[SOLVED]Tomatocage - You are a nice person

[Fiiasco]

Right. I understand. I'm not trying to argue with you so you shouldn't think that I'm trying to attack you. And, I no scam-buster

After you listed those out though, I have one doubt - why did tomatocage trust Vod?

You would have to ask him. I would assume that it was done before VOD started regularly exhibiting this systematic abusive behavior. Leaving a rating for him does not implicitly imply that he trusts him either. Tomatocage left me a trust rating as well, that doesn't mean he trusts me but he is simply (in my case) vouching for my activity here before the trust system was implemented.

Ok. Are you doing this because you have a tilde before your name on the default trust?

[1714719958]

1714719958

[1714719958]

1714719958

[1714719958]

1714719958

[1714719958]

1714719958

[TECSHARE]

Ok. Are you doing this because you have a tilde before your name on the default trust?

There you go again "not attacking" me but magically once again trying to make it about me personally.

VOD has abused the trust system against me personally in the past in an attempt to extort me into silence about his abusive behavior. I am a firsthand witness to his harassment. In my opinion he should not have the authority of the default trust list because he demonstrates he is willing to abuse it over and over again for little to no reason. That is why I am "doing this". ( I know putting words together in a sentence is hard, clearly I must have strong motivations for it)

[Fiiasco]

Ok. Are you doing this because you have a tilde before your name on the default trust?

There you go again "not attacking" me but magically once again trying to make it about me personally.

VOD has abused the trust system against me personally in the past in an attempt to extort me into silence about his abusive behavior. I am a firsthand witness to his harassment. In my opinion he should not have the authority of the default trust list because he demonstrates he is willing to abuse it over and over again for little to no reason. That is why I am "doing this". ( I know putting words together in a sentence is hard, clearly I must have strong motivations for it)

1. Again, I had no intentions to do that. I'm just unaware of what's happening with the trust system and want to know.
2. I see he left a neutral feedback instead of a negative on your account. Weird.

[Vod]

2. I see he left a neutral feedback instead of a negative on your account. Weird.

You know what?   That is weird.  I have corrected it. 

[FuckIdolPlus]

2. I see he left a neutral feedback instead of a negative on your account. Weird.

You know what?   That is weird.  I have corrected it. 

You must be removed from the default trust.. No maybe kicked into peter griffin's urinary meatus.

[Rawted]

I think the neighborhood scambusters are confusing a violation of a contractual agreement with criminal activity. What the OP is doing is NOT criminal activity, however he is potentially liable under a lawsuit from Microsoft for not obeying the terms of his agreement with them. Please learn the difference before you go around enforcing Microsoft contract law for them.

Don't be so obtuse. He is stealing from the college, plain and simple. It's also a violation of Federal Anti-Piracy laws.

[TECSHARE]

I think the neighborhood scambusters are confusing a violation of a contractual agreement with criminal activity. What the OP is doing is NOT criminal activity, however he is potentially liable under a lawsuit from Microsoft for not obeying the terms of his agreement with them. Please learn the difference before you go around enforcing Microsoft contract law for them.

Don't be so obtuse. He is stealing from the college, plain and simple. It's also a violation of Federal Anti-Piracy laws.

Ok. A couple things...
1. Educational versions of software are not paid for by colleges, they are discounts offered from the manufacturer. No one is stealing from colleges.

2. It is NOT a violation of any law. Wost case it is a violation of contract law by breaking the TOS agreement with Microsoft which makes it a CIVIL matter NOT a criminal matter. If you are SO ASSURED that selling legally obtained registration keys is illegal, you should not have any trouble citing the statute under which such activities are deemed a criminal act. So far no one has actually referenced a law that applies to this.

[ABitNut]

I think the neighborhood scambusters are confusing a violation of a contractual agreement with criminal activity. What the OP is doing is NOT criminal activity, however he is potentially liable under a lawsuit from Microsoft for not obeying the terms of his agreement with them. Please learn the difference before you go around enforcing Microsoft contract law for them.

Don't be so obtuse. He is stealing from the college, plain and simple. It's also a violation of Federal Anti-Piracy laws.

Ok. A couple things...
1. Educational versions of software are not paid for by colleges, they are discounts offered from the manufacturer. No one is stealing from colleges.

2. It is NOT a violation of any law. Wost case it is a violation of contract law by breaking the TOS agreement with Microsoft which makes it a CIVIL matter NOT a criminal matter. If you are SO ASSURED that selling legally obtained registration keys is illegal, you should not have any trouble citing the statute under which such activities are deemed a criminal act. So far no one has actually referenced a law that applies to this.

Like I said in another thread, I am unsure if the act of selling those keys is criminal in a specific jurisdiction. But enabling software piracy is illegal in many jurisdictions. Bryan Thomas Black can - among many others, I'm sure - attest to that.

Sellers are liable. Buyers are liable.

[TECSHARE]

Like I said in another thread, I am unsure if the act of selling those keys is criminal in a specific jurisdiction. But enabling software piracy is illegal in many jurisdictions. Bryan Thomas Black can - among many others, I'm sure - attest to that.

Sellers are liable. Buyers are liable.

Many jusrisdictions does not equal EVERY jurisdiction globally. Who are you to deprive people of these keys in a place where it is not a crimial act? As far as "enabling" piracy being a criminal offense, that is a bit of a stretch. I challenge you to actually produce some form of statutory law that demonstrates the criminality of "enabling piracy", and I don't mean judicial interpretations of non laws in order to railroad high profile marked people either.

