Mods, can you start deleting posts by the lazy users who don't bother to edit walls of text before they add one line of new useless content? :/ I am not even sure what such users are trying to accomplish: It induces people to scroll on past, or even killfile. Whereas basic network etiquette is not so much a forum rule, as a rule of the Internet for at least the past four decades. (n00bs, n.b., “the Internet” != “the Web”.)
Students these days will study anything, especially nonsense philosophy. I'm sorry your not interesting enough, maybe try a little harder  Some of them even study the differing semantics of homophones. (I hate people who confuse “you’re” with “your”... ...their so dumb.) h/t: *zing*
P.S., I escaped school early. Perhaps that may be why I avoided such brain-damage as tends to be inflicted by systemic educational degeneration and falling standards. You need education: “ Try a little harder”, as you said. HTH, HAND. I think I've said too much  |
|
|
|
[— insults so nonsensical as to accidentally achieve comedy —] [— sock troll —] [— sock troll —] [— sock troll —] The Nietzsche-abuser Vispilio and his allegedly extant supporters thus give inadvertent proof that Nietzsche was right:Dass Jedermann lesen lernen darf, verdirbt auf die Dauer nicht allein das Schreiben, sondern auch das Denken. The fact that Vispilio is able to foul up this forum with his words is empirical evidence supporting that quoted principle: “Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.”It is a serious problem that such small-minded mediocrities are taught to read! Observe: First, Vispilio abused Nietzsche. He cherry-picked a misquote from the seminal masterwork in which Nietzsche, a Doctor of Philology, first went Beyond Good and Evil by separating the dichotomies of Sklavenmoral “good and evil” versus Herrenmoral “good and bad”. Vispilio used his out-of-context misquote to rationalize dishonesty, which is bad. Since then, he has been slinging arbitrary insults with all the refined verbal comprehension of a parrot who has “learned” an expectation that certain patterns of vocalization bring certain rewards. But he does it in writing! Rabble: 1; Gutenberg: 0. There are so many parrots who learned to read and write. Well, at least when TEChSHARE abuses Latin, it is comically obvious that he does not know even the first thing about the language. It is too bad that some fool taught him to read and write in simple English. And what fool taught Vispilio to read and write? Alas! What is happiness? — [...] ...not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtù, virtue free of moral acid). OP hereby:Since I believe there are still some moral human beings with good intentions left on this forum, A filthy, ignorant, lying hypocrite rips Nietzsche grossly out of context:When you think about it, everything is an opinion when it comes to moral judgement.
"There are no moral phenomena, only a moral interpretation of phenomena" (one of the strongest quotes from Beyond Good and Evil) OP hereby again:Since I believe there are still some moral human beings with good intentions left on this forum, That is the essence of the Sklavenmoral. I will hereby quote the book that Vispilio overtly claimed to have read, rather than the next step in Nietzsche’s same line of thought, The Genealogy of Morals:Let it at once be noted that in this first kind of morality the antithesis “good” and “bad” means practically the same as “noble” and “despicable”,—the antithesis “good” and “evil” is of a different origin. The cowardly, the timid, the insignificant, and those thinking merely of narrow utility are despised... The noble and brave who think thus are the furthest removed from the morality which sees precisely in sympathy... It is otherwise with the second type of morality, slave-morality. Supposing that the abused, the oppressed, the suffering, the unemancipated, the weary, and those uncertain of themselves should moralize, what will be the common element in their moral estimates? Probably a pessimistic suspicion with regard to the entire situation of man will find expression, perhaps a condemnation of man, together with his situation. The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful... Slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility. Here is the seat of the origin of the famous antithesis “good” and “evil”... OP hereby, yet again:Since I believe there are still some moral human beings with good intentions left on this forum, [My reader] must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit [of “lucrative bounties”? —nullius] to him or a fatality to him... [...] Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest?— The rest are merely humanity.— One must make one’s self superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul,—in contempt. Et cetera... See also The Genealogy of Morals, Human, All-Too-Human, Twilight of the Idols, &c. —Or rather, don’t. Such books are not for the likes of those who should never have been taught to read. Nietzsche said so!
Object lesson: It is a bad idea to misquote Nietzsche in my presence: My response will be “evil” in its virtù.Having so dispensed with the bad, we shall return more or less presently to the principle that noblesse oblige.
“Ye look aloft when ye long for exaltation; and I look downward because I am exalted.” Also sprach Nullius.μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ... (← better than “In the beginning...” stuff, by the way!)But...Who among you can at the same time laugh and be exalted?
[...]
Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Nobody takes you seriously, how can they with all the nonsense you spout  ~ I am named of Nobody, and I thus authoritatively endorse this jolly good message: “Nobody takes you seriously.” LOL. |
|
|
|
[Subject: [...] LAUDA OWNS IT?]
[— idiocy > /dev/null —] “Yes”—or at least, feel free to believe that if it makes you feel better. Any other stupid questions? |
|
|
|
Hatur Nuhun, Husna QA, for the Indonesian translation! Itulah sebabnya, hanya ada satu Bitcoin.
Maraming Salamat, Baofeng, for the Filipino translation! Iyon ang dahilan kung bakit mayroong iisang Bitcoin lamang.
And my thanks to all who are carrying this discussion into their local communities.
|
|
|
|
Update: There are now four flags against those who have been involved in and/or promoting the IOTA scam: My thanks to tyKiwanuka and Gyrsur for bringing forth additional evidence on IOTA-related forum acounts—and of course, to Lauda.
[...]
That would be your legacy Lauda - seventh place creating a false flag against me. (and you're not very good at finding alts - leave it to the professionals in the Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk III thead - "it's what we''re good at" TM.).
Next. What in the name of sanity are you talking about? Have you been drinking or something? I am guessing that maybe he means this: Mind your manners, child.
nullius is another one of those brain dead shill accounts that's been brought back to life. Instead of making contact for their concern about a post of mine, they went on a stumbling rant about the post. Very brain dead nullius - the shill account.Why is my nick in this thread?
