|
Something weird is going on in Antarctica... hard to pin down exactly, but seems a lot of the flat earth disinfo revolves around it. In the information age you can never remove the needle in the haystack, so you have to bury it in more hay. IE when you smell piles and piles of bullshit generally something is growing out of it. Lots of world leaders making visits, and it is a highly restricted area. IMO there may be some remnants of past civilizations there hidden under the ice.
|
|
|
|
what do the globalists want? destroy us, as nations and more importantly as individuals, they want like zuckerberg hawaii for themselves. no one else, they don't share, they take more and more and more and more until they die with pockets so full they need fleets of yachts.
Dude, take my advice: Your position is seriously lacking some arguments. Why do they want to destroy us? Are they a kind of angry villains from the other galaxy that want to destroy us just because we exist? Without clearing this point you would be looking like a mad man in every serious discussion. It is a really simple equation. In the past humans were required by the elite as a sort of live stock, so the masses were tolerated to a certain degree. Now with AI and automation among other developments, human beings aren't as critical to keeping the elite in their ever more consolidated positions of power. As a direct result of this dynamic the masses become more of a direct threat and a liability over time rather than an asset to be maintained. You might also want to look into their methodology for monetizing this formula as well, one way it is described is "disaster capitalism". Essentially profit causing a problem, then profit again treating but not fixing the issue. Are you going to argue there is not a lot of profit to be had in a perpetually more ill population? They kill two birds with one stone. They depopulate under the radar reducing the threat of a popular uprising against the elite and profit the whole way while doing it. |
|
|
|
this is really bad TECSHARE !!! this behavior is really uncivilized ! You know, you try to tempt us to search, but where? it will be censored, so could please have at least the deceny to explain a little bit to us uneducated who are this "The Payseur" !!! Wanna know !!! bad point for you ! No one wants to do the work any more to learn anything. Real truth is earned not given. Anything worth knowing will be hidden not handed out for free. Lets just say they are the kind of people concerned about blood lines. |
|
|
|
Another group of the same members would have also stood up for OG even if they had no issues with Vod just because OG is OG ! but they wouldn't give a flying fuck about other members being doxed.
so, i would like to ask a simple a question, if you think Vod's action deserve this much attention, and you believe in treating everyone the same, why aren't you spending a lot of time defending other members being doxed on a daily bases? does it have to be Vod or someone you dislike ?or does it have to be about OG or any other "important" member ? because if that is the case , then demanding for equal punishment is hypocrisy. I meant to mention this before but totally forgot. You were not around for this, but when the Master-P fiasco happened I was the first to confirm having his dox. In spite of having plenty of evidence he was probably guilty, I took steps to preserve his privacy (even though he probably didn't deserve it). I also managed to get him to return about half of the stolen funds all without publicly releasing his personal information. After dealing with a lot of accusations and harassment myself over it I released the information to only those who could provide evidence of personal involvement. This is a clear demonstration of my genuine principled stance against doxing. I only involved myself in this instance because I had an ability to act that others didn't. Just because I don't feel the need to go around policing the forum doesn't mean I forfeit all rights to point out abusive behavior when I see it. In Vod's case he has a long history of this kind of malicious and abusive behavior, knowing full well his buddies will never check his behavior. After a slap on the wrist, he slinks away until people forget about it to return shortly after to repeat the same cycle of escalation and harassment he has always exhibited. The thing people like you who haven't been around long don't understand about him is this is a larger repeating pattern of behavior with him, hence him "taking a break" hoping people will forget... |
|
|
|
I have read about rumors they are finally being stripped of their control of the monetary system and are being forced to liquidate their ill gotten gains. Who knows if it has any truth to it or not. There are bigger names than Rothschild anyway.
Like? I know Rockefeller`s have a foot hold in the petro oils, and it is the only reason we do not use hydrogen cars atm, which by the way would solve global warming and rising sea levels and pump oxygen to make us all live longer into the air. but who else? The Payseur family for one. The real owners are not names we hear often, and that is by design. |
|
|
|
|
If you don't realize the US and China are already at war you aren't paying attention. The difference is this time both sides are highly intertwined giving both sides incentive to not just jump right in to a hot war. If you have been paying attention you will remember plenty of strategic manufacturing facilities "randomly" exploding, as well as lots of naval "accidents" over the last few years. This is just the early covert stages of war.
|
|
|
|
|
I have read about rumors they are finally being stripped of their control of the monetary system and are being forced to liquidate their ill gotten gains. Who knows if it has any truth to it or not. There are bigger names than Rothschild anyway.
|
|
|
|
No, you are just assuming values of a metric while not totally understanding the various reasons that metric might be the way it is. My point was this is something that would result as a standard trading marketplace behavior where trust often has to go both ways. Through building that trust, as the system was actually intended to do, you are then more likely to understand the user and their interactions increasing their chances of being trustworthy.
