Another Rarity's sockpuppet: Name: Jimmy Diamond
Posts: 6
Position: Jr. Member
Date Registered: 24-10-2012, 05:24:28
Last Active: 26-10-2012, 17:03:21 Rarity is trying to link the user Dank with her/his banned account: Economy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations > Scammer: Dankhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117590.msg1300018#msg1300018How many accounts does this rarity person have?
I'd be more interested in knowing how many accounts dank has. 2. Isn't that the same number of depositors your 'bank' has? Dank Bank has had 8. I think anyone with a brain cell knows which other account is mine. I have no idea which other account is Dank's. I have at least one brain cell. Therefore, Dank is lying again. In all reality, I just don't care enought to try to figure out who else is Dank. The classic sockpuppet behavior... Other > Meta > [To Theymos] Why was Goat banned?https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=120102.msg1299978#msg1299978Banning Goat was clearly the act of an administrator abusing his power to shut down someone who disagreed with him about GLBSE. If Theymos is going to be unable to moderate around his biases, he should not moderate discussions about himself. If I stop posting on these forums soon, it means I was banned for pointing this out too.
And he has not posted since. |
|
|
|
I banned that person before you posted this.  That is what I call a quick shot!  |
|
|
|
I know some of these threads have very lengthy replies, so it'd be nice to have [spoiler]Stuff[/spoiler] tags. This way you could hide rather large posts to be expanded upon a click. Many other forums already implement this. Anyone agree with me?
I agree. That would be very useful for users which like to insert a considerable quantity of information in one single post. |
|
|
|
Rarity's sockpuppet: Name: MiloSmith
Posts: 23
Position: Jr. Member
Date Registered: 14-10-2012, 00:13:30
Last Active: Today at 17:56:28 This user produced irrelevant posts in the newbie section and immediately started to post in the next threads: Economy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations > Scammer: Dankhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117590.msg1290469#msg1290469Yes, Rarity was clearly right. It's somewhat inexplicable dank has escaped the scammer tag here. (...)
(...) A scam attempt, clearly. That he has not received the tag is baffling to me. It is also baffling that he is allowed to derail this serious discussion with discussions of spiritual healing and drugs while the wronged party is apparently being mocked by individuals such as Psy for some reason. Economy > Marketplace > Lending > Long-term offers > International Karmic Bitcoin Bank of Ponyville- Free Toasters! 10% weekly!https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119703.msg1290492#msg1290492(...)
I am posting here as the newest investor of 250 BTC at the request of Mr. Von Pahnzi to talk about my experience with the karmic interview and to assure everyone that it is a positive and enlightening experience that I am sure you will find assures you of the spiritual and financial compatibility with the Pony Bank.
Other > Meta > Censorship on Bitcointalkhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118154.msg1290539#msg1290539You have zero evidence Rarity is a troll, only speculation. Rarity appears to me to be a fan of Bitcoin and a long time member here who never trolled. This "Something Awful" site is behind a paywall, the only way you could possibly see what is happening there is if you yourself are a member. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118154.msg1293174#msg1293174I think it's kind of ironic some of the obvious excuses trotted out to ban Rarity have tripped all over themselves and become nonsense.
For instance, it has been suggested that Rarity should be banned because his request to have the written agreement he made with dank honored was considered a "mockery" and that he should be banned because he is a "Something Awful" troll.
(...)
I am an SA member, joined to get to the bottom of this, and the truth is that Dank is the actual SA troll in this situation. He has even admitted it, though there is no such evidence for Rarity aside from speculation.
If any of these excuses aimed at Rarity were true and just reasons to ban, he would still be here and the real SA troll who mocks our proud scammer tag tradition would be gone.
Economy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations > Nefariohttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115669.msg1291078#msg1291078As it was organized, it was an illegal securities trading market. Generally, the government isn't going to care about the company rules involved when they are deciding who will go to jail. That's one of the drawbacks with illegal business, hard to get the government to enforce your contracts. Other > Off-topic > [To Theymos] Why was Goat banned?https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=120102.msg1293123#msg1293123The censorship is getting absolutely out of control, you need to be aware that by posting this question you are at risk of being banned. Check out here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118154.0User Rarity was banned for criticizing Theymos. Dancing Dan posted a thread asking for discussion about this and was banned for it as well. The Iron Curtain is falling on Bitcointalk, we must all watch what we say around Dear Leader Theymos and his Central Committee of yes-men. If I stop posting on these forums soon, it means I was banned for pointing this out too. |
|
|
|
We get it, let's go back to the real issue here since Dan is no longer with us.
Dancing Dan has raised some serious questions. Instead of answering them, the moderators pointed to a site hidden behind a paywall and banned him for it. I can't think of any better confirmation that he was right about this all along.
