large mistake if he lied to the SEC and I don't think he or his lawyers would have been willing to take that chance. OgNasty is likely in PMs trying to figure out WTF to say while TECSHARE stalls everyone with useless arguments. suchmoon said it best: Debating with TECSHARE is like marriage - the only way for it to work is to admit that you're always wrong and he's always right.
From TECSHARE's perspective, he is never wrong, those that disagree will be attacked until they succumb. If you don't succumb, round' and round' you will go on the pretzel train. Chooo chooooo. I guess we just shouldn't look at the new evidence since TECSHARE thinks it came out due to a personal feud... whether or not one may have been triggered by the other, shouldn't they still be treated as separate cases and situations with various elements of evidence and facts in each? If someone came out right now stating Donald Trump was molesting 12 year olds, and presenting evidence for it, is TECHSHARE going to come in and say "this is just a witch hunt because people don't like his foreign policy, nothing to see here, walk away!"  Og doesn't want to respond directly to any of this, just like he didn't want to provide me any full-context on his chopped up PMs with Vod... and any response will unfortunately be some sort of PR-like statement that is vague and requires you to just trust him. You're gonna go far, Og. (meaningful lyrics.) Ah look who it is, Mr. "I am a neutral party" who always just coincidentally seems to argue for Vod's position. There is no new evidence. The only thing that is new is injected speculation, theorizing, and assumption. That and the need to manufacture yet another scandal to be used to attack OGNastys character for criticizing the wrong people here. There is nothing factual supporting the conclusion that he stole money, or that anyone was victimized. This is all just suspicion characterized as fact because hey look at his name in this transcript and here are some transactions that I made assumptions about. Why should OG reply to you harpies? There is nothing logical or rational he can say that will stop this ceaseless series of attacks on his character, because it is based on targeting the individual, not on facts or logic. There is no path to redemption with you people, which is why people like me will consistently tell you to go fuck yourselves and get a life of your own rather than harassing people on the internet. |
|
|
|
oh elwar.. i can already see his plan B. he wants to do a edward snowdon style publicity script making out a country wants to kill him..
but elwar main goal is doing public appearances and ride that money train next.
.. nice braces by the way,
im guessing your publicist advised you to correct your teeth before proper public appearances in the near future
i have been watching elwar for years and seen he was always riding the exhaust trails of big money. trying to seek millions in investments with no real big returns.
seeking double figure millions to buy a boat so 15 people can ave meetings on to discuss next campaign
and even with investments coming in he just used like $30k(doesnt look like 150k costs) for a small pod that he only visits for youtube segments just for promoting..
sorry i just dont see elwar as a true figure head for 'freeing' the planet of corrupt government control of citizens. he is a secret capitalist in libertarian sheepskin
He said as he scratched his ass from his bedroom. |
|
|
|
|
Congrats on your new found independence limeys.
|
|
|
|
RIP to the victims. I've just read about the attack on a Jewish grocery perpetrated by those hideous "Black Israelites" and then this one. Holy shit really? I haven't heard this. Have any sources? I have been monitoring their activities for over a decade and they regularly make a habit of harassing and threatening people on the streets and there have been some documented instances of them being violent. I tried to have a discussion with one of them that ran a channel dedicated to their tripe on Youtube back in the day out of curiosity. He wouldn't talk to me until he could confirm I was of an appropriate racial heritage. They are a bunch of supremacist loons and I am not surprised they are becomming radicalized into violence as they regularly talk about murdering and enslaving "Edomites" aka the "whites" in their street rants. |
|
|
|
Half convo, half 'lets bash TwitchySeal' party lol
Was just pointing out my 'bouncing around' was just responding to you guys.
Do you have any data that shows electric vehicles are ecologically worse or less efficient?
Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do.
The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner. I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you.
Overall price is definitely an indicator. But I guess we could argue Gas is too high or electric too low and it won't stay that way?
