What about a snake that enters your home that threatens your family?
Properly cooked, snakes can make a tasty stew. Might even throw him in with the chicken stew to get a new flavor.  Don't let all those baby rabbits go to waste. Add them to the stew too.  This guy has a great bit about rabbit deaths caused by vegans https://youtu.be/eXiIDhtrcdk?t=677"Everything you eat is death. Your existence is a holocaust." |
|
|
|
Interestingly, it did happen to be the same week he left you this nice positive feedback: That's totally one of them coincidences, I'm like 1% sure of that. Well, if true, that certainly would be a mountain, and not a mole hill. |
|
|
|
Well I guess that settles that then.
You really stuck it to Timelord pretty hard by including BitcoinSupremo after he had excluded him. Showed him who's boss.
I still don't think that's a decent way to guide your trust list setup, but that's wholly your decision, and you are of course free to do as you see fit.
Carry on.
Until next time cupcake. I know you will be back as soon as you see me eating another Snickers bar. |
|
|
|
The tumors are not the cause, they are the symptom. Stop treating the symptoms and address the cause, or just keep perpetually cutting out tumors. Your call.  Whether clandestine or not, bickering leads to the same result. Not really even sure what you are referencing, but this is the internet. There will always be bickering. Compulsively avoiding conflict is not healthy and will only lead to greater conflict. Low level bickering is a part of any healthy community as it is the only way difficult discussions and choices are made. |
|
|
|
Isn't there this issue with current anti-trust law in the fact that to prove that there is a monopoly, you'd have to show that consumers are being hurt by it in some way.
Take Amazon for example, yes they own tons and tons of companies and they continue to buy more and more.Though they've kept prices down, and they're not raising prices once they've taken over market share.
This is the same situation for Google, Facebook, etc.
Yes, this is one of the primary metrics. In the case of Amazon, that is an entirely different animal because the business models are so vastly different. I am sure plenty of arguments could be made for them too. As far as observable damages to consumers, the action would not have been brought unless they had documentation of this. From my own observations though I would suggest election meddling, reduction of options in competition of a plethora of services, tortious interference, and working against US national security interests in coordination with a foreign state would be at the top of the list. |
|
|
|
...
Oh WOW! Muchly argument solved with a Gif! *Case Closed*  The argument was already made cupcake. This is just me entertaining myself because watching the clown car pick peanuts out of my droppings is getting boring. As you can see here, clearly Nutilduhh is trying to get me to add them to their trust list, but when I did not reciprocate, he removed me... 9/10/2019 6:44:15 AM nutildah (11) distrusts TECSHARE (-1) 9/10/2019 6:34:11 AM nutildah (11) no longer distrusts TECSHARE (-1) What say ye Nutilduhh? Apparently this standard of evidence is enough for you. |
|
|
|
...I think Theymos reasoning for the criteria is met. In my opinion there is no doubt that the user attempted to defraud the creator of the flag. A type2 warning is justified.
As you and I have been over ad nauseam in the Bob123 fiasco, a contract becomes activated upon the first exchange of consideration. In this case an agreement was made but not activated. The person in question probably is some kind of scammer, and he definitely did waste the other user's time, but this is not grounds for a flag, this is just the standard of suspicion with another step. This shouldn't be a flagging matter. Leave them a negative rating and call it a day. |
|
|
|
That situation looks like negative feedback for the attempted scam, and a newbie warning flag for yhe same reason.
The losses based on the business opportunity don't actually exist because it's a scam attempt, meaning there never was the potential to earn the fee.
That is flawed logic. If someone makes an agreement and the other party is going to gain from that agreement and then breaks that agreement (without a valid legal reason) and does not compensate for the loss of profit - then there is a loss. It is irrelevant that the person who made the agreement had no intention of completing it. It is reasonable to assume that the customer will proceed with the contractual terms when a contract is made. The seller had no control over the customers decision to scam. As I mentioned in the flags topic, there are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. This is a very serious action which should have a very high bar. Because it's so serious, I only want actual agreements considered here. In legal systems, there's additionally such a thing as tort law and statutory law, but the forum is very far from having the kind of cohesive legal system which could handle such things in a halfway-reasonable way. The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement. If non-contractual offenses are allowed in the scammer-flag space, then we're going to get factions of forum users constantly fighting each other, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.