When you add somebody to your trust list, it doesn't mean you (just) trust somebody with money. It means you trust they will leave proper feedback and will add the right users to their own trust list. If you'd trust somebody with money then leave positive trust. I'm just reading what I quoted. It's very clear. Probably we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But as you put it I am wrong, and by default you are right and your highness is above such discussions of their relations to the actual social dynamics of the forum relating to trust lists. You have fun with your finger wagging.
This kind of useless words are the ones I ask you to avoid using to interact with me and the ones I tend to ignore. I hope it's clear now. Again, you are only interested in your own definitions for what trust is and how it should be decided and totally ignoring the reality that some times (but not always) if some one is reputable in trade, that is to say they do what they say they will do when money is involved, it is representative of their ability to leave honest ratings. By you pretending this is invalid and wrong, yes, you are precisely telling me which metrics I should use to gauge trust and applying moral values to them. Keep wagging that finger your highness. |
|
|
|
|
IMO this belongs in scam accusations at this point, there is sufficient evidence of malpractice.
|
|
|
|
Additionally this kind of ranking doesn't take into account that people such as myself and OGNasty largely use the trust system AS IT WAS DESIGNED as a system to build trust networks for trade, and generally trading with people builds trust. WHO KNEW?
No. You're wrong. Trust list is designed to " List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists, one user per line" ( source). That is what the quote says yes, but who told you you get to define for me by what metric I make that choice? People build trust in all kinds of different ways.
No, you are just assuming values of a metric while not totally understanding the various reasons that metric might be the way it is. My point was this is something that would result as a standard trading marketplace behavior where trust often has to go both ways. Through building that trust, as the system was actually intended to do, you are then more likely to understand the user and their interactions increasing their chances of being trustworthy. But as you put it I am wrong, and by default you are right and your highness is above such discussions of their relations to the actual social dynamics of the forum relating to trust lists. You have fun with your finger wagging. |
|
|
|
Additionally this kind of ranking doesn't take into account that people such as myself and OGNasty largely use the trust system AS IT WAS DESIGNED as a system to build trust networks for trade, and generally trading with people builds trust. WHO KNEW?
No. You're wrong. Trust list is designed to " List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists, one user per line" ( source). Of course Loyce's list didn't include your favorite targets so, you made sure they were included and featured for their crimes.
I think this shows potential abuse and/or ignorance on how the list works. I'm not targeting anybody. I've listed the ones who modified the most their own trust, either intentionally or not. I am sure none of this has anything to to with people criticizing your exceptionally abusive pals atop the DT list
You're delusional. The people you acuse are not my "pals". I'm not commenting about who is abusive. That discussion is senseless and I prefer to avoid it. Do not interact with me about that. I won't reply to you regarding this anymore. Of course every one knows after being around almost a decade and being trusted with thousands in value trading with hundreds of users and still ranking below known con artists, abusers, and people I have never even heard of before is clear manipulation on my part  Trust is not the same as trust list. Again, you're wrong and/or delusional. It's really impossible to have a proper conversation with you so I prefer not to. I'll reply to you only if you post objectively, without sarcasm or attacks. That is what the quote says yes, but who told you you get to define for me by what metric I make that choice? People build trust in all kinds of different ways. I guess only your metrics matter and mine are all wrong. No, you aren't targeting anyone, especially the ones who would cause you issues right? Don't interact with you regarding that? How convenient you just get to summarily outlaw any kind discussion of VERY related subject matter because you prefer to avoid it. You are really on DT1 when you take that kind of attitude towards conflict? Just ignore it it will go away right? What ever you say your highness. |
|
|
|
Thanks for continuing the list while I was watching TV  *Excluded DT1 users. The third column shows the trust they would have if they weren't excluded.
You can't "blame" the excluded DT1s (entirely) for this based on my data. Take OgNasty for example: you say he'll have positive feedback from 47 more unique users, but he has only included 39 users who left him positive feedback, so that can't be right. When you exclude someone to see the difference, you see the differences on DT2. However, when you include someone, you put him at Depth 0, and you see not only his Depth 1 (which would be DT2 if the user is on DT1), but also his Depth 2 (which would be DT3 if the user is on DT1). So for the excluded DT1 users, you're effectively comparing their "would be" Trust score to DT3 instead of DT2. (I made a Personal Full Trust Depth viewer for all users to see the large recursive implications inclusions have.Additionally this kind of ranking doesn't take into account that people such as myself and OGNasty largely use the trust system AS IT WAS DESIGNED as a system to build trust networks for trade, and generally trading with people builds trust. WHO KNEW? Of course Loyce's list didn't include your favorite targets so, you made sure they were included and featured for their crimes. I am sure none of this has anything to to with people criticizing your exceptionally abusive pals atop the DT list. Of course every one knows after being around almost a decade and being trusted with thousands in value trading with hundreds of users and still ranking below known con artists, abusers, and people I have never even heard of before is clear manipulation on my part |
|
|
|
|
You seem to be in desperate need of validation, so I left you a merit. Hopefully this helps fill the hole in the pathetic empty blackness that is your life.
|
|
|
|
It appears Foxpup is still a merit source and the merits to Vod have not been reversed as of this moment.
