Scam accusation - me - scotaloo

[scotaloo]

Just to let everyone now what this fucktard is doing now:

http://blockchain.info/tx/<snipped for anonymity >

You didn't remove the tx's, I asked kindly many times, I've done nothing wrong, I'm teaching you a lesson the hard way, it's something you won't forget for a long time. If you had been civil and nice I would have been the same, but you extorted so I done the same back, but now I have to warn people that you are an extortionist.

We're done, I've deleted the post and I'm finished with you,  but sorry to say, thats in the blockchain for life and nothing can be done about that.

Also, I deny that I sent that tx, so please prove that I did.

Here again is proof that you are an extortionist:


http://i42.tinypic.com/vxlvtx.png

You didn't care about your anonymity then, why did you start caring now?

Anyways, you got a free 0.0011BTC you should be happy, spend it wisely but remember everyone can link it to you personally.

[Inedible]

I've been thinking recently, you guys can't ban this account, all you have done is allege that I am an alt, nobody has been defrauded by this account on BitcoinTalk, me being an alt of someone else is irrelevant.

Normally you don't ban alt accounts even if they are obvious scammer alts unless they scam someone, I have not posted any phishing links or done any trades at all (other than the competition thing which I paid double the amount required) and have not scammed anyone on BitcoinTalk using this account, this is a clean account.

None of my alleged 'alts' which I deny ownership of have been banned either so I am not ban evading, if you do find one of my alts I will 'fess up, but I've checked and none are banned but just have negative trust.

Help me out here as I'm trying to work out what it is you're trying to do.

Am I right in saying, you're a self confessed scammer and hacker BUT you only scam and hack those that deserve it so you're on the moral high ground?

Despite this, because there's no evidence of you doing anything wrong with this account, you shouldn't be banned?

So technically they shouldn't ban you but morally they can?

[scotaloo]

Help me out here as I'm trying to work out what it is you're trying to do.

Am I right in saying, you're a self confessed scammer and hacker BUT you only scam and hack those that deserve it so you're on the moral high ground?

Despite this, because there's no evidence of you doing anything wrong with this account, you shouldn't be banned?

So technically they shouldn't ban you but morally they can?

No, what I'm saying is scotaloo has not scammed anyone, so why should scotaloo be banned? I never confessed to scamming I may have mentioned hacking before, but so has ArtForz, BitcoinEXpress (the 51% attacks) and many many other people. I have not defrauded anyone using this account and 'looking' like an alt of someone else does not warrant a ban especially when that alt isn't even banned.

I'm not going to scam anyone using this account, I already have negative trust nobody will trade with me, I shouldn't get a ban because I'm not ban evading which is what Maged thought I was doing, BASICasic isn't even banned, I only want to post here and not trade, and I haven't been 'spamming' like many others and mainly stick to my own threads.

[Inedible]

No, what I'm saying is scotaloo has not scammed anyone, so why should scotaloo be banned? I never confessed to scamming I may have mentioned hacking before, but so has ArtForz, BitcoinEXpress (the 51% attacks) and many many other people. I have not defrauded anyone using this account and 'looking' like an alt of someone else does not warrant a ban especially when that alt isn't even banned.

I'm not going to scam anyone using this account, I already have negative trust nobody will trade with me, I shouldn't get a ban because I'm not ban evading which is what Maged thought I was doing, BASICasic isn't even banned, I only want to post here and not trade, and I haven't been 'spamming' like many others and mainly stick to my own threads.

You're right, there's no evidence against scotaloo so that account shouldn't be banned, however, you've also admitted to being a scammer.

I've also noticed you're very specific in the way you phrase things. It seems to me you don't like to lie. It's actually not something you want to do so in that sense you're honest.

What also seems clear to me (and this is merely speculation) that you'd be happy to return any scammed funds if there's evidence against you which means that you have scammed but you feel you're clever enough that you can't get caught.

Summary: An honest scammer with integrity but a scammer none the less?

[KWH]

No, what I'm saying is scotaloo has not scammed anyone, so why should scotaloo be banned? I never confessed to scamming I may have mentioned hacking before, but so has ArtForz, BitcoinEXpress (the 51% attacks) and many many other people. I have not defrauded anyone using this account and 'looking' like an alt of someone else does not warrant a ban especially when that alt isn't even banned.

I'm not going to scam anyone using this account, I already have negative trust nobody will trade with me, I shouldn't get a ban because I'm not ban evading which is what Maged thought I was doing, BASICasic isn't even banned, I only want to post here and not trade, and I haven't been 'spamming' like many others and mainly stick to my own threads.

You're right, there's no evidence against scotaloo so that account shouldn't be banned, however, you've also admitted to being a scammer.

I've also noticed you're very specific in the way you phrase things. It seems to me you don't like to lie. It's actually not something you want to do so in that sense you're honest.

What also seems clear to me (and this is merely speculation) that you'd be happy to return any scammed funds if there's evidence against you which means that you have scammed but you feel you're clever enough that you can't get caught.

Summary: An honest scammer with integrity but a scammer none the less?

IMO, it shows a conscious effort to word carefully as not to incriminate self. So, the desire to "lie" or "deceive" is there just not out in the open fully, yet. Just MHO.