Wait... Dancing Dan was banned as well? GOOD RIDDANCE, Dan!  |
|
|
|
Of course you disagree, and you should not be criticized for defending yourself or a fellow poster from false accusations as you are doing with Rarity. False. I only presented evidence to substantiate the moderators decision to ban Rarity. The name Zhou Tong was in the title, you don't get to pretend it was not about him. You are being dishonest and absurd, the discussion assumed his guilt and was examining his psychology. Read the thread. Irrelevant. The unnecessary posts in question were pointing out the need for moderation of death threats. You can't find any real examples because they don't exist. The posts are the evidence which you required and now you are ignoring. A request for evidence is not a claim. False. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/claim?q=claimDefinition of claim
1 [reporting verb] state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof: We should discuss the chilling effects of long time user Rarity being banned for questioning Theymos in the scam accusations forum. Theymos may feel he is totally innocent in his role as a partner and officer with GLBSE but on a forum which depends on free speech for its value it is quite disturbing that this is the method used when the head administrator is questioned. The conflict of interests between Theymos' role with GLBSE and his role as overseer of the moderators on this forum who are judging scam accusations against his company has come to a point where it cannot be ignored when critics are being silenced. Theymos should step down as administrator on Bitcointalk at least until this matter is resolved. Even if totally innocent, the appearance of impropriety in this case is stark. You did a claim with no requests for any evidence. Further, when evidence was provided, you ignored. |
|
|
|
I only got 90% - this is quite unacceptable. NYSE can't just take 10% of your money randomly. It took ~ 5hrs from email to partial refund for me. Finally, something showed up in my wallet. What a relive. I have received partial payout - 41 BTC.
I received that 90% payment message yesterday, and approximately 5 hours after receiving the email the BTC indeed showed up on the blockchain (about 44 BTC). received 17btc, too round a number to be the correct amount.
received 90% of my bitcoins along with a mail.
Please, post the ID transaction to prove your claims! |
|
|
|
Interview With GLBSE’s James McCarthy / Nefariohttp://bitcoinmagazine.net/interview-with-glbses-nefario/Last week, the Global Bitcoin Stock Exchange, for a long time the leading investment platform in the Bitcoin economy, suddenly and unexpectedly shut down. There has been much speculation about what has happened, as GLBSE founder James McCarthy (Nefario) maintained relative silence on the Bitcoin forums, and fears multiplied that government law enforcement agencies were behind the shutdown. Just like in the Bitcoinica case, there is also a substantial sum of Bitcoin deposits stored with the site, and so thousands of Bitcoin users around the world have a significant financial stake in the matter. In this interview, McCarthy will discuss the reasons behind the GLBSE’s shutdown, the historical background to the disagreement with his former business partner and currently most vocal opponent Theymos, and his perspective on the legality of Bitcoin services as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Wrong. The contract doesn't specify exclusivity. And who are you? What is your business or personal relationship with usagi?
The contract does not specify the non-exclusive arbitrators. So the exclusivity is implicit. If it was not, the contract would describe what other kind of arbitrators would be allowed to resolve the dispute. About who I am: do your homework. Google is your friend. |
|
|
|
5)Yes, we are negotiating an alternative payment plan. I posted notice of this soon after it began in this thread. The fact that we are negotiating an alternative payment plan does not mean that you have not defaulted on your obligation, nor that you and I have come to any agreement over an alternative payment plan, nor that we ever will. The conditions by which you deserve a scammer tag are still present.
Did you place a request in the judge.me Internet page to settle the dispute before you opened this thread? If you did not, you are violating a contract and you have already left enough evidence here which demonstrates this, starting with your first post. I ask for Usagi to receive a scammer tag until S²CM receive its principal and due interest or we have come to some agreeable alternative.
|
|
|
|
good question. i'm not sure i even have the wallet out of which the original 800 BTC or so came out of. he was selling Ubitex shares for 1BTC/share. i sold a few shares to take it down to 750 BTC or so that i remember initially. this was last year somewhere around May before the ramp to $32 when the price was around $5-6. nefario mediated the tx. that's how i got to know him. nefario's a decent guy with the right intentions but just not a good businessman.
the funds went into cuddlefish's personal acct which he supposedly held for Ubitex. several of us got fleeced; boonies4U, noagendamarket, Lightrider are the ones i remember off hand. i suppose i could go back and dig it out if it was important.
I read few posts regarding the "14 years old" boy behind the Ubitex fiasco. It would be interesting to know what happened with the funds you sent. |
|
|
|
Looks like a chain to me.
Well done, Stochastic. I can confirm that as well. The funds are coming from a payment chain. That is accurate. I confirmed with the main address taint analysis the address used in the payment chain: http://blockchain.info/taint/19ZQjwkHxn2BZpDLGZv6pmfGWQYpqkLvAL?reversed=trueBranch Address Taint Count
1N8ebzoMdfDHqUCDQB446Cuvux5iiDMaM4 0% 2
1MASgWqCaC5VtJjQx34SFzREL32L5cmWNq 0% 2
1JveA1VLm8NCovet8r9eDccyHqsGFHafRv 0% 2 This are address present in the transactions indicated by Namworld, Bogart and jarsumarsu. |
|
|
|
What is the ID transaction of the stolen funds? |
|
|
|
What does that prove?
If I want to claim I've received some funds I can just lookup any transaction in the blockchain and post it here.
