Nullius defending the scammer lauda and nutildah. Terrified of open debate with

[bonesjonesreturns]

Admit you made a baseless accusation then I will provide the post where you claim video evidence is required for demonstration of control of account.

You are changing your story now, original story was:

Are you denying that when quickseller accused you of being zorrobeck that you asked him if he had video evidence?

Lol. I got you there, didn't I? I just let you to act dumb. For months! That's priceless!
Can you please stick to topic and post proofs of "nullius alt of lauda"?

Sorry I don't see you confessing you just made a baseless accusation?


Yes or no?

I don't  understand what your first part even means about changing the story.?
That looks like I was asking you a question? We can address this zorobek thing after you admit you just made a baseless accusation


Keep going, i will permit it for now

Until your nurse helps you with the word 'or' I shall not address the "lack of proof " for the statement you are referring to,  that does not state what you think it states  unless you think you can be a person and the sex stalker of that same person also?

You need assistance when posting. I want to help you.

I will delete all of malborozas posts until he can admit he made a baseless accusation.
When he admits it we can discuss further.

[marlboroza]

I will delete all of malborozas posts until he can admit he made a baseless accusation.
When he admits it we can discuss further.

I admit that I made baseless accusation because I messed up with dates, it wasn't for months, it was weeks. I am really sorry for that

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Only nullius the scammer supporter can post here

It looks like you're breaking your own rule by posting here.

FTFY.

Nullius this alt of lauda

Any proofs to back up this statement?

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

~

Lol you are crazy:

I hope you can provide the video evidence that you said was the only evidence you malboroza would accept when quickseller stated that was your alt?

quotation please!
Any proofs for topic yet?

This account is censoring me now.

This account is censoring me now and doesn't want to talk about things from topic AKA nullius==lauda.

[bonesjonesreturns]

I will delete all of malborozas posts until he can admit he made a baseless accusation.
When he admits it we can discuss further.

I admit that I made baseless accusation because I messed up with dates, it wasn't for months, it was weeks. I am really sorry for that

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Only nullius the scammer supporter can post here

It looks like you're breaking your own rule by posting here.

FTFY.

Nullius this alt of lauda

Any proofs to back up this statement?

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

~

Lol you are crazy:

I hope you can provide the video evidence that you said was the only evidence you malboroza would accept when quickseller stated that was your alt?

quotation please!
Any proofs for topic yet?

This account is censoring me now.

This account is censoring me now and doesn't want to talk about things from topic AKA nullius==lauda.

That's much better

Now if you look on quicksellers merit source application on meta
Page 3

You are saying there that for him to demonstrate or prove you have control of zorobek account then he needs video evidence?

I will not quote that entire thing here because it off topic but that is the discussion I am talking about.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127540.msg50571141#msg50571141

But the posts above are relevant. 

Tell me what you mean if you are not saying video evidence is a requirement of account control?
Or just in your case?

[marlboroza]

You are saying there that for him to demonstrate or prove you have control of zorobek account then he needs video evidence?

I will not quote that entire thing here because it off topic but that is the discussion I am talking about.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127540.msg50571141#msg50571141

But the posts above are relevant.  

Tell me what you mean if you are not saying video evidence is a requirement of account control?
Or just in your case?

No, no no. You said I asked for video evidence that zorrobek is my alt account. This post proofs that I didn't ask for evidence that zorrobek is my alt account, it shows proof that I asked QS to provide me proof that I deleted post. As I said, I let you play for...."weeks"  

I hope you can provide the video evidence that you said was the only evidence you malboroza would accept when quickseller stated that was your alt?

Are you denying that when quickseller accused you of being zorrobeck that you asked him if he had video evidence?

Maybe you are saying people only need video evidence to prove your alt.

"alt accounts" to "controlling account", that is pretty much changing the story on your end.


Stop changing subject, provide proofs from topic! Lauda==nullius is what you claim, either edit topic so we could discuss other relevant things from topic or provide proofs to back up you claim!

[bonesjonesreturns]

You are saying there that for him to demonstrate or prove you have control of zorobek account then he needs video evidence?

I will not quote that entire thing here because it off topic but that is the discussion I am talking about.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127540.msg50571141#msg50571141

But the posts above are relevant.  

Tell me what you mean if you are not saying video evidence is a requirement of account control?
Or just in your case?

No, no no. You said I asked for video evidence that zorrobek is my alt account. This post proofs that I didn't ask for evidence that zorrobek is my alt account, it shows proof that I asked QS to provide me proof that I deleted post  

Stop changing subject, provide proofs from topic! Lauda==nullius is what you claim, either edit topic so we could discuss other relevant things from topic or provide proofs to back up you claim!

Please be sensible and read this link

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127540.msg50571141#msg50571141

And the preceding posts above it where qs is saying zorrobek is yout alt.

Let's first answer this.  Is zorrobek your alt. Do you or have you controlled that account

Yes or no?

We can move to the statement that doesnt state what you think it states after this is sorted out.

I mean he quickseller is clearly in that thread saying you are zorrobek. To me it is highly highly probable from watching this alt that you are zorrobek. I dont really care if you are you can have an alt. There is no way to prove it is anyway.

To delete the posts content so they are empty posts and he says 80% were deleted by you.
Then clearly he saying zorrobek is your alt or you had control over it?  You cant delete other members posts and leave them empty.

You tell him he needs video evidence of you having deleted those posts. Why else asking the question?
You tell him show the proof  the video proof of you doing it.

