Usagi sent me a personal message showing an offer to settle any dispute that a shareholder could have with him.

My notes:

a) I do not think Usagi deserves a scammer tag. I have been watching Usagi before Pirateat40 defaulted. This campaign of false accusations against Usagi was initiated by users like Eskimobob, Puppet, Deprived, etc. Usagi only decided to protect his business (thus his shareholders) when he requested a scammer tag for the users casting aspersions over him. No accusation against Usagi has been proven true, beyond doubt. Hence such accusations became evident for an organized campaign to defame Usagi's business.

b) Since Usagi is not a scammer and not a fraudster, there is no reason for Usagi to offer such generous settlements to his shareholders. Instead, it is the false accusers who should be offering a settlement to repair all damaged caused by them to Usagi's shareholders. But that is not what is happening. Usagi has already requested that the accusers present any remedy to settle the dispute. The false accusers have still not offered any remedy. They have demonstrated that they are not interested in any settlement. They want what they always wanted: Usagi with a scammer tag. Whatever offer is made to settle this endless campaign of false accusations, that will be eventually ignored. A new accusation will pop up without any evidence and the whole fiasco will continue until Usagi receives a scammer tag. The only way to stop this campaign is to threaten the false accusers with a scammer tag. The false accusers have a free pass to falsely accuse Usagi (and any other business) as much as they want. There is no retaliation against them by the forum administration. Moreover, two moderators have already demonstrated a complete lack of fair judgment regarding this situation. Therefore, I think Usagi has no obligation to offer any settlement to his shareholders because it was not him who decided to destroy his business. The false accusers are the ones who should be penalized with a scammer tag if they do not offer a remedy to stop the false accusations.

You beg me? What pity histrionic user you are...

I have no obligation to honor your demands, BCB.

If this situations is a "nightmare" for you, and you want 'this all go away', just leave. You are not being forced to accuse Usagi. It was your choice to indict Usagi, therefore is up to you to prove your claims are true. So far, Usagi have provided enough evidence which proves he did not defrauded any potential investor. Now is up to you assess the evidence and formulate a conclusion which proves the contrary.

Reductio ad absurdum

You are doing a demand over the belief that Usagi was already sentenced for the supposedly crimes he committed. That is not true. You are not an arbiter because you have already confessed personal bias and willful ignorance in this case. Therefore, Usagi remains only suspicious of the accusations you made against him.

Moreover, you are not aware of the principle of in dubio pro reo (presumption of innocence). That is why this case have lasted so long. Until you present an concise summary of irrefutable evidence to prove that Usagi is guilty of attempt of fraud, you have no recourse to qualify him guilty of a supposedly crime.


Your reputation had lost a great deal of value by now.


That is up to you. If you like to take part in defamation campaigns, no one will stop you.

Theymos,

Ignore BCB, he is completely biased and have show no capacity to evaluate the evidence presented. BCB have already admitted that he intentionally ignored Usagi responses. BCB is basing his judgment over the mere opinions of other users. As you may notice, there is an organized campaign against Usagi. BCB is basing his spurious conclusions over claims which were not proven true or genuine.

Please, consider the fact that all evidence presented to prove that Usagi did not INTENTIONALLY defraud his potential investors is being completely ignored by the accusers and by BCB. Notice that BCB just post some quotes without any explanation at all. Hence, you cannot reach a properly decision if you are not being informed of what exactly happened in the last three months.

BCB is begging for the tag because he put his reputation under scrutiny in the moment he embraced the case against Usagi. BCB knows that if you do not apply the tag, his reputation in the Bitcointalk forum will be forever damaged.

Finally, BCB became an accessory for a group of organized felons. The "community" which he talk about is not the Bitcointalk forum, but the users casting aspersion over Usagi.

BCB had proven to be an untrustworthy and unfair user to request the tag.