The transaction is going to be compared with others transactions to verify if it is legitimate or not. Moreover, it quite unlikely to users to produce claims of Bitcoins which they never received. The falsified claim does not entitle the user to receive any additional Bitcoins. There is no incentive to pretend that you received few Bitcoins from GLBSE. |
|
|
|
|
Please, post the transactions IDs to proof the claims. That is the only way to verify and legitimate payment claims.
|
|
|
|
Yes, that is the best I can do right now. Yes, I know the actual month is October. Of course it's the best you can do. Nothing has happened recently to justify a banning. Something happened or the ban would not happen. Rarity actions provoked the ban. Moreover, the decision to ban an user is not based only on recent events. No, "we" do not know for a fact, except if you are the Rarity user or the forum administrator. I would guess the first. Or, I can see that she has continued to post uninterrupted by looking at the post history? You are embarrassing yourself. Since you referred to me as "we", I only explained that I do not know for a fact that Rarity was banned. I do not follow his/her annoying posts. The discussion in question was not to label Zhou Thong as a scammer. Moreover, Rarity was not discussing Zhou Thong's innocence since there was not enough evidence to prove Zhou Thong guilty of any crime. Therefore, the interest of Rarity was only to create a false image of the situation by producing misleading statements and making false claims. That is why I cited "psychological warfare" in one of my off topic posts. So the only aspect which the moderators agreed with was that Rarity and others users were producing unnecessary posts in the thread.
The discussion in question assumed his guilt: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95953.0The "discussion" is not a person to assume guilty or innocence. The users participating in the discussion had different assumptions and no conclusion was made. "The psychology of a con-man" presumes he is a con-man. If someone were to post a thread titled: "augustocroppo: the psychology of a child rapist murderer" I think we can all agree it would be okay to point out the false premise without getting banned. No, "we" cannot. I am not you and I do not agree with your assertion. It is quite misleading. If there was no reason or evidence to initiate the discussion, I would agree on a false premise. But this was not the case. What you think regarding this forum is not what the administrators and moderators think. Hence, what you think what this forum "wants to stand for" is irrelevant.
I understand that the every user in the Bitcointalk forum is allowed to discuss whatever they wish, including Psychoanalysis or Scientology, if is done in the right section, of course. So if you agree that Rarity was willing to discuss such a matter, you are in agreement that Rarity was producing a discussion in the wrong section. I have already presented the evidence which demonstrates that Rarity was trying to discuss a subject completely different from the initial post.
Psychology was a subject of the post, and I am not aware of any moderator action against Rarity in that instance. It appears you are the one in disagreement with the moderators on that. No, "psychology" was not the subject, neither was regulated markets. The psychology of a con man was the subject. Just because the thread tittle have the psychology word, it does not mean the subject was about psychology. Moreover, lack of moderation is not absence of evidence. No, Rarity was misinterpreting comments from other users to divert the main subject of the thread, as I have proved in my above post. No, if you follow the thread you will see that a moderator did in fact take action against mlawrence for the death threats he posted. Again, you are the one out of touch with the moderators. Irrelevant. The subject in discussion is Rarity unnecessary posts. Only because mlawrence was moderated, it does not mean Rarity did not made misleading statements. So, you, still unhappy with the answer, demanded specific evidence, which the answer of a moderator already granted to you: As the problem here is moderator bias of course moderators can be expected to deny it. A moderator presented a false quote and has been unable to point to any specific thread as evidence. There is simply no Casus belli present for the recent banning which is why every moderator has refused to point to the phantom posts that caused it. It was about Theymos, unless a moderator can point to any evidence otherwise and so far they have not. There is not any problem here. Bias is not an issue and the moderators have already admitted they are biased. No false quotes were produced by any moderator. Just because the reasons for the banning were not disclosed, this does not count as evidence for your claims. So, you started the thread making a false claim with no evidence. Still waiting for a moderator to point out the posts that caused the banning. All we have so far if a very confused user pointing to July. Your claim still remains false and with no evidence to support it. |
|
|
|
let me make one other point. what you see at the beginning of the thread is everything i said. i only had to repost one comment and its clear which one that was. so what you're seeing now is a complete picture of everything. just how bad is it? i'd say except for the "shitty" comment, not too bad at all. what you see is what was banished here to Meta solely b/c hazek can't take the slightest bit of criticism.
It is very bad. You do not have appropriate arguments to support your endless ranting. E.g., since you have this crave for attention, you have to spam useless posts in another thread: I now see I made a big mistake and should have never assumed it is either alright or fair to retroactively set local rules after posts have already been made and apply those rules to those posts.
I apologize to everyone affected by my actions.
WTF? i just found this thread. and you two guys have the temerity to justify your actions of censoring my posts with the ad hominem of "off topic"? You fail to comprehend why moderation is necessary and you do not know the meaning of "ad hominem": http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.htmlOne of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. my gaud man, its so refreshing to have someone posting reasonable shit here. i've never ventured into these part of the woods until i got banished here and man is it depressing.
yeah, i feel like i'm on Mars or somethin'. oops, better get back "on topic" bashing hazek or else i might get my comments "split off" and moved to somewhere i can't find myself. You sound quite pathetic and your English writing skill is terrible. (This is not an "ad hominem". I am not trying to undermine any argument... You have none.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