For non-agreement issues, use a newbie-warning flag and give them a negative trust rating. These actions are in the different scopes of warning newbies or informing other users of your opinions, which have less severe consequences and therefore lower bars.
I hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH, which were created with deception in mind, are technologically bankrupt, and are run by huge assholes, but you can't say that their supporters broke a contract with you when they didn't. Give them a newbie-warning flag if you want, but not a contract-violation flag unless they actually broke a contract with you. (Note that you might have a case for breach of implied contract if you were actually tricked into buying one of these coins instead of BTC.)
For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. and I only want actual agreements considered here. and The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement.I think Theymos reasoning for the criteria is met. In my opinion there is no doubt that the user attempted to defraud the creator of the flag. A type2 warning is justified. As you and I have been over ad nauseam in the Bob123 fiasco, a contract becomes activated upon the first exchange of consideration. In this case an agreement was made but not activated. The person in question probably is some kind of scammer, and he definitely did waste the other user's time, but this is not grounds for a flag, this is just the standard of suspicion with another step. This shouldn't be a flagging matter. Leave them a negative rating and call it a day. |
|
|
|
You don't live in the USA? Sucks to be you.
Does it apply to everyone who does not live in USA or just me? Sucks for anyone not free to speak. Everyone who hate someone should come to USA to spread that hate and to say they would beat the hell out of them for free? Provide me evidence
That is publicly available information. Anyone who comes to the USA is allowed to say whatever the fuck they want as long as it is within the law. If that is what they want to say I don't care. Words are not violence, violence is violence. If the information is so public and easily available, why don't you share it with the class? I have the user in question on my trust list for one single reason.
Punishing people for their speech, no matter how abhorrent you find it, is ALWAYS the tool of totalitarians. I am a free speech absolutist. This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public. I don't have to agree with his ideas to object to him being punished for having a mind of his own. This is a problem that is not just on this forum but growing across the internet. It will result in everyone losing their freedoms, and I object to it on principle.
This is just a sad excuse for a collection of former despots taking revenge. None of these people here making all kinds of accusations of racism, homophobia, etc give a fuck about any of these things, they are here because they think they can use it to "get me". Its pathetic and transparent. I dunno, that looks like a pretty clear answer to me. I am very sorry if you aren't satisfied with it grand peanut hunter. He was excluded, as in inclusions and exclusions from trust lists. Enjoy your alternate definitions of words to try to squeeze a drop of whatever you can out of this pathetic display. Glad I have you here to dictate to me who, why, and how I should be using my trust list. I don't know how I would keep count of the peanuts in my turds without you. |
|
|
|
Users can be banned for breaking forum rules but still have valid trust
Lets see, banned user: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=79546Nothing since 2014. in trust. Of course, most trust is without reference. Just because you manufacture suspicion about a user doesn't make him "obviously hacked".