Why is my alt's nick in this thread? Uups, wrong account. “LOL.” If you even deign to notice. ( ...etc...) I would simply ignore it as off-topic. Don’t you/I/your other alts have important things to do?
|
|
|
|
@hacker is this bought account? Good question.
Getting excluded over a flag in refusal to DOXX somebody while keeping the flag to protect the public. I stated it because I do not want to do it not to this guy, not to TECSHARE, CH or whoever next is mounting stupid attacks against me. Now, two aphorisms come to mind: - “No good deed goes unpunished.”
- “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
Doxing over something this trivial is unnecessary. The logical cases of suchmoon: - “Damned if you do...” Lauda hypothetically drops dox: “Doxing over something this trivial is unnecessary.”
- “...damned if you don’t. Lauda actually acts in good faith to try to avoid dropping dox, even if it is justified due to being evidence (which you say must be publicly disclosed) to support a flag: She is flagging without evidence, and threatening people.
You being (potentially) doxed doesn't make it right either. Red herring. Nobody can actually dox Lauda, except maybe the NSA (who may or may not be able to dox anybody). Her hypothetical statement clearly illustrated the hypocrisy of people who object to her actions of avoiding disclosure of “hacker’s” dox, whereas the rabble would cheer if she were to be doxed. Anything else you read into it is just that. Even if the reactions are not "uniform", it still doesn't make it right. For example despite Quickseller's (speaking of puppet masters) repeated attempts to dox me I wouldn't dox him unless there is an actual reason. More red herrings.
Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her
It does not work like that. [...] This is not remorse, this is not being sorry, this is worse - active deception under pretenses of being remorseful. What I call “apology culture” does have the effect of encouraging insincere apologies as the basis for peremptory demands of being allowed to get away with anything.
~ you still licking the pussy after such an shameful act by Lauda ~ Yes, one can't lick it better than your adviced approach. The principal purpose of the fence is to keep you out:  The actual fence is much higher,
and it works both ways.That is a statute of the most famous ancient Greek ἑταίρᾱν, the cultural equivalent of a classical gaṇikā. (I will be pleased if anybody can correct my inconsistent declensions here.)But it is irrelevant to Lauda. Whilst travelling on business in Carpathia,
I doxed Lauda: P.S., Complaints > /dev/null |
|
|
|
A Salutary Lesson from the
Gang of Philological Pedants
Membership: 1 V8s, fillippone, mayhap I counted too soon? I propose a new gang, which I will call the Latin Kings in honour of Aeneas.
V8s: You did snip the part whereby I sensibly distinguished the adjectival versus substantive uses of “nullius”, which would be declined differently; and a professor somewhere would probably yell at me for ignoring the modern form of the apex. That is the “TL;DW” of what will anyway be “TL;DR” for but the few. “... das will spielen”, so let’s keep this fun! :-) If Classics Twitter wasn't rife with liberals I'd get the question posed there but it is so I won't and will live on in ignorance. With due apologies, my good gentleman, I had two reactions to this: Nullian Rule: Modern so-called “liberals” are past masters of cultural misappropriation. I would expect for twitlibs to know about as much about the classics as Margaret Mead actually knew about Samoans, or cared to.Let’s see: How fast would the people of great Graeco-Roman antiquity meet a fearsome brigade of shrill tweets from the libtwits of “Classics Twitter (!)”? Rome was a strictly class-based society more or less ruled by the patricians, with family units run as miniature dictatorships under the authoritarian rule of the paterfamilias. Patron: Mars ♂, the god of war—whom the Romans also nominated as the god of agriculture, what with farmers being notoriously liberal throughout the ages. (Damn kulaks.) Because the Romans were men in their more or less natural state, and not reactionary manosphere twits with feminist-mommy issues, they were honoured to also claim descent from Aeneas—the mortal son of Venus ♀, the goddess of sex and fertility, who was born because a woman (or even a goddess) can’t have a casual fling without getting pregnant and having a baby. * My dick is bigger than a twitlib’s—where “dick” has a subtextual meaning of “supreme mastery of hermeneutics”, and its size is an allegory for my powers of mythological interpretation. Aeneas, a Trojan, had to flee his native land—because the Greeks were so liberal that they totally annihilated Troy, and exterminated or enslaved the Trojan people, all for revenge against the dishonour of a Trojan prince fucking some Greek dude’s wife. Upon his arrival in Latium, Aeneas, blessed for victory by his goddess-of-sex mother, won himself a wife the old-fashioned way: Killing his rival. He then became the Latin king. Protip: When a nice guy wants a princess, he buys her diamonds—
#ToxicMasculinity ♂ #MakeLoveNotWar ♂ #CodeOfConduct Nietzsche was a doctor of philology—indeed, before he took up demolishing philosophers philosophasters, Herr Professor Dr. Nietzsche was the youngest-ever chair of the department of Classical Philology at Universität Basel. Unlike me, he was a real classicist. I hear the echoes of Vergil’s Aeneid when I read, “Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.”
(To avoid unduly discomfiting tender-minded liberals, I will avoid mentioning the later Rape of the Sabines—or the etymology of the word “rape”.)