The events in discussion:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1225553#msg1225553


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1228703#msg1228703


http://kongzi.ca/BCB/misrepresent1/

---

Proofing the events (since I witnessed the events while in Brazil, the conversion is made from BRT to PST):

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=01%3A24%3A25+PM+BRT+27+September+2012+to+PST

1. Usagi publish the formula in a post: 9:24:25 am PDT  |  Thursday, September 27, 2012

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=01%3A35%3A21+PM+BRT+27+September+2012+to+PST

2. Puppet post accusing Usagi: 9:35:21 am PDT  |  Thursday, September 27, 2012

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10%3A22%3A00+AM+PDT+27+September+2012+to+PST

3. Usagi publish the formula in the spreedsheet: 10:22:00 am PDT  |  Thursday, September 27, 2012

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=01%3A55%3A42+PM+BRT+28+September+2012+to+PST

4. Vampire post accusing Usagi: 9:55:42 am PDT  |  Friday, September 28, 2012

---

Discussing the proven events:

To determine if the above evidence indicates that Usagi was lying (and trying to defraud his potential investors) it is essential to understand what the world "lie" means:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lie--2


If Usagi was really lying, there must be an intention to produce a 'false statement'. The primary evidence used in the accusation against Usagi is a spreadsheet formula used to inform potential investors of the fund's NAV (Net Asset Value). So, in accordance with the definiton of "lie" and the primary evidence provided, the accusation is based on the premise that Usagi defrauded his investors with the incorrect use of a formula.

Vampire claimed that Usagi was lying because Usagi used the term "average", and not "max of two averages". This implies that Usagi was trying to trick the investors into believing that he was using a formula calculating "average" and not "max of two averages". However, in the event 2 and 4, there is no mention of which correct formula Usagi should use. Usagi did not change the formula in the event 1 and 3. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that the formula was at no time manipulated.

Vampire and Puppet had not demonstrated Usagi's intention to produce a 'false statement'. Puppet did not indicate what should be the correct formula. Vampire merely made a question insinuating that the statement was incorrect, not the formula. Neither produced any evidence to determine the correct formula.

So it is obvious that Usagi did not attempt to defraud any potential investors. That would only be possible if Usagi had consecutively advertised the formula as "average" and not "max of two averages" after the event 1. Moreover, if Usagi had the intention to defraud his investors, he would change the formula from "max of two averages" to "average" to fit his supposedly 'false statement' in the evidence 1. That, of course, is  NOT what happened. The evidence 1 and 3 indicates that Usagi had already planned to use his formula before Puppet and Vampire accused him of attempting fraud in the event 2 and 4.

---

Comparing the proven events with other claims:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.msg1425098#msg1425098


BCB claimed that the event 4 is 'evidence of a' "cover up" of 'agreements' and 'statements'.

The evidence provided in the event 1 is one of the alleged statements. This is a priori from the fact that Vampire claimed that Usagi was advertising a false formula to defraud potential investors:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1367800#msg1367800


However, Vampire's claim was never proven to be true. Usagi did not change the planned formula after the supposedly false statement. So whatever posts Usagi deleted, it was not evidence of fraud, but statements which users used to falsely accuse Usagi.

---

Conclusion

The evidence shows that Usagi committed a mistake when he proposed the NAV formula. Then Puppet attempted to use the mistake to accuse Usagi of falsifying the NAV results to defraud investors. After realizing his mistake, Usagi did not persiste in the error and edited the spreadsheet to demonstrate his honest intentions. Later along came Vampire with another false accusation, claiming that Usagi was intentionally defrauding the potential investors to believing the NAV formula was showing "average", not "max of two averages". After this, Usagi deleted all his posts. However, Puppet and Vampire did not prove what would be the correct formula. They also did not determine how Usagi intentionally defrauded the investors.

Therefore Usagi did not defraud any potential investor with his formula.

Hence, the events prove that Puppet and Vampire were casting aspersions on Usagi.

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?


Let me understand, you are saying that I accused you to posses an 'evil/bad/harmful' weapon because users are arguing for the benefits of gun control?

At no moment I even came near to suggest that.

Let me remind you the premise from organofcorti: 'Sure. But if you didn't own a gun, you wouldn't feel safe.'

This is your premise: 'I don't believe that is generally true.  It's certainly not true for myself.  I've never felt unsafe, before or after owning firearms. All my firearms spend the vast majority of their time locked in a rather large safe, because they are valuable. The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I don't hunt, myself.(...) and the rifle is the king of personal weapons.  I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that.'

My observation: 'Then, because you do not hunt (and therefore, you do not kill), you can safely transfer back to you the moral conduct and avoid any criticism. In other words, when your premise can become target of criticism you assign your conduct to the firearm, when your premise cannot become target of criticism you do not assign your conduct to the firearm.'