So why don't you counter negative feedback then? Or you don't trust user which you have in your trust list? And? If I remember right he is some one I traded with a long time ago. I don't like using countering trust ratings. What exactly is your issue other than your obsession with digging through my shit looking for peanuts? |
|
|
|
EDIT: Oh look what we have here... even more abuse of people for speaking out about his abusive behavior. Maybe just keep doubling down and abusing everyone who points out your behavior and they will all go away Vod. Good plan. "teeGUMES 2019-09-10 Reference Made many promises to the community that he would remove red trust after the current drama died down. Turn out it was just a lie / political maneuver. When it comes to keeping his word, he has admitted he does not - see reference." Not sure if he's all there upstairs. Going through my post history I note that I only offered to remove the red from the four doxx post merit givers. I did PM Vod while working with him and theymos to have the doxx post and therefore merit deleted, I mentioned Vod's red would probably become neutral "in the near future". After some time passed I checked Vod's behavior in his post history and he was still leveraging the US government against the doxxed member of the forum so I decided his red would be extended. He uses the word promise and community as a clickbait headline in his negative trust to me, the same way he throws the word scammer and liar around on this forum. There was no promise and the community was actually against me at the time because I dared go against the grain. A red from Vod just makes me laugh as much as the reds I have from other nutjobs, there is no further reason to fight or argue on my behalf.. I have had him excluded since the doxx as I don't value his actions or feedback. Probably never will. No, he is definitely missing a few marbles. Interesting he feels as if you owe him something. I understand you don't care about his rating, but it is just yet another piece of evidence in a long chain of events of Vod abusing his authority to try to punish and silence anyone who dares not worship at his feet. I feel it is important to document his years long pattern of abuse, so that anyone looking into his negative ratings on others can see how absolutely bat shit insane he is so he can be disregarded. I have given up a long time ago on expecting this community to take any responsibility for this turd they continue to prop up as they point fingers at everyone else. EDIT: Of course he is free to leave a negative rating for whatever arbitrary reason he decides. However that doesn't mean people have to include him, trust him, or view his inability for self control as excusable. It still clearly reflects his intent to use a system designed to prevent theft to fight his petty disputes at the direct cost to the community via devaluation of the trust system. He cares more about his obsessive compulsive spats than he does about protecting the community from theft. |
|
|
|
Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.
Again, not a great reason to add someone to your trust list. Again, you too don't have any great reasons to exclude someone in your trust list. Example: ME. You have been judged guilty of not agreeing with everything him and his friends say.  |
|
|
|
Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion.
Again, not a great reason to add someone to your trust list. I think it is a great reason. Why shouldn't I add people who are being targeted by abusive nepotists hellbent on preventing anyone else from having any influence in "their" trust system to counter that abuse? Oh right, because your friends are the abusers. Clearly that is unacceptable then, because you don't approve of the results. Anything else turdburgler, or are you all tuckered out and ready for a shower? |
|
|
|
Regarding your accusation... They were on the default trust, as "0", so effectively for many purposes they were only on it after I added them. The others who were already on it I added because they were trusted by other Turkish individuals I have had contact with and felt were trustworthy.
Even if someone gets added to DT1 at net zero, they are still being added to DT1. They have the ability to vote for other DT1, which is what you like most about them. And even if what you are saying is true, is that still a good reason to add someone to your trust list? Do you speak Turkish, or Russian for that matter? No matter how you spin your actions, its pretty obvious what your endgame is. You had to know you were going to get caught at some point. Should have come up with a better backstory during that time. Yes wanting to see the trust list be more diverse is a good reason to add people, because the current clown cartel is nepotistic, abusive, arbitrary, and destructive to the overall community.
"More diverse" is not a good reason. I didn't know you were such a fan of affirmative action. You really only think they're a benefit if they include you in their trust list, or benefit you personally in some way. If they don't, you could care less about them. Why aren't you working for Mrs. Cleo since you clearly think you have the ability to read minds? That is why I added them to my inclusions, you are free to invent your own baseless interpretations of why you think I did it all you like, that doesn't make them make any sense. I wasn't aware I had to speak the language of every user I add, I figured the fact that they spoke to me in English was good enough, but I guess not for you. There is no spin, I have been absolutely transparent in my activities and countering your sad little inquisition is about as hard as fighting my way out of a wet paper bag. Even if it didn't benefit me personally, I would still be happy including them simply based on the fact that the resident clown car passengers excluded them. Given their history of abuse I would say anyone they are targeting is worth considering for inclusion. Next you will be telling me about how my breathing patterns are actually secret codes I am sending to the Turks so we can take control of Bitcointalk, and the fact that I am still breathing is suspect. Do you ever just look at yourself and think, "Man I really am a pathetic human being with no life." ? Because you really should. It could be a growth experience for you. According to you and the other clown car inhabitants, every shit I take is suspicious and worthy of an in depth breakdown. Feel free to dig through my excrement looking for illicit peanuts if you like, just don't blame me when you get all covered in shit. |
|
|
|
|
The tumors are not the cause, they are the symptom. Stop treating the symptoms and address the cause, or just keep perpetually cutting out tumors. Your call.