The Romans were, of course, strictly honourable men; and I am reluctant to discuss too much such things in the presence of hoi polloi, given that I have seen aforesaid reactionary twits twist Roman culture just as badly as the libtwits do—but for the purpose of portraying the Romans as a bunch of wifebeating whackjobs, for to support their own embrace of the feminist false caricature of manhood. Nevertheless, the point stands: I would not trust the instruction of twitlibs on the subject of classical antiquity—or, for that matter, on any other subject. I invite libtwits to explain away the foregoing in 140 characters or less. ;-)
Compare my recent remarks obiter dictum in another thread: in the spirit of Ancient Rome, what has been democratically decided A small historical aside: Rome was never a democracy. In the era of the Republic (including the time of the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage), it was a society divided into rigid social classes, with most of the power held by patricians as a sort of a large, hereditary quasi-aristocracy. In the time of the Empire, obviously, Rome was a dictatorship—literally, a dictatorship, starting with the Senate’s grant to Julius Caesar of a lifetime title * of dictator perpetuo. That was whilst he was alive; after he was dead, they passed a law declaring him to be a god, and the name “Caesar” became a title forever synonymous with “Emperor; lifetime dictator” not only in Latin, but also in German ( Kaiser), Russian ( Czar), and other languages. (* In Roman law, the position of dictator had previously a short-term position of emergency power for leadership in times of existential threat to Rome; cf. Cincinnatus, who was glorified for voluntarily renouncing his absolute power of dictatorship as soon as the crisis was resolved—15 days into his six-month legal term as dictator.)Athens had a bout with democracy. The right to vote was reserved to free adult male citizens, thus excluding women, metics (legal resident aliens), and a massive slave population—only about 10% of the population had the vote. The system was still so unstable and prone to corruption that it lasted for less than a century in truly democratic form. Worst moment of Athenian democracy: The vote to kill Socrates. Best moment of Athenian democracy: The rise of a strongman populist leader, Pericles, whose very name grew to symbolize the glory of Athens at its height. * nullius doubts that this “democracy” thing ever really worked as advertised, or ever will. 1111 |
|
|
|
If you want to contest the alt claim, I am ready to talk about it.
The evidence should be in the referenced thread. As the very first person (besides Lauda) who supported Flag #1412 and Flag #1413 (after I tagged #304376 “poochpocket” two days ago), I object to the implication that the alt accusation was made without adequate basis—especially from one who has a history of “neutrally” FUDding the hell out of identity on the basis of then-undisclosed evidence that was admittedly weak, and really amounted to no more than a reasonable suspicion. For my part, I look to substance and not mere labels. If Lauda says that she has strong objective evidence (as distinct from her uncanny intuition), I know that she is not just blowing smoke. To be clear, of course, I am speaking only for myself—and so doing, just because I dislike that no good deed goes unpunished. Whereas Lauda was only being kind and merciful by acting against hacker1001101001’s alt without a dramatic moment of revelation. The evidence can not be posted in this section due to forum rules. The connection is valid, and stands unless he wants to claim otherwise. If he wants to claim this is not true, then we are moving into the Investigations section. It would be so much simpler if people were just honest.. [—confession—] Quoted for reference. I thank you for your honesty and sparing me having to post personal information about you (I despise this practice nowadays and try to avoid at all costs). OP please add to the initial post. Not that mercy was ever rewarded, or kindness ever met gratitude from classless louts... You have an line of bad deeds here, you would never be sorry about doxxing someone. So yet I was just more inclined to be honest not afraid of you posting personal info. How terribly rude. To improve your manners, please try this instead: “Thank you, Lauda, for being sincerely reluctant to ruin my privacy, instead of seizing a legitimate opportunity to gloat, shut the critics up, and triumphally march my dox through Investigations. I am humbled by the grace with which you act to protect the community, without petty self-aggrandization at my expense—even when such an action would be rationally justified. May I learn wisdom from your example.”HTH, HAND. |
|
|
|
If or when I stop using the below-described key, I intend to edit this post and/or make a new post on this thread, with another signed notice as appropriate. However, of course, I cannot guarantee that that will happen. I am posting this in public, so as to have a link to provide. Please quote and verify. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
**Until further notice**, I am also using for communication
security purposes a separate, temporary PGP key,
0x66EA0A29C54F89B9523DC51361B25B17B45FCAF3.
Key fingerprint = 66EA 0A29 C54F 89B9 523D C513 61B2 5B17 B45F CAF3
I do not wish to disclose the key publicly, for reasons that I do not
wish to disclose publicly. I am posting this notice, because there may be
OpenPGP software in the wild that does not implement the checking of WoT
signatures; I do not think that I will bother with a WoT signature here.
The 0x61B25B17B45FCAF3 key MUST NOT be trusted for purposes other than
securing ordinary communications; e.g., it MUST NOT be used for forum
account control purposes.
0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C is, and remains, my canonical
identity key and root of trust.