I did not said that you "has done something illegal or wrong", even less that you firearms are 'evil/bad/harmful'. I am showing off how you act in the debate to avoid criticism. You even proclaimed that a weapon is 'the king of personal weapons'.

So, yourself assigned human or moral qualities to the firearms, not me.

Get it over!


Ad hominem is your preferred logical fallacy? There was not a misunderstanding.


You indeed made an attempt to justify your firearm ownership: 'The military culture was not for me either, but I do enjoy shooting, and also understand that the judicious use of force is a cornerstone of civilization; and the rifle is the king of personal weapons. I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that. Many of those here that defend the personal ownership of weaponry are also sheepdogs.'




This is a forum, do you know that? There is a debate going on here. At no moment I demanded you to present any justification to approve your right to own a firearm. You presented yourself a justification why you own a firearm and I made an observation of your premises.

I said: 'So far I made an observation of how you justify your intent to use the firearms you own.'

You said: 'The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I do have a concealed carry license, but rarely carry at all.  I have the weapons, and the license, in the event that I ever do feel that I should need to carry.'

You implied that you have the intent to shooting at papers to entertain yourself. You are showing "to be right or reasonable" your intent to use the firearms you own.




Oh, you are in the debate, but I am not? So the "sheepdog" metaphor is just a joke?


Really? So you are just fooling around?

'I'm not anti-gun because I joined the USMC at 17, partialy out of rebellion to my childhood.'



I still have the right to criticize your actions and arguments in this forum. Do you have a problem with that?



An article with self-prediction elements... How pathetic. I should write one of these one day and then use in a debates here:


Hilarious: 'On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior.'

By the way, do not think the entire existence of the article is valid to support your analogy. You did not even bothered to present the relevant quotes.


There is no such thing of 'practical utilization of your rights'.

I do not require your approval to honor rights which you pretend I have. You are not in a position to dictate what rights I have.


I said: 'I am comfortable with this lack of right because it is not just applied over me.'

So from this premise, you made a whole straw man argument.

How funny you are!

I still have the right of self-defense and I voluntary agree with society that men and women in uniforms can protect me.

You know what is really funny?

'You might not like the idea that we are around, but we are necessary for your peaceful society to continue to exist; whether or not we may be wearing a uniform.'

So, what is what, Moonshadow? Is the individual entitled or not entitled to feel 'safe and protected by the uniformed sheepdogs'?


Of course I understand! I am full aware that a civilian society cannot be fully disarmed!

By the way, do you like to imitate a sheep often?


Well, I did not admitted that. Moreover, I still can argue with basic knowledge about a subject.


Wow.. Now at least you presented logical explanations for simple questions.

I am glad for your choices and for your knowledge of firearms.

Well done.

Or you are just mocking me?

You are right. I misinterpreted your post. I recognize that my reading  comprehension failed. I became very emotional with the subject and I unnecessarily called you an idiot. I am sure you had the best intentions when you offered your arguments. I therefore offer my apologies.

Notice that user, deprived, always trying to control the discussion with his long and boring posts when the subject can affect him. Anyone reading the securities subsection will find him there, inserting himself in every discussion where Usagi participates. If you spot Usagi in a thread, there is a great chance that deprived will follow to 'demonstrate here again that you just don't understand it'!

But it is not just that. A read in Deprived last posts is a good exercise to understand how he cleverly try to induce readers to follow his instructions. There is not one single post of deprived that a subtle command has not being given. There are always a 'you can', 'you need', 'you will', etc. in his texts.

Deprived has been constantly indicting Usagi in the last three months. Deprived and the organized felons did not save words to produce a massive amount of clueless accusations against Usagi. The consequences are very harmful not only for Usagi, but for this forum.

Evidence? Try to read this and then come back to this post. If you are able to digest that, then you will perhaps understand what I am talking about.

It is impossible to determine any meaningful information in that amount of false accusations. It became a confusing puzzle of words. It is a situation where there is no escape for Usagi. The whole thing became a "snow ball".

The administration of this forum did not intervened when was necessary. Moderators were exceeding biased against Usagi. Their lack of properly response let the organized felons push the "snow ball" further down against Usagi. No one in the forum administration/moderation acted with the necessary authority to avoid the consequences.