|
|
|
|
"7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM TECSHARE (-1) no longer trusts by rallier (2)
7/27/2019 6:43:30 PM taikuri13 (11) trusts witcher_sense (9)
7/26/2019 4:15:52 PM by rallier (2) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2)
7/26/2019 4:15:52 PM by rallier (2) changed from distrusting to trusting owlcatz (25)"
I didn't like some of his recent trust list changes so I removed him.
His most recent change was by rallier no longer distrusts Last of the V8sbut look! 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM TECSHARE no longer distrusts Last of the V8sJust another lie from the scammer TECSHARE. :/ You mean the trust list change over cycle? "8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM TMAN (24) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM mindrust (1) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM nutildah (11) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM micgoossens (4) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM kenzawak (-7) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM DireWolfM14 (7) no longer trusts Last of the V8s (2) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM TECSHARE (-1) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM OgNasty (4) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM Rmcdermott927 (-2) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM ekiller (-2) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2)" I guess they are all part of the conspiracy. Come on Vod, this is pathetic, even for you. |
|
|
|
It seems like a pretty obvious pattern here of Vod crying in pain as he lashes out at me. Once again, he accuses me of abusing the trust system by the very act of abusing the trust system.
Obvious pattern? How many times have you traded trust? I only caught this one, sorry. Edit: Techy's post is a three year necro to start more drama. Current discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182990.0How many times have you traded trust? Never. I am sure in your mind I have done it 50 bajillion times and need 1 million years dungeon. You want to talk about a pattern of abuse and trust system abuse Vod? Lets review the 6 years of history of your attempts to destroy my reputation over the years using the trust system as a naked tool of retribution with 100% fabricated accusations which you refuse to document, all in an exceptionally obsessive compulsive 6 year long vendetta since the very moment I dared speak a critical word of your behavior. Lets talk about that Vod. Just wanted to post here again for reference, Vod is at it again stalking me. I dared mention his name in a thread with him in the subject line, now he feels justified following me around like a loon spreading his usual lies and bullshit. I know no one gives a fuck about harassment on this forum, so please refrain from the no one gives a fuck comments, trust me I am well aware this forum is a shithole with no one willing to stand for anything unless it serves them personally. I just want to make a note here about it before he continues to escalate this further so when he does, it doesn't appear as if it came out of nowhere and he can just hide away again like he usually does until it blows over just to start at it again. At least this way other people harassed by him have a record of his obsessive behavior and he can't just pretend it is not the case.
EDIT: Oh look what we have here... even more abuse of people for speaking out about his abusive behavior. Maybe just keep doubling down and abusing everyone who points out your behavior and they will all go away Vod. Good plan. "teeGUMES 2019-09-10 Reference Made many promises to the community that he would remove red trust after the current drama died down. Turn out it was just a lie / political maneuver. When it comes to keeping his word, he has admitted he does not - see reference." |
|
|
|
I love this critical analysis of everyone I add to my trust list as if I obviously should be suspect, but any time I bring up say the inclusion of Nutilduhhh even though the account was publicly offered for sale, no one bothers replying. Of course I am required to defend my inclusions but no one else in the clown car mob is. More rules for thee but not for me, that's Bitcointalk SOP. I'm not the one going around adding new DT1 members from local boards one after another like you are. If you want to dig for flaws in my own trust system setup, feel free. You want to REALLY know why I added those Turkish users? Because they were just barely off the DT and I wanted to see it more diverse.
