Yes, because that quote link was manually entered. Try to "quote" via the quote button a post that has been deleted - SMF won't pull it up. I originally had generic quote tags around it and had to go back and add who it was from, since it wouldn't make any sense otherwise within the context, AFTER Garr reposted the same text. Here's the original quote HTML: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=post;quote=2517632;topic=236794.80;num_replies=92;sesc=*removed* And the original post link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236794.msg2517632#msg2517632 Now go test it for yourself, post a message, pull it up in a browser, delete it and then try to quote it. You'll get nothing and you'll have to do it manually. As in the other thread, I'll even let Maged remote into my machine and examine the still open browser window. Hmm... I guess that makes sense. We'll hold back on that for now. In that case, the only thing remaining to put in a verification request is to determine that a scam took place, assuming the post is real. I'd like to see more arguments on that. |
|
|
|
Would only take a few min to verify if Werner was Garret, the forums have logs, you can see post deletions, which would have been required to change the owner of post #93 at 1371628652 in the Inaba screenshot. Yes, we can check the contents of post 2517632. However, the question now is whether we should. Is it ethical for us to do that, especially giving the evidence against Inaba? I honestly don't know. |
|
|
|
To all of you that seem concerned about Garr using a sockpuppet account: I was refreshing this thread constantly when Inaba accused Garr of using a sockpuppet account to post and I never saw that happen. I think Inaba photoshopped the image he used. Think about it a minute. Who constantly snap screenshots so fast that they could catch a posting that couldn't have been here for more than a few seconds. +1 There's enough evidence here suggesting that the quote and screenshot are fake that, if I were theymos, I would deny any request regarding the authenticity of the post. |
|
|
|
Holy shit. There's actually enough information here to open an investigation on Inaba. The quote tags were edited, and the screenshot appears fake. I think QuestionAuthority might be right: Quote from: Inaba on Today at 02:58:55
Quote
I did not request a refund. If you refund me, I expect the full amount of BTC I paid to be refunded. If you are able to do this I will gladly take my business elsewhere, because believe it or not you have competition now
You'll get the full amount you paid in USD, since that's how our products are priced.
As a point of fact, you did request a refund, let me quote you:
Quote
but your business operations and ethic are both unacceptable.
You find them unacceptable, I understand. We will cut ties and move on and you no longer have to deal with the unacceptable (to you) business nature. We do not want to force you into a position where you are must deal with an unacceptable situation, so we are removing that roadblock from your happiness. I'm done here, your refund will be processed by COB tomorrow.
I think you're misunderstanding my logic. Take Apple Computer for example. A company that produces an admittedly good product, but not in the most ethical way. I am open about how they shouldn't employ FoxConn for their assembly etc, but they do it anyway, and I live with it.
My intentions are not to anger anyone, or disrupt my business relationship with BFL. I just want to promote honesty, and discourage the opposite.
Give me truth and I'll give you peace. Most people think that's simple enough. Hahaha... post with the wrong sock puppet account there, sport? Epic! *EDIT* - For those of you who may have missed it, Garr just accidentally posted with his Werner account and then deleted the post and reposted with Garr when he realized he screwed up. I was refreshing this thread every 30 seconds to not miss any of this juicy garbage and I didn't see that. I think you're smoking something. |
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, that's pretty awesome  |
|
|
|
Dear Mods, this is what BFL/Josh thinks about us: ... I tried to be nice and I wanted to help you and you give me all sorts of shit and accusations. This is why we no longer give a shit about this forum; Everyone here is monumental assholes, no matter how accommodating one tries to be.
Meh. Sounds about right, actually... |
|
|
|
|
Have you tried using an older Bitcoin version? Many alt-coins live in the past, so that could explain why they work, but Bitcoin doesn't.
|
|
|
|
OP, I have your money please message me when you're available. I've been busy with other things.
PM me when this is resolved and I'll remove my negative trust rating. |
|
|
|
Late last year I promised Josh that I will donate $100 toward a charity of his or BFL's choice (without them having to put anything) once they start delivering ASIC-based bitcoin miners, of which they have. Later, prior to them delivering, I upped it to $200. None of this is in dispute.
I'm still trying to understand - why did you say you would do this? When I made the offer, it was from the kindness of my heart without any ill-intent intended. Basically, you can even call it a bride to hopefully have BFL ship out quicker. That's the best way I can put it. No other real back story to it. Thanks! In that case, here's how I see it: They didn't ship quickly, and they didn't seem to have been very encouraged by this bet at all. In that case, no tag is necessary here. I'm open to different interpretations, though. |
|
|
|
|
The moderation team is trained to not depend on IP addresses. If someone reports that a user might be a known scammer, we can determine whether or not that is true without the IP address.
|
|
|
|
Late last year I promised Josh that I will donate $100 toward a charity of his or BFL's choice (without them having to put anything) once they start delivering ASIC-based bitcoin miners, of which they have. Later, prior to them delivering, I upped it to $200. None of this is in dispute.
I'm still trying to understand - why did you say you would do this? |
|
|
|
Also, it is easy enough to quote and delete out the layers of quotes you don't want. Takes like 3 seconds when you make your posts.
Exactly. I do it all the time when the nested quotes aren't needed for context. |
|
|
|
|
What, exactly, was the charity bet about? Context is necessary, here. From the limited context in this thread, it's looking like he does deserve a negative trust. I can't really give a proper explanation of why I think that without the context, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Lab_Rat: OK
nexus99: OK
btctrip: OK
lvregister@live.com: OK
|
|
|
|
|
This is why I disagree with VIPs being allowed to post there, but ultimately theymos made the call on this that this was acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
How many connections to the network is your client showing?
|
|
|
|
World of Warcraft are un-paid forum mods, and game mods.
Blizzard MVP here. That's absolutely wrong. Anyone that has any power in Blizzard games or on their forum are paid employees. Unpaid mods on big sites/games elsewhere are also usually low quality overall because you need to get so many of them to prevent burnout. |
|
|
|
|
Shunshifu: OK
labcoin: OK
Just Dice: OK
namecoin.info: OK
|
|
|
|
You haters are fucking ridiculous. https://www.smore.com/u1tqCalling a company scammers over 50 times and then you wonder why they will not give you money and use that as a basis for claiming they are scammers? You really only weaken your own case by claiming such ridiculous shit. When I read shit that is clearly retarded, it makes me think the exact opposite of what your saying is true. So if the BFL thing were somehow still a scam, you have just convinced me its legit due to how stupid what you're saying sounds.. Just throwing that out there. Again, the donations are not under dispute. It is the representation of the donations on behalf of an independent entity with an application process. Josh's statement clearly indicates that the money was given for brand enhancement. This is fine; however, it begs the question why BFL has gone to the trouble to create a webpage? Apparently, if you are a critic of their horrific business practices, then you are automatically disqualified from any consideration. It's fundamentally dishonest and backhanded. But should we at this point expect anything less from them? Honestly, as long as the money goes to causes that aren't affiliated with them (as in, they aren't just giving money to themselves), I really don't see a problem. I'll certainly be looking into this more, but I am really feeling like you guys are purposely leaving out a bunch of information in order to further your own agenda. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