Now 2012 is coming to a end. Bitcointalk became a den for fraudsters and people conniving at financial criminal activities. The scam accusation section, out of control, became the stage for users come and play their emotional drama and falsely accuse other users.

No, you literally used 'they' as pronoun for the noun 'firearm', not 'who utilizes my firearms'

'All my firearms (...) their (...), because they (...). they are (...) I (...).'


(Thank you Myrkul, I stand corrected. I am glad that you agreed to use a dictionary for the purpose it was originally designed.)


I beg your pardon, but what are you talking about? What is exactly the accusation?

So far I made an observation of how you justify your intent to use the firearms you own.


Yes, a tool specially designed to kill.


Of course a tool do not have moral capacity. That is why your premise is misleading.


The tool you own was designed to kill. It was not design to merely shoot at papers or rest in locked safes.


Argument ad hominem...

What a shame coming from you, Moonshadow.


"Sheepdogs" are more dangerous to a "sheep" society than would be the "wolves". There are "sheepdogs" to protect people from other "sheepdogs". Not all "sheepdogs" are really protecting the "sheep" society.


A society only made of "sheepdogs" would eventually lead to a "sheepdog" war. Peace and lack of violence is an aspect of a "sheep" society, not an aspect of a "sheepdog" society. A society only made of "wolves" would result in almost self-extinction. No "sheep", no food. "Wolves" are know for attack their own specie to survive. A society only made of "sheep" would result in lack of technical progress, which could endanger the survival of the specie.

What will likely to happen is that a "sheep" society will always choose their "sheepdogs" because there will be always other "sheepdogs" and "wolves" threatening the welfare of the "sheep" society.


That is true.

So why do you think your right to own a firearm should never be refused (or prevented) by the society where you live?


No, I do not have the right to own a firearm in the society where I live.

I am comfortable with this lack of right because it is not just applied over me.


So, you also own the firearms to efficiently defend yourself from an physical threat posed by a living entity (kill the attacker before it harms or kill you)? Why did you choose firearms? The main purpose of the firearm design was a factor in your choice? How efficient is your tool of self-defense against living entities? Did you regarded non-lethal weapons to exercise your right to own a firearm?

^

You also  do not "win" an argument ad nauseum, which is exactly what you are doing. Usagi have already explained to you why you are wrong and why he did not made what you think he made. You are deliberately denying his explanations and insisting on misinterpret him. At this point, with no evidence and no victims, your arguments do not hold any water.

Myrkul, you should suggest this to yourself due your constantly subversion of established concepts. A dictionary was not designed to merely display words and numbers, but to inform readers of correct definitions. It main purpose is to preserve the meaning of the words, not to rest in a shelf. You should try one, it will not hurt you.

No, 'they' do not because 'they' are not 'they', but "it". Like Myrkul, you are assigning a human quality to an inanimate object (pathetic fallacy)

You are trying to free yourself from criticism by transferring the moral conduct from yourself to the firearm. So, to avoid criticism, you typed 'the rest of the time, they are shooting at paper', which implies the intention to shoot at papers come from the firearm and not from you. Then, because you do not hunt (and therefore, you do not kill), you can safely transfer back to you the moral conduct and avoid any criticism. In other words, when your premise can become target of criticism you assign your conduct to the firearm, when your premise cannot become target of criticism you do not assign your conduct to the firearm.


A "sheep" society can exist without "sheepdogs". The "sheepdog" is not an essential element for the "sheep" society to exist. Your analogy is based on the false premise that without "sheepdogs", a "sheep" society would cease to exist. This is untrue and do not serve as argument to justify the right to own a gun for personal use.


That is the only part where you properly justify your right to own a gun.

It is reasonable to own a gun to enjoy shoot at papers?

Yes, its is quite reasonable.

It is reasonable to own a gun because a "sheep" society could not exist without a "sheepdog" shooting at papers?

No, it is quite unreasonable and fallacious.

Wow... A delusional user agreeing with another very delusional user.

This is beyond stupid and it is quite funny!

There is not such thing as 'morally neutral' tools as there is not such thing as "morally right" or "morally wrong" tools. This is a pathetic fallacy. You are assigning a human quality to an inanimate object. It is not the object itself which determines principles for proper conduct (or rather how principles for proper conduct should be), but the action performed with the object.