Correct. I (and other merit sources) don't always agree with theymos, but I don't believe he wants us to, either. The whole point of the merit system and DT voting is for the community to collectively decide for itself what actions are appropriate, without having to appoint theymos as our benevolent dictator. If theymos has to intervene for every little disagreement, the experiment is a failure. If that is the case it was a failure the moment he introduced exclusions. |
|
|
|
Almost every website has restrictions on gift card sales. It is fraud central. Why then is not a thing done to prevent scams and fraud?
More moderators isn't necessarily a complete fix
Once again you are taking on the view point of "I don't trade in gift cards, so fuck anyone who does because banning it makes more room". Everything would be so simple if everyone simply just did everything you like and nothing you don't like right? I agree many sections of the forum are a mess, but just picking things to ban one by one is not a solution. |
|
|
|
This has everything to do with Vod and nothing to do with Bill Gator or OG.
My statement that you deemed "irrelevant" had nothing to do with any of those 3 people. Go back and read through the quoted posts for context. My reading comprehension is fine, your statement is irrelevant. This all began with an inexcusable action by Vod, the rest is just pathetic attempts at diversion from the cause of the conflict. |
|
|
|
I still support him anyways if that is his way getting removed from being a source then be it.
This only means that Vod isn't interested being at the top (that is what a real man does).
HAHAHAHAHAHAH. BTW you might want to wipe that brown from your nose. |
|
|
|
My point about statistics was just that living in fear of dogs is the same as living in fear of school shootings. If we were discussing the danger of living in the city, I would have chosen my phrasing more carefully.
I'm in a gun unfriendly area now, but I grew up out in the sticks where every kid went through hunters safety as a manner of coming of age tradition. I do think that the entire debate is moot, at least from the direction we are approaching it now. I think there are a few incorrect assumptions with thinking that everyone carrying guns is a good idea, but thats not super relevant. Funny enough, I was going to look up the statistics on the locations of school shootings just to have something to reference with my next thought, but I really couldn't find any that were reliable. Every list that I found included too many or too few details to actually be useful. I believe that school shooting locations have very little to do with state gun laws. Given that the data was inconclusive, it appears that both California and Texas are towards the top of the list for number of school shootings. Funny though, both states have massive populations and plenty of congested hell cities (cough Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, New York). I'm taking a blind guess at this, but I suppose Texas and California each probably account for ~10% of non snow related car crashes too, guess that makes them unsafe to drive in.
I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement that there is a correlation between over medication of children and incidents. Besides the obvious effect that antidepressants and such have strong side effects on adolescents, its another important indicator. Medication is not a treatment for mental health problems. There are very few cases where someone is just born with a chemical imbalance, and a pill just fixes that. Tossing someone a pill doesn't fix the problem, you need to get to the root of the problem or the pill doesn't do anything. I see the rate of medication as a sign that some parents are shirking the well being of their kids and ignoring critical warning signs that can evolve into mental health problems. I'm not saying that sad kids are the cause of all of our problems, we made it through the grunge era, but it definitely lends credence to my thoughts on dealing with mental health before anything else.
*edit* sorry missed your point about training. A handful of companies have tried the, "we aren't making anyone do anything, they are doing it of their own free will" defense, and it never seems to work out. Employees that don't want to volunteer are pressured into doing so because they become less job competitive. A guy who volunteers to work an extra 10 hours without being paid will have an advantage over the guy who doesn't volunteer, so when budget cuts come along, guess who's staying? As a result, the guy who doesn't want to volunteer will end up doing so. There are laws for this reason to keep employers from manipulating their employees into nonpaid overtime. Its been a major problem in transportation and medical fields.
Literally no one said everyone should be carrying guns. Also there is either a right to bear arms or not, if there is a government entity picking and choosing who can and can not own firearms then it is not a right any more is it? It becomes a privilege granted not a right implicit and exercised. There are a TON of sources here. Sorry not really buying your excuse that gun control laws do not have a counterproductive effect. California is clearly the most strict laws with some of the worst results. Texas though largely pro-gun has some very left leaning pro-gun control areas within its city centers. An interesting thing to note is a lot of these places are filled with the refugees from Commifornia. They move to other states and proceed to vote in all the same failed polices they just ran from. Another excellent example of this is Chicago, where as the state regulations are not super restrictive, but within Cook County the restrictions are exceptionally strict even on a nation wide level yet it has some of the highest crime and murder rates in the nation. In effect it is not a genuine examination of the regulations to only look at state level statues because localities and counties find ways to achieve this same counterproductive effect regardless. The same can be said for New York City and I am sure many other locations. Again regarding training, we are talking about certifying qualified individuals to assert their 2nd amendment rights at work or school (in the cases of higher ed). This does not necessitate some kind of entitlement to extra pay or occupational benefits, this is simply a matter of enabling trained and qualified citizens the ability to do so if they choose. All the other horse shit about special advantages and unpaid training is just a red herring attaching other frivolous stipulations unnecessarily. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