Seems likely electric cars are still coming down in price though. You are projecting as usual. Don't accuse us of "bashing" you because you can't handle people being critical of your ideas. This is the behavior of some one who is looking to confirm their bias, not some one who is here to have a discussion. Neither of us are qualified, but you still declare your conclusion, and want data which of course you will quickly dismiss because "we are not qualified" but of course your conclusion is the obvious conclusion isn't it? Your inability to find evidence you don't really care to find is evidence of nothing but your own bias. There are lots of industries that stand to gain from the promotion of electric vehicles, much more than that of internal combustion cars. Of course you will find an abundance of materials promoting EVs and dismissing any criticism of them. Nine out of ten doctors agree after all that Marlboro cigarettes are a great way to sooth that chronic cough. Price is an indicator, but of course that depends on all kinds of complex economical variables. Palm oil is cheap, but its cultivation results in deforestation. Corn syrup is cheap, but it is subsidized by the government and bad for your body. Even the dollar cost alone is not a reliable indicator because markets are continually shifting with supply, demand, as well as other subsidies and monetary base variables. The issue is not as much the initial price of the car but the price of fueling it that can change quickly. This is also not to mention the strain that would be placed on the electrical grid if EVs were the norm and not the exception, not to mention how vulnerable that would make everyone to grid failures. There are a lot of other issues regarding EVs I won't go into here but there are many. Again, I wish we could all have solar powered jet packs and not pollute the environment, but we aren't there yet no matter how much you want to confirm your bias. |
|
|
|
You brought up price and CO2, TECSHARE brought up efficiency. Which is fine, I was literally just trying to have a discussion. Jeez. As you are often fond of telling me, calm down. We are just having a discussion, you just don't like the direction it went. I am afraid you are just going to have to learn cope with that. |
|
|
|
That is what you get, Tecshare, for attempting to confuse matters. You get confusion that you, yourself, caused, seemingly on purpose with your lame-ass attempt at creating a dinsingenuous summary that you were inaccurately striving to spin in your favor. If you try to be a bit more genuine in your renditions of the conduct and statements of others, then maybe someone will feel sorry for you. Including me. Perhaps? But, here, you dug your own little hole (a victim of your own seeming success) and then you are complaining (largely off topic and irrelevantly and who gives any shits) about someone else pulling up the ladder. Difficult to feel sorry for that when we have other topics of the thread, which is largely the evidentiary relevance of various matters concerning OGNasty and if there is any accounting that needs to be done based on more recent evidentiary revelations or the extent that any of the new evidentiary revelations matter. Attempting to confuse matters? I am sorry if you were confused, but I can't be responsible for every simpleton that wanders in and has trouble reading my words. What was lame-ass was your original lazy opinion based on not even bothering to review the information fully, by your own admission, but still be willing to have a strong opinion about it. This is exactly what I was criticizing about TwitchySeal. He knows damn well most people aren't going to bother to look that close and he has a good chance of convincing people through repetition of his baseless theories operant conditioning style. Combine this with the long term trend of himself and his buddies repeating this behavior clearly directed at OGNasty, and it becomes quite obvious this is about serving personal vendettas, not about righting any wrongs done. Why would I want you to feel sorry for me? What hole? Why is it you rely on projection so much? Is it perhaps because you don't have any logical retort to what I said? |
|
|
|
|
Christmas lights are like Jefferey Epstein. They don't hang themselves.
|
|
|
|
good find. So it's fair to say that the 'downstream' energy costs are reflected in these prices.