Signed,
nullius (2020-02-27)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYKAB0WIQSNOMR84IlYpr/EF5vEJ5MVn575SQUCXle8RAAKCRDEJ5MVn575
SUT6AP4zk7S5Ycm4bvR4mddz4NGznPy1bm1I60YOZg7ibherEwEA7Rjv4/ehPe25
eTAnqMl31O9BLW03Ns8hf+Is0AGhVgg=
=C0vR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Lauda, for taking action to warn the general public against what is well-known in the technical community as a scam coin. The self-styled “Bitcoin Gold” was never anything but a chimæric combination of bad imitations: A bad copy of Bitcoin, plus a bad copy of Zcash’s mining algorithm—with a free-money premine for the devs. In practice, it has been a security nightmare due to its real-world, in-the-wild vulnerability to 51% attacks, which have resulted in massive thefts. AVOID. The only people who can reasonably expect to not lose money in BTG are the BTG devs, and blackhats with some nice hashpower. |
|
|
|
I have voted negative in this topic’s poll and tagged #131361 “Timelord2067” accordingly, with OP as my reference link. A formerly productive member of the community, who has degenerated into a crackpot with a chip on his shoulder. Randomly attacks others with bizarre accusations so nonsensical that they would be beneath notice, were they not haloed in a false credibility from the good forum work that he did years ago. As it is, a bright red warning is warranted: Distrust this user and *anything whatsoever* that he says or does. |
|
|
|
Thank you, GazetaBitcoin. This is a classic Gazeta post: I will need some hours to peruse all your links! Meanwhile, I will remark on the first thing I noticed: As usual, the mainstream media is up to the dirty tricks of smear accusations, and cherry-picking the worst images they can find as of some they dislike. Excepting that in an old self-quote, all images in this post are from Wikimedia Commons. Although I am not always a fan of Wikimedia, they are a stable source—and they will not be cherry-picking bad-looking images of Assange. I have linked each image to its page on Wikimedia Commons. I encourage others to use presentable images of Assange when discussing him: The Assange who built a powerful fight for freedom, not snapshots grabbed in bad moments after he was been virtually imprisoned for so long. Although I myself do not agree with Assange about everything, I highly respect for his stand on principle. It is why he is so hated by the U.S. government: He cannot be bought, he cannot be terrorized, he cannot be persuaded. Not unless they can get him bodily under their control. Speaking of which, the American so-called “prosecution” of Assange raises an issue of world-historical import that I have not seen many others discuss: By what right does the United States presume jurisdiction over Assange? He is a not an American citizen, and is thus not generally subject to the personal jurisdiction of American laws. He is not alleged to have committed any acts within American territorial jurisdiction. It is only yet another instance of America enforcing international reach for its diktat, on the basis of: “We have the most guns, we have nukes—and most of all, we have the global poison power of the dollar.”As for US-USSR being distinct without difference—why yes, I think you’re right. They’re evil twins. Quoting from one of the links in OP: “Assange impeded Moreno’s ability to seek technical assistance, international loans, and greater security and commercial cooperation with the United States,” says Polga-Hecimovich. All of that was badly needed if Ecuador was going to rebound from Correa’s economic mess. To remedy the problem, [Lenin] Moreno tacked more to the political center as a way to attract foreign investment. Those efforts were noticed by the United States. “Prior to your election, our nations had experienced 10 difficult years where our people always felt close but our governments drifted apart,” Vice President Mike Pence said alongside Moreno in Quito, Ecuador’s capital, last June. “But over the past year, Mr. President, thanks to your leadership and the actions that you’ve taken have brought us closer together once again.” Likely helped, at least in part, by the thawing in relations with the US, Ecuador in March received a $4.2 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund to help rebuild the nation’s economy. Otherwise stated: The aptly-named Lenin Moreno sold his country, and sold Julian Assange. $$$What can stand against such global, international corruption? The WikiLeaks Manifesto, a document less known, unfortunately, contains other words of wisdom from Julian: " Only revealed injustice can be answered; for man to do anything intelligent he has to know what's actually going on". Hmmm... The non linear effects of leaks on unjust systems of governance That sounds to me like asymmetrical warfare, with a twist. Thank you, GazetaBitcoin, for your continuing coverage of cypherpunks and the relation thereof to Bitcoin. To that, I will add a quite decent treatment of that history (with a hyperlink thoughtfully added by me):The mailing list became the favorite watering hole for hundreds of talented computer programmers and hackers from all over the world, many of whom would use the list to learn about crypto before setting out to pursue May’s vision in their own way. One of them was a programmer named “Proff,” who joined the cypherpunk mailing list in late 1993 or early 1994. He immediately got sucked into the raucous and aggressive exchanges that characterized the cypherpunks: insulting newcomers, ruthlessly criticizing perceived shortcomings in others’ technical knowledge, and plotting the downfall of governments.... “Proff,” it transpired, was a gifted young Australian programmer called Julian Assange. Although Assange was a libertarian, he did not share May’s unashamed elitism: In the Cyphernomicon May spoke disparagingly of “nonproductive” citizens, “inner-city breeders,” and, most notoriously, the “ clueless 95 percent.” In one of his last posts on the list, Assange wrote (likely in rebuttal to May) that “the 95 percent of the population which compromise the flock have never been my target and neither should they be yours. It’s the 2.5 percent at either end of the normal that I have in my sights.” (When I asked May if he thought Assange was a “true” cypherpunk, he replied, “Yes, absolutely. I count him as one of us. He did things, he set things up, and he built things.”) 
|
|
|
|
I hope I'm the first one congratulating you, nullius! You are indeed the first; and I am pleased to have marked on your thread a moment that would have occurred on 2018-0 7-17 (Activity Period 1265), had I not slept awhile. As a practical matter, the Supreme Leader of the Nullian Un-Gang can now use <size> in his signature. ;-) |
|
|
|
Ante litteras: Populo et popularitate panis et picturae sunt.I literally lolled! By that, I mean: I lazily, oafishly laid about without bothering to wheel out youtube-dl so that I could— say what!? How do you find these things? Thank you, xtraelv. :-) As for the pic, LOL. Anyway, if I were American, I’d take Tweedledum. No, wait—Tweedledee. No— I can’t decide! I think the correct choice is neither. This is why I say: Don’t vote. By voting, you grant your moral and practical political endorsements to a corrupt system: An ochlocracy manipulated by a plutocracy. The result is kakocracy: Rule of the worst.If you vote, then you are part of the problem.
Man and TechnicsI believe nullius has a more optimistic view of the future than I do.  — Spengler (writing most of a hundred years ago) GazetaBitcoin’s well-researched OP led me to many interesting posts that I had not seen, e.g.:~snip~
I should point out that I'm one of the six people in the known universe who hasn't actually watched Game of Thrones
~snip~
Make it Seven :-P I have no idea what the hack is this Game of Thrones all about? :-) I don’t have a television... or a smartphone. Keeping up with the theme: Zarathustra answered: “I love mankind.”
“Why,” said the saint, ”did I go into the forest and the desert? Was it not because I loved men far too well?
Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me.”
Zarathustra answered: “What spake I of love! I am bringing gifts unto men.”