[ABitNut]

Like I said in another thread, I am unsure if the act of selling those keys is criminal in a specific jurisdiction. But enabling software piracy is illegal in many jurisdictions. Bryan Thomas Black can - among many others, I'm sure - attest to that.

Sellers are liable. Buyers are liable.

Many jusrisdictions does not equal EVERY jurisdiction globally. Who are you to deprive people of these keys in a place where it is not a crimial act? As far as "enabling" piracy being a criminal offense, that is a bit of a stretch. I challenge you to actually produce some form of statutory law that demonstrates the criminality of "enabling piracy", and I don't mean judicial interpretations of non laws in order to railroad high profile marked people either.

Bryan Thomas Black

[TECSHARE]

Like I said in another thread, I am unsure if the act of selling those keys is criminal in a specific jurisdiction. But enabling software piracy is illegal in many jurisdictions. Bryan Thomas Black can - among many others, I'm sure - attest to that.

Sellers are liable. Buyers are liable.

Many jusrisdictions does not equal EVERY jurisdiction globally. Who are you to deprive people of these keys in a place where it is not a crimial act? As far as "enabling" piracy being a criminal offense, that is a bit of a stretch. I challenge you to actually produce some form of statutory law that demonstrates the criminality of "enabling piracy", and I don't mean judicial interpretations of non laws in order to railroad high profile marked people either.

Bryan Thomas Black

That is not a statute.

[ABitNut]

Like I said in another thread, I am unsure if the act of selling those keys is criminal in a specific jurisdiction. But enabling software piracy is illegal in many jurisdictions. Bryan Thomas Black can - among many others, I'm sure - attest to that.

Sellers are liable. Buyers are liable.

Many jusrisdictions does not equal EVERY jurisdiction globally. Who are you to deprive people of these keys in a place where it is not a crimial act? As far as "enabling" piracy being a criminal offense, that is a bit of a stretch. I challenge you to actually produce some form of statutory law that demonstrates the criminality of "enabling piracy", and I don't mean judicial interpretations of non laws in order to railroad high profile marked people either.

Bryan Thomas Black

That is not a statute.

I am sorry, I am not a lawyer. If you think the middle men get of easy then that's fine with me. To anyone believing you who ends up sued in court.... Good luck. Luck probably won't help much at that point anymore though.

[Rawted]

I think the neighborhood scambusters are confusing a violation of a contractual agreement with criminal activity. What the OP is doing is NOT criminal activity, however he is potentially liable under a lawsuit from Microsoft for not obeying the terms of his agreement with them. Please learn the difference before you go around enforcing Microsoft contract law for them.

Don't be so obtuse. He is stealing from the college, plain and simple. It's also a violation of Federal Anti-Piracy laws.

Ok. A couple things...
1. Educational versions of software are not paid for by colleges, they are discounts offered from the manufacturer. No one is stealing from colleges.

2. It is NOT a violation of any law. Wost case it is a violation of contract law by breaking the TOS agreement with Microsoft which makes it a CIVIL matter NOT a criminal matter. If you are SO ASSURED that selling legally obtained registration keys is illegal, you should not have any trouble citing the statute under which such activities are deemed a criminal act. So far no one has actually referenced a law that applies to this.

1. You're completely incorrect. This is the college's MSDN account. They pay for a limited amount of keys for a limited amount of products. I have a personal MSDN account, and also manage one for my employer.

2. It's theft.

Why do you seem to always stick up for the scammers? Very odd behavior.

[TECSHARE]

1. You're completely incorrect. This is the college's MSDN account. They pay for a limited amount of keys for a limited amount of products. I have a personal MSDN account, and also manage one for my employer.

2. It's theft.

Why do you seem to always stick up for the scammers? Very odd behavior.

You mentioned you have a personal MSDN account. How exactly do you know these users don't have their own and that they paid the fee themselves? Just assuming that they stole them from colleges is not appropriate.

What scammers do I always seem to stick up for? I guess I am a stickler for people having a fair debate and not just summary execution of neckbeard mob justice at any speculation posted. This behavior is also destructive to legitimate sellers that get harassed and drives people away from Bitcoin.

[Rawted]

1. You're completely incorrect. This is the college's MSDN account. They pay for a limited amount of keys for a limited amount of products. I have a personal MSDN account, and also manage one for my employer.

2. It's theft.

Why do you seem to always stick up for the scammers? Very odd behavior.

You mentioned you have a personal MSDN account. How exactly do you know these users don't have their own and that they paid the fee themselves? Just assuming that they stole them from colleges is not appropriate.

What scammers do I always seem to stick up for? I guess I am a stickler for people having a fair debate and not just summary execution of neckbeard mob justice at any speculation posted. This behavior is also destructive to legitimate sellers that get harassed and drives people away from Bitcoin.

The user posted in one of his other threads that it was his college's MSDN account.

While I totally understand and support your mentality towards mob justice, I think it's misguided at times. You're going out of your way to defend this user, who is wrong and a thief, and you did the same recently for the guy who claimed to hand carve those wooden items. It's not that you're just supporting them, it's that you go over the top to support them, for seemingly no reason (which leads people to deduce that you are in cahoots). Heck, you stand up for them more than they do themselves, as people like the wood artist guy STILL hasn't produced the verification that he hand carves the items to this day. Perhaps you don't realize what it looks like to outsiders.