Wrong. With the exception of Vispilio, they were all already on DT when you added them. Matthias added you in the week of 6/22, along with a dozen other DT1s. He didn't become DT1 until 8/2. You added him to your trust list 3 hours later. 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM Matthias9515* (2) trusts TECSHARE 8/2/2019 8:25:25 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Matthias9515 (2) This guy was made DT1 in the week of 6/29. You added him on 7/23, and when he failed to reciprocate in a period of 5 days, you dumped him: 7/23/2019 9:34:59 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts by rallier (2) 7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts by rallier Kalemder was made DT1 on 9/4/2019 at 12:35:13 AM. You included him 16 hours later. bobita was made DT1 on 8/2/2019. You included him 2 days later. mhanbostanci was re-added to DT1 on 9/4. You included him 3 days later. Regardless, is "wanting to see it more diverse" a good reason to add people to your trust list? Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in.
Is this also a good reason to add people to your trust list? I know you are trying desperately to rekindle this narrative and attempt upon my character, but it has already been addressed and failed. Now the simple fact that I add people to my trust list is grounds for suspicion? How desperate are you clowns, really? YOU are the primary flaw in your trust system setup, as far as anyone knows your account is bought and you have no way to prove otherwise. Yet here you are playing Rachel Maddow crafing your very own little Russian Turkish collusion narrative to draw attention away from you and yours in an exceptionally pathetic attempt to silence me and prevent me from having any say in this system, because it means your pals don't get to play Bitdictators anymore. Regarding your accusation... They were on the default trust, as "0", so effectively for many purposes they were only on it after I added them. The others who were already on it I added because they were trusted by other Turkish individuals I have had contact with and felt were trustworthy. Regarding by rallier, it is rather convenient how you cropped that log... "7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM TECSHARE (-1) no longer trusts by rallier (2) 7/27/2019 6:43:30 PM taikuri13 (11) trusts witcher_sense (9) 7/26/2019 4:15:52 PM by rallier (2) no longer distrusts Last of the V8s (2) 7/26/2019 4:15:52 PM by rallier (2) changed from distrusting to trusting owlcatz (25)" I didn't like some of his recent trust list changes so I removed him. Yes wanting to see the trust list be more diverse is a good reason to add people, because the current clown cartel is nepotistic, abusive, arbitrary, and destructive to the overall community. That behavior ends when power is distributed enough that they can't run roughshod over anyone who dares speak a word against them, much like the entire purpose of these coordinated attacks against myself the moment this interaction with the Turks changed the trust list status quo. There are plenty of people on my trust list that don't add me reciprocally, even people I don't particularly like. This whole fantasy you have imagineered to project upon me is just the latest sadly transparent attempt to "get me" and I find it hard not laugh at how increasingly desperate and dumb you all look doing it. |
|
|
|
seat prices costing less than a faucet payout
Which faucet? LAST SEAT PRICE: Theymos has requested that we ignore this idiot, even as he keeps prodding for more drama. Why not just pm TMAN then? Seems like a prod for more drama. Vod prodding for drama? NEVER! |
|
|
|
What in gods fuck is this.
Holy shit why isn't the media reporting on this happening. Or at least, why isn't this front page news like it should be? I haven't seen any of this and this is a horrible thing to see in the world.
Not liking immigrants, while despicable, is one thing. But burning them alive and physically assaulting them (and even killing them) in the streets is another thing. This is a whole other level of how horrible humans can be to one another.
This is a great demonstration of why you should include a wider range of sources for your topical information. There is no such thing as bad information, only useless interpretations of it. The key is recognizing the source and its motives. This isn't me saying that I don't go into other news sources, this is me stating that I think it's horrible that the MSM companies avoid these sorts of news stories. Also - most of the news sources that you post (or people on this forum at least) are from shitty blog sites, zerohedge, etc. I didn't say it was. I was specifically alluding to a previous response you have had in the past to "shitty blog sites, (like) Zerohedge". You aren't hearing about it because you are convinced there are such things as good sources and bad sources instead of just examining the merit of the content on an individual basis. This blind spot exists specifically because you maintain this idea that CNN for example has any more credibility than any shitty blog site you pick out of a hat. They are both equally capable of presenting facts, and you will never know if it is factual if you don't examine it first. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