Bellae litterae τῆς φιλoλoγίας* nullius illum miseret +5 to the first adequately to explain the pun that I just made. This offer is time-limited to 24 hours from the posting hereof.Ph.D is a term used in the Anglophone world as shorthand for Philosopiae doctor, or doctor in philosophy. The term Philosophy comes from the Latin word “philosophĭa”, which is derived from the Greek word ϕιλoσoϕία, whose roots are φιλεῖν (phileîn- to love) and «σoϕία» (sophia-knowledge). So the first and most ethanol ogi al correct meaning of philosopher is “knowledge lover”. Definitely someone who shouldn’t need to lookup in a dictionary how to spell his title. +1 for thinking it through from abstract first principles, and for the correct etymology τῆς φῐλoσoφῐᾱς—to which I will add that in Latin, doctor means ‘teacher’: Thus, one entitled philosophiae doctor is not only a lover of wisdom, but a teacher of the love of wisdom, It is (or ought be) a degree only for those rare minds and rarefied souls who truly advance the state of the arts. Whereas my point here was more as to the historical implications: * nullius condemns and contemns the award of so-called “Ph.D.” degrees to anybody who cannot spell philosophiae doctor without looking it up in a dictionary—or who cannot readily explain the origins and meaning of the term. From the Renaissance until the early Twentieth Century, a university education meant a liberal education ( in the now-archaic sense of that word!), id est scholarship humanitatis ( iterum dico!), that had as a basic undergraduate requirement of facility in the Graeco-Roman classics, and especially a consummate mastery of Latin. Never mind a Ph.D.: No sheepskin at all for you, unless you know Latin far better than I do! Observe that the scientific, medical, and other scholarly jargons are loaded with Latin and Greek words. Who nowadays pauses to ask why, as did I when I was yet young? The men who originated these words were not pretentious dolts kludging up fancy-looking stuff from the dictionary just to show off: They actually knew Latin and Greek; and they naturally identified new concepts in the languages of the educated classes. Indeed, if you wish to study the history of early modern science from primary sources, then you must prepare to encounter whole scientific treatises written from cover to cover in a fluent neoclassical Latin. Anyway, none of this was relevant to the pun for which I offered +5: Nullius illum miseret, si scribere 'Philosophiæ’ non scit I would add that to my forum signature, if but only it had the spare space! Of course, the pun is that I made it look to the naïve reader as if I had said, “Nullius pities him”—whereas in a post wherein I had alluded to stock phrases, I used a handy stock phrase meaning, “He pities nobody.” Nullius: nullius illum miseret! I have had a miserable time struggling to grasp the proper use of the word miseret. A classicist could help; but alas, I am only a classist, not a classicist. nullius is genitive, and illum is accusative—and miseret is an irregular verb with no conjugations outside the third person (plus infinitives, etc.). Also n.b. that in classical Latin, nullius is an adjective, not a substantive. I will presently clarify my use thereof. Untangling that is left as an exercise to the reader. * nullius wavius handius ;-)
Official Cases of “Nullius”In classical Latin, as aforesaid, “nullius” is used as an adjective, not a noun. However, it can be properly construed and inflected as a noun. By analogy to the inspiration of my nomen, Octavius (later known as Imperator Caesar Divi f. Augustus), here are the official cases of my name in the second declension: | Nominative | Nullius | | Genitive | Nullii | | Dative | Nullo | | Accusative | Nullium | | Ablative | Nullio | | Vocative | Nulli |
Macrons are omitted, for I am lolling about lazily—and my Xorg keyboard layout (—for all its “fancy” Unicode®—) seems to have been designed by somebody with no use for the macron. Hmmm. Laura has been addressing me as “Nully”, which seems quite close to the grammatically correct Latin vocative. Does the cat speak enciphered Latin?Whilst travelling on business in Carpathia,
I doxed Lauda:
And thus, with my first bump in Activity Period 1308, I hereby shall be wreathed with the rank of Senior Member as soon as the activity system updates. Cheers. Zu lange wohl lebte ich im Gebirge, zu viel horchte ich auf Bäche und Bäume: nun rede ich ihnen gleich den Ziegenhirten.
Unbewegt ist meine Seele und hell wie das Gebirge am Vormittag. Aber sie meinen, ich sei kalt und ein Spötter in furchtbaren Spässen.
Und nun blicken sie mich an und lachen: und indem sie lachen, hassen sie mich noch. Es ist Eis in ihrem Lachen.
|
|
|
|
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5391/53910998.htmlseems this topic doesnt want facts. so let post facts
[...]
4. seems the topic creator wants to hide reasons No, this topic’s creator wants to protect a productive discussion from being derailed into an offtopic flamewar by a notorious troll who somehow always twists others’ wrongdoing into an attack on Core. It is a highly effective smear tactic: Correctly call out bad people who do bad things, and in the same breath, add false equivalencies and sinister insinuations to condemn exactly the people who are doing the most to stop them. E.g.:1. gmax today posted a tweet link trying to make it appear ...ninja-edited to: 1. [someone] today posted a tweet link trying to make it appear (No, he didn’t try to present any false appearance; and it is clear that you are here more to troll Greg Maxwell than to talk about Faketoshi.) ...or, ad nauseam over the course of years: ver plays theymos's mirror
wright plays adam backs mirror the only good thing i can say about blockstream is that adam back has stopped his wright-esq PR campaign of saying he (A.B) invented bitcoin due to "hashcash" algo.. Yeah, right: Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash. A perfect “mirror”, that! (Two decades ago, I was eager to use Dr. Back’s Hashcash as a means of stopping spam (although I knew that it was no “FUSSP” panacea—nothing is). Satoshi delivered a stroke of brilliance, re-applying the same idea together with others, plus new innovations, in a totally different problem domain to make a Byzantine agreement for preventing double-spends without a central authority. That is why Satoshi invented Bitcoin, I didn’t—and I never saw Dr. Back claim to have invented Bitcoin, either. Most work builds on prior work; and if I had one of my creations used by another as a keystone in a greater edifice, then I would take bragging rights, too!)
if your just going to delete my post. also delete doomads post that is even less ontopic DooMAD correctly predicted my response. I will thus duly file your moderation advice in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️ Now, I have briefly deconstructed what you do, so that readers of this thread will know why I am deleting your posts—and why I intend henceforth to delete your posts without further comment. I have also carefully archived your drivel, just in case anybody actually wants to read it. Complaints > /dev/null
|
|
|
|
I think that this is the key point:as for Gavin Andresen—one worth repeating anywhere that his lukewarm semi-“retraction” is brought out (usually followed by a plea to please stop talking about this, for it is embarrassing to Gavin): This is not a matter of “opinion”. (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.) Craig Wright’s claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact. Gavin Andresen’s 2016 “verification” of Faketoshi presents a compound question of fact—compound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and “cui bono?”