I know you still have the issue of what's best described as "lifecycle energy costs" or "lifecycle emissions," or "lifecycle costs including disposal of Li batteries" etc. He is bouncing freely between co2 emissions, price, and actual energy efficiency. I find the concept of anthropogenic global warming to be nonsense and meaningless, but it takes many years for an electric vehicle to make up for the emissions created during the construction of the vehicle. The price (currently ) is in favor of EVs, but that could change any day as the market shifts. As far as energy efficiency he likes to point about the extraction and delivery cost of fossil fuels but also wants to ignore the immense amounts of energy required to mine the rare Earth elements required to build an EV, as well as the multitude of other disastrous environmental side effects of mining these types of minerals. |
|
|
|
But you and the video present the bill in a completely dishonest way. What exactly is dishonest. Be specific captain postmodern. Tell me why you think border enforcement is concentration camps but rounding up homeless against their will to be permanently interned until the state approves is ok. |
|
|
|
It's obvious you are on OgNasty's side. That's your prerogative. I'm just pointing out they are both prolonging "petty interpersonal battles" that are harmful to this community either way. Now we can discuss the extent to which one is more harmful than the other, but I (and - again - I suspect more people around here) am (are) not up for that. As I already said: [...] by now I - personally - (and I suspect a lot of other users too) cannot take either "side" too seriously any more... too bad. Just leaving this out here - again: Again, this is a totally false equivalence as I already explained. You can keep trying real hard to make it sound like they share equal fault here, but that is absolute horse shit. This is Vods MO 100%. Target people abusing whatever systems of power he can, the slide the topic with so much bullshit and bickering people don't want to even look at it any more, then they throw their hands up and call it a draw. He does this EVERY TIME he is challenged on his abusive behavior. Its easy to poo poo and say just ignore him when you aren't the one being targeted. After all it costs you nothing to dismiss attacks on others now doesn't it? This is exactly what I am talking about. A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft.
If you can actually disprove something specific I said, please do. Your 'A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft' defense is a true statement, but it doesn't directly address anything. Sometimes a discrepancy absolutely does prove theft. And sometimes, like in this case, it's just one piece of the big picture. I'm going to keep editing out and ignoring all the bullshit assumptions and personal attacks from now on, btw. So I am to prove a negative now? That's not how it works captain confirmation bias. You are making the claim, you have the burden of proof. It is just one piece of the big picture, and the rest of the pieces you drew in with crayon from your imagination and stomp your feet and demand the Easter bunny you drew is real because rabbits exist. |
|
|
|
Just because you have some facts doesn't mean they support your every conclusion. You have established a relationship. You haven't established intent, harmed parties, or even missing funds. Your conclusions rely on speculation, assumption, and suspicion, not facts. You have come to a conclusion first then are attempting to arrange the facts around that conclusion. That is called confirmation bias, and it is a logical fallacy.
I hadn't made any conclusions until yesterday. If you'd have read the thread you would've known that I was open about the fact that I could be wrong. Right now (as of yesterday) there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Og stole BTC144 and I don't need Pirates statement about paying out OgNasty in full to prove it. (There is evidence that he took more, but it's not strong enough (yet).) We have pirates ledger for every transaction. We have ogs thread archived. We have both Pirates and OgNastys wallets indexed on wallet explorer. We have the block chain. Og was receiving weekly interest payments from Pirate, and making monthly payments to his pass through investors. The last interest payment Og sent to his investors was on August 2, 2012. On August 6 Og received an interested payment of BTC66.8 On August 13 Og received an interested payment of BTC39.2 On August 17 He received a withdraw for BTC38 On Sept 2 he paid out the insurance he had been collecting to 4 investors. BTC9.92, BTC4.59, BTC22.95 and BTC27.54 We know that was the insurance because Og posted on the same day 'reserves have been paid, pirate has defaulted', and they total BTC65, the same amount Og listed as the 'current reserves' on August 2. You'll find transaction ids to all of these in the thread if you decide to bother looking into it. This is exactly what I am talking about. A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft. Again, you are making conclusions then arranging the facts around it to support that conclusion, not looking at the facts and making a conclusion based on the facts. This is textbook confirmation bias. You are so thirsty for this to serve your personal vendettas. You aren't interested in facts or an honest assessment of what happened here. You are only interested in crafting a narrative that is maximally destructive to OGNasty's reputation because your target is the man, not any damages caused. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