Moreover, no one is contesting that the final user do not determine the use of (or his purpose to use) the firearm. You are arguing that guns (which includes firearms) are not designed to kill and only the final user determines the main purpose of the design. The premise of your argument is false because you are denying the intent of the designer.

By the way, where is the reference for the statistics you published?

Yes, I agree, it is too easy do not take part in the debate and then mock people without present any meaningful argument. I am inclined to think that 'in the gun debate' you are both more stupid than Myrkul. If you have anything substantial to debate rather than the thread question, you are welcome to present it as you wish.

No... No, I am not pissed off. If I did not enjoyed what I am doing, I would not participate in the debate or reply to you both.

The discussion is about REAL weapons, not FICTIONAL weapons. If bows were not designed to kill, for what purpose bows were designed for? Which results the bow designer intended to obtain with an arrow thrown from his invention?


You are confusing the purpose of the designer with the purpose of the final user. These are two different subjects. The purpose of the final user does not determine the purpose of the designer (or the purpose of the design). Most of all firearms were invented (and are invented) to kill. In other words, the intention of the final user have no influence over the intention of the designer. The purpose of the designer come first than the purpose of the final user.




'A plan produced to show the function of a bullet, for which something is done' to 'gives great killing power to the bullet when the latter is used for hunting game and the like.'


You are again confusing the intent of the final user with the intent of the designer. These projectiles were designed for a specif purpose which is determined by the final user, not by the designer.

e.g.

Paintball guns were invented to NOT kill. The purpose of the weapon design is to mark the target with paint. If a paintball gun ammo is invented to kill, the main purpose of the weapon design will not change. Paintball guns are weapons designed to NOT kill. The purpose of the designer come first than the purpose of the final user.

By the way, I am not arguing that most firearms are only useful to kill. I am arguing that most firearms were (and are) specially designed to kill. That is the main purpose of the firearm design. As the final user intent have no influence over the designer intent, the designer intent also have no influence over the final user intent. Thus the final user is free to employ the firearm for whatever purpose he/she deem necessary.

In accordance with what reference?

The number of bullets fired by a firearm do not change the main purpose of the firearm design. Hence bullets were designed to increase the firearm killing power, even if was necessary to waste a hundred bullets in one single shot. Machine guns were extensively used (and designed) in the Second World War due its high killing power, not due its capacity to waste bullets.

Mauzer K98, Sten Gun, MP44, MG42, M1 Garand, Grease Gun, Walther P38, TT-31, DP-27, STV-40, etc. All designed to kill, whatever number of bullets were necessary.


Yes, firearms are designed to perform a task, 'only kill for their intended purpose'.

So, why you like to delude yourself by denying the primary design purpose of firearms (including bullets) is to kill since it have been invented?

Wait? Let me guess what will be your next argument? Bows were only designed to throw arrows?


I do not see any statics in your post.

You are implying that firearms were designed to hit targets eventually and because of that, killing power was not regarded by the designer. In accordance with your logic, hand grenades are not designed to kill, but only to disperse fragments able to penetrate human flesh in all directions. If the fragments fail to kill the target, this means the hand grenade was not designed to kill.

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US1512026?printsec=abstract


http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power.htm


http://www.ncmuseumofhistory.org/collateral/articles/f06.david.carbine.williams.pdf

---

The decision of pull the trigger is not what determine the primary purpose of the weapon design, therefore your statement is fallacious (and stupid, as you like to be).


What statistics are you talking about? Did you not know that a vast number of people died in the Second Word War from firearm shots?

Good suggestion! I enjoyed the article. I just disagree with the word "God". Readers can confuse the meaning of "God" with the bible god, Jehovah. I would replace the word "God" with the word "deity" (or "deities").

For people really interested to learn where philosophy come from and why it will never reject the concept of the state, I recommend the old and classic Aristotle:

Miller, Fred, "Aristotle's Political Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/aristotle-politics/

Thank you blablahblah for the transcription. It made me laugh a lot! Just an idiot would state that 'purpose of philosophy has been in general to serve evil' and then praise itself as a popular source of philosophy in the Internet:

http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdf



World population: 6,973,738,433

Freedomain Radio subscribers: 52,901

Stefan Molyneux have already convinced 0.000758574% of the human society that 'statist and religious ethical theories' will be rejected by the human society. So now he just needs to convince the another 99.999241426% of the human society to reject their 'statist and religious ethical theories'.