So no, he shouldn’t be able to have an “opinion” that Craig Wright “might be Satoshi”—or rather, his such “opinion” should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a “Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation” were to “opine” that the Earth “might be flat”.
Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored. That was my mistake, for years—a grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct. As to Craig Wright, of course, the only question worth addressing is the threshold question of a verifiable signed message from Satoshi. Gavin’s significance here is that he abused his reputation falsely to boost Faketoshi over that threshold—then later, much equivocated. He has never come clean about the whole affair—and at this point, after nearly four years of massive, ongoing actual damage caused by his false “verification”, it is long past too late for him, in my opinion.
Moderation note: franky1*drivel*
Don't think for one second that you can come into a topic like this to twist the narrative. You will be crucified. I suggest you go find another topic to troll. You are one of the ones who got scammed and you are keeping the false narrative alive. Indeed. For reference: http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5390/53908498.htmlhttp://loyce.club/archive/posts/5390/53908793.htmlhttp://loyce.club/archive/posts/5390/53909145.html
An Unnecessary ConditionYou need to know someones identity to say that stated identity is stolen or not. Not so. It is not necessary to identify Satoshi to prove by clear and convincing evidence, or even beyond a reasonable doubt, that a given individual is not Satoshi—and moreover, that false claims of Satoshihood are just that. I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. I don’t need to identify Satoshi to reach that certainty. |
|
|
|
Of “What” and “Why”Somebody at the 3 letters must have been called out Bitcoin as a national security threat.
This sort of explanation fails occams' razor. Not as badly as some things that many people believe, but you don't need to go there. All sorts of perfectly ordinary explanations work fine. I think the big danger there is when people get obsessed with knowing “THE TRUTH” about some real or imagined secret, and then they wind up chasing phantoms made of their own confirmation biases. The most important facts about Gavin Andresen are that he abused his reputation to give Faketoshi instant credibility in the mass media, and also that he supported XT and BCH fork attacks on Bitcoin (and also that he mishandled the “Bitcoin Foundation”, and also...). These are easily verifiable facts—verifiable without fine parsing of minute details. It is unnecessary to know why he did it, to assess the damage of what he did. The “why” is an interesting question in its own right—but the “what” is the important part, and there are no questions there.
A Small DatumIf you believe the dates provided by hearn. I saw no indication of that until many years after its claimed date. I just noticed a small datum to add to the balance of probabilities, with an eye toward some oddly effective heuristic about happenstance and coincidence. From: Satoshi Nakamoto < satoshin@gmx.com> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 3:40 PM To: Mike Hearn < mike@plan99.net> [...] I've moved on to other things. It's [Bitcoin is] in good hands with Gavin and everyone. So, this unauthenticated e-mail was allegedly sent by Satoshi to Mike Mr Surveillance & Taint Hearn four days before Gavin Andresen publicly announced his visit to the CIA: Subject: Gavin will visit the CIAI want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories: I'm going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at CIA headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference for the US intelligence community. If Satoshi actually sent that e-mail, then its timing would raise the question of whether he knew about Gavin’s upcoming announcement. (I would presume not; but that would mean considerable active deception by Gavin.) Whereas if Satoshi did not send that e-mail, then the timing would be an awfully big coincidence if it were produced on its alleged date—and an even bigger coincidence, if Hearn cooked it up later and backdated it. I think that’s interesting for those delving into the details and potential “whys”—however, this thread is more about the “what”. I request that the discussion be kept more focused there.
|
|
|
|
A Beautiful TweetExcellent, thank you. That’s how it’s done, folks!I did not make Project Anastasia for the Bitcoin Forum only. I made it as a message to be built on Satoshi’s own forum, and spread by a cadre of Bitcoiners to every other venue of discussion. We each have our strengths and weaknesses. I recently tried to set up a Twitter account, for the exact purpose of Bitcoin advocacy. Couldn’t figure out how to use it. ;-) I may try again, sometime... But regardless of what I do, if you are already on Twitter and similar sites, I encourage you to spread the word!
An Ugly TweetUgh. Thanks a lot. Twitter now totally requires Javascript; so in case anybody wants to see it without kowtowing to that, this is what we’re dealing with:“I had regular meetings with him (Gavin Andresen) when I was writing Life After Google & Gavin was absolutely firm that Craig was Satoshi. He (CSW) then went out and got a 1000 patents or something! That would suggest some sort of knowledge of Bitcoin technology.” #Bitcoin  #BSV  If Gavin Andresen had even a shred of honesty, he would be shouting from the rooftops and fighting tooth and nail to try to undo what he did. —Not only would now, but would have been already, for the past four years! Equivocation doesn’t cut it. No way.