You are clearly starting he needs video evidence to demonstrate zorrobek is your alt. Who else could delete this except zorrobek.

What else could it mean?
You require video evidence to demonstrate control of account.

Is zorrobek your alt? Yes or no?

Anyway I will continue to say what I have previously, until you offer a credible alternative meaning.

Once you answer this I will explain further how " or " means the first part of the sentence is a possible not a statement of certainty.

Also since investigating more deeply into the history of creepy pervy old nullius I am leaning to the part of the sentence that continues after the " or "

But let's do the zorrobek if you must explain how you were not requiring video evidence for proof of account control.

It appears you only think video evidence is required to prove you controlled or control an account.

If you offer sensible credible  alternative explanation of what you meant,  then fine.

Cannot change things later and say you meant something those words clearly are saying.
If you claim others have control over other accounts they can say where is the video evidence to you.

Anyway let's hear your alternative explanation of that requirement

Then can get back to your other point you think you have.

[suchmoon]

No, no no. You said I asked for video evidence that zorrobek is my alt account. This post proofs that I didn't ask for evidence that zorrobek is my alt account, it shows proof that I asked QS to provide me proof that I deleted post. As I said, I let you play for...."weeks"  

So let me get this straight (can't read the CH garbage but I'm assuming he's insisting that QS is right) - the dipshit in his own self-moderated thread is refusing to accept the possibility that a moderator or a self-mod OP could delete someone else's posts?

[hacker1001101001]

No, no no. You said I asked for video evidence that zorrobek is my alt account. This post proofs that I didn't ask for evidence that zorrobek is my alt account, it shows proof that I asked QS to provide me proof that I deleted post. As I said, I let you play for...."weeks"  

So let me get this straight (can't read the CH garbage but I'm assuming he's insisting that QS is right) - the dipshit in his own self-moderated thread is refusing to accept the possibility that a moderator or a self-mod OP could delete someone else's posts?

Yes, but that's not the case here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1472668.0

Moderators would just trash up the thread or even if they edit it, the same would be notified as an edited by mod. It would not be wrong to assume he deleted many more of his posts from there.

I think marlboroza looked liked a faucets hunter with his alt.

[bonesjonesreturns]

No, no no. You said I asked for video evidence that zorrobek is my alt account. This post proofs that I didn't ask for evidence that zorrobek is my alt account, it shows proof that I asked QS to provide me proof that I deleted post. As I said, I let you play for...."weeks"  

So let me get this straight (can't read the CH garbage but I'm assuming he's insisting that QS is right) - the dipshit in his own self-moderated thread is refusing to accept the possibility that a moderator or a self-mod OP could delete someone else's posts?

Dont make this too obvious suchmoon .

Let's take a look at this post.

1. Look at the correlation between zorrobek and marlboroza
I mean look how zorrobek shows up. Look at the threads read them, then in Jan he marlboroza is told he cant post on that thread and who shows up? Zorrobek?


2. Mods just removing the text and not posts?
Mods deleting removing 80% (according to qs )of posts but leaving it active?


3. Those don't even matter. It is clear that malboroza making video proof a requirement
Where is your video proof I deleted them? Demonstrates he feels that is the required level of evidence to show someone controls accounts

Anyone else ( not part of the gang)suchmoon would just start calling marlboroza zorrobek...

Anyway there is no marlboroza proof aka video proof
I actually agree with him. However I still think it highly highly probable that is marlborozas alt.


So until I get a more credible and reasonable explanation for video proof being the requirement for account control. This will be the standard required.

Now suchmoon usually does this. He hides away afraid to speak pretending to ignore.
Then when suchmoon " thinks" he sees an opportunity to jump in with some smart put down it will jump in trying to look cool
Only to be bitch slapped back out of the thread looking like a foolish scammer supporting imbecile. Either self debunking his earlier claimed beliefs or just making outrageous crazy statements in anger.

Stick to helping with repeating your deletes.

Hold on that reminds me. Let me just delete the text of  of your posts first but leave it there for a bit of fun. Oh hmm seems I cant do that without having control of your account suchmoon. Lol

Keep em coming dummies.

[suchmoon]

Yes, but that's not the case here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1472668.0

Moderators would just trash up the thread or even if they edit it, the same would be notified as an edited by mod. It would not be wrong to assume he deleted many more of his posts from there.

I think marlboroza looked liked a faucets hunter with his alt.

Ok, I stand corrected, this sounds very criminal. What do you reckon, should he get a type 3 flag for the theft of posts? I take it you have the elusive video evidence.

[bonesjonesreturns]

Yes, but that's not the case here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1472668.0

Moderators would just trash up the thread or even if they edit it, the same would be notified as an edited by mod. It would not be wrong to assume he deleted many more of his posts from there.

I think marlboroza looked liked a faucets hunter with his alt.

Ok, I stand corrected, this sounds very criminal. What do you reckon, should he get a type 3 flag for the theft of posts? I take it you have the elusive video evidence.

Stop switching arguments to avoid looking silly.

You admit you were wrong, and needed to be corrected , that is enough.

Now back to hiding away.

Good to see you too are supporting the malboroza standard of video proof for control of account.

The marlboroza and suchmoon standard of video proof requirement for account control.

Nice!  That will get some mileage.

Until marlboroza answers if he is zorrobek then he will not be allowed to post further here on this thread
Also all derailing away from nullius will be deleted as I see fit.