This bears repeating from the other thread: Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)? This is not a matter of “opinion”. (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.) Craig Wright’s claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact. Gavin Andresen’s 2016 “verification” of Faketoshi presents a compound question of fact—compound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and “cui bono?” So no, he shouldn’t be able to have an “opinion” that Craig Wright “might be Satoshi”—or rather, his such “opinion” should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a “Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation” were to “opine” that the Earth “might be flat”.Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored. That was my mistake, for years—a grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct. ...he exploits the fact that people are usually unprepared to deal with such an audacious liar. ... the sort of person who will go literally red faced screaming at you that NO, IN FACT THE SKY IS GREEN NOT BLUE THE SKY IS GREEN. When faced with behaviour like that some people just start wondering if maybe its legit because they'd personally never act that way unless they were telling the truth and were absolutely sure of it. Damn. You made me look outside at the sky, just to double-check! And then, I started wondering if maybe, just maybe, I am colourblind—protanopia often does cause difficulty distinguishing green from blue!—or perchance, I went slightly insane, and I confused the meanings of basic English words blue and green in some Twilight Zone style psychosis... I encourage readers of this thread to learn more about Blackhat Mindhacking 101: Exploiting Wetware Insecurity. That is what we are dealing with here.
Quod VideI have an honest question for you: do you believe Gavin wasn't telling the truth when he said there's a chance that Wright may be Satoshi? And by "telling the truth," I mean conveying what he actually believes. He distinctly left open the possibility that Faketoshi is real, and I would like to know if you believe he did that dishonestly. Of course, I don’t speak for gmaxwell; and I dislike quoting myself from just the last page of this same thread. But in case you didn’t see it, he already addressed that question [pre-posting edit: and whilst I was previewing and adding a reply to AGD below, he addressed this again here]: And yet, as we are today Gavin has still never fully retracted his endorsement. He left it at an 'I'm not sure what happened, maybe I was fooled. It doesn't matter anyways'-- something which wright's promoters continues to use to promote wright's legitimacy.
Probably the most significant thing I can say on this subject is that *none* of the core-devs upon hearing Gavin endorsed the guy thought this was at all evidence of the claims-- even before seeing the publication of the obviously faked signature. The idea that Gavin was hacked, was being coerced, was being paid off, was a scammed idiot, or was attempting a desperate attempt at taking over Bitcoin after he was unable to convince people through the merit of his arguments were all considered serious possibilities. We discussed the possibility that wright got his hands on of an early block private key that was mined by someone other than satoshi, and was planning on exploiting the ambiguity about who mined what-- and that Gavin fell for that because of one of the might have fallen for it due to the aforementioned reasons. The only people that thought his endorsement was persuasive were people that hadn't worked with him on technical matters. The people who would know best how to weigh the evidence of that endorsement didn't find it remotely persuasive. And in the aftermath, when Wright's public signature turned out to be fake Gavin's response wasn't to adopt complete transparency and help take out and protect the Bitcoin community from the guy that had supposedly conned him. Take that for what you will. That was posted on a thread where I replied to another part of his post, and your reply to me was this: Gavin has done massive actual harm: Bitcoin Foundation, XT, Faketoshi “verification”, Btrash shilling... You are defending him because he says there’s an “equal chance” that Craig Wright is either a scammer or Satoshi!?
If I were in less of a mood I would be inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself. Eh... http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-22_Sat_06.05h/976210.htmlFor my own part, I stand by my negative trust feedback on Gavin Andresen ( Reference). Three-digit UIDs who visit the CIA are not immune to being called out for what they have done. For my part.
Insecure E-mailIn his alleged email to Mike Hearn Satoshi stated: 'I've moved on to other things. It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.'
Interesting, that both who had the last email contact to Satoshi turned out to be Bitcoin forkers.
I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time. It was obv. paving ways for Hearn and Andresen as Satoshis successors. This all looks, like somebody knew Satoshi is not coming back. Was that before or after this? Control of a forum account is not cryptographic evidence of identity. Control of an e-mail address is also not cryptographic evidence of identity. With my large boldface supplied: Topic: satoshin@gmx.com is compromisedToday I received an email from satoshin@gmx.com (Satoshi's old email address), the contents of which make me almost certain that the email account is compromised. The email was not spoofed in any way. It seems very likely that either Satoshi's email account in particular or gmx.com in general was compromised, and the email account is now under the control of someone else. Perhaps satoshin@gmx.com expired and then someone else registered it. Don't trust any email sent from satoshin@gmx.com unless it is signed by Satoshi. (Everyone should have done this even without my warning, of course.)I wonder when the email was compromised, and whether it could have been used to make the post on p2pfoundation.ning.com. (Edit: I was referring here to the Dorian Nakamoto post. After I posted this, there was another p2pfoundation.ning.com post.) * nullius asks, “But what is Satoshi’s PGP key fingerprint? If I download that key from your link, how do I know it is the same key that Satoshi used before?” The email said: Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you. Not exactly Satoshi's normal style.  That is from something that I recently posted in the Beginners & Help forum: A hands-on lesson on why you should check PGP fingerprints! I encourage others to read it, and to learn how to verify that you have the right key. This was created today. It could have said anything that I wanted it to:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
Signed,
Satoshi Nakamoto <satoshin@gmx.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQS5YZTT/ZVbiFIrBW8228A4i3SciwUCXkcnOQAKCRA228A4i3Sc
ixUGAJwJP2WaRtRRQoH2oRuib6SxiitnpACfdpOP4PzmLqAOJgM5Ly9HYNzu8lI=
=HmWH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
My thanks to others for the interesting discussion of this important issue.
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a pussy alt gang.
I'm no expert on the topic but I believe some of the gangs are forked from others. Although alia turned out to be only the “pussy alt” of a scammer, her attempt to screw over the Supreme Leader of the sexiest ungang, inter alia, resulted in her getting hardforked without consensus. *I’m an expert on the topic. xD
Please spank me tbh, craving that rn
(* Actually, temp-banned for doxing, threatening, and extorting somebody other than me—and then, permabanned for ban evasion. But who’s counting?)
Eh, when will fools learn to stop trying to mess with me? * nullius shrugs. Uh-oh, the NSA found me. Zweierlei will der ächte Mann: Gefahr und Spiel. Desshalb will er das Weib, als das gefährlichste Spielzeug.
Is there a requirement for initiation to join a gang? I found this on the web, I listed some of it below. - Initiation by cop
- Being jumped in or beat in
- Sexed in
- Jacked In
My gang has become somewhat infamous for its use of the third method. It's not strictly a requirement, but it certainly helps, and in any case I've yet to hear any complaints. You want in? You wish. Most importantly, as a cult leader, I have the prerogative of taking advantage of... attractive female followers in other ways Such “other ways” need not be only for my personal gratification. I will observe that though in the same breath I essentially reserved the right to make my followers give me all they have and more, what I have actually done is a most excellent job of being one of these: not getting paid shit for their shit. An alia would be useful for a cult that has entry requirements, as a prophylactic to prevent penetration of the Nullian ungang by NSA honeypots. I run tight opsec. And I have standards: Initiation requires seminal work. This gang even demands wetwork: Oaths of fire and water sealed in the font of a counterintelligence agent disguised as an innocent camgirl. Would you join me? Your passion will be put to the test. Bring me a sword.where there is Gang there also must be a Bang. Gang-Bang. I remember Jet Cash had a similar thought, so there is hope:I don't seem to be in any gangs. I was going to say that if there is a gang bang, please can I join in, but I'm not sure that we have any girls here any more.
For this observation by one of my chief competitors is true enough: No, you cannot get out of it. Cults are enter only. The actual fence is much higher,
and it works both ways. And though my thus effort with alia was mislaid in the sense of the best- laid plans of mice and men, I turn lemons into lemonade: I accidentally became the subject of the forum’s most famous sex scandal! Two years later, people are still discussing it, and personally inquiring for the details. — Mostly just from curiosity, or to tease me. Mostly.So as for cats and lone wolves. I expect for my next post on this thread to be more popular. :-) Of course, that meant that my planned next post was about alia. Unfortunately, it is not yet complete; thus, this hereby is only a teaser of a teaser. The prospective title: Nullius in alia, Nullius aliorum aliorsum: Cum errore inter alia, contra artem amatoriam, pane crisandi, circensibus irrumationis. That title is not expected to be popular—but the (English) content will be, because it’s about a sex scandal! Sex scandals are always popular, in the sense of “panem et circenses”; and my dubious distinction as the subject of the forum’s most famous sex scandal has, after all, become a part of my reputational panache. Far be it from me to be unpopular!Those who are uninterested in sex scandals may attempt puzzling out the title, laugh at me if I erred in my such subtle exploitation of Latin grammar, and/or appreciate the history, philosophy, and social commentary which, to meet the standards of a “nullius post”, I must perforce cryptically hash into the story of a sex scandal. Oh, and I do not actually know Latin. The foregoing onion-layered ball of puns was produced using magic. Cult leader, etc.
A Salutary Lesson from the
Gang of Philological Pedants
Membership: 1 Nor you knew Latin (I suppose). Though you were not addressing me, I should point out that, although I just said that I do not know Latin ( according to my own standards, or any reasonable standards of scholarship), I may damn myself with faint praise by observing that I know more Latin than some do. That is worse than dog Latin: It is bitch Latin. It exemplifies the folly of mashing together words found in an English-Latin dictionary, without having even the slightest clue about Latin grammar. | testimonium | nominative, accusative, or vocative singular of second declension neuter noun testimonium. | | libertatum | genitive plural of third declension feminine noun libertas. No other options than “of liberties” or “liberties’”. | | iustitia | nominative, ablative, or vocative singular of first declension feminine noun iustitia. Well, I suppose that I could perhaps imagine a way that maybe the ablative could be applied in its instrumental sense to make the whole phrase just a tiny bit less asinine. (For the beavises and buttheads in the audience, I must clarify that “asinine” evokes an ass in the sense of a donkey, not in the American sense of an arse.) |
LOL. Of course, he also does not know the meaning of either of the respective words “objective” and “standards”. And of course, I did a brief search to see if he was drawing some stock phrase or motto from speakers of barbarous Latin, or perhaps the worst vulgar Latin of the Dark Ages. If he was, I could not find it—and anyway, it would only mean he was such as fool as the blind following the blind. Not that I would expect any better from the same fool whose very name mutilates the Latin digraph representing Χ/χ (chi) from τέχνη. Spelling “tech” as “tec” is as stupid as would be, mutatis mutandis, abbreviating “philosophiae doctor” as “P.D.” instead of “Ph.D.”, thus breaking the digraph for Greek Φ/φ (phi). Cf. [ confer, ‘compare’] Ψ/ψ (psi), as seen in English pseudonym (< ψευδώνυμος). * nullius condemns and contemns the award of so-called “Ph.D.” degrees to anybody who cannot spell philosophiae doctor without looking it up in a dictionary—or who cannot readily explain the origins and meaning of the term. Techies who are sufficiently old-school may be perhaps familiar with Prof. Knuth’s TeX (Τεχ), and with arχiv.org (formerly known as xxx.lanl.gov, LOL). Those are enough of a botch: Latin X is far away from Greek Χ. However, at least the progenitors thereof were sufficiently knowledgeable to squeeze away the CH digraph in a way that makes sense! As for TE**SHARE’s bitch-Latin, it would indeed look more intelligent to say, exempli gratia, “Techsharius trollus stupidius est”: That is obviously a joke, and not the empty posturing of a pretentious retard who is obsessed with Arguing On The Internet. TECSHARE “winning” But if he really wants to dress to impress, I suggest styling it as such: TESTIMONIVM·LIBERTATVM·IVSTITIA * nullius illum miseret +5 to the first adequately to explain the pun that I just made. This offer is time-limited to 24 hours from the posting hereof.
“Oile nu pot fi învățate să gândească, precum câinii nu pot fi dresați să cânte fragmente de operă.” — nullius |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
.jpg)
