Re: how do I make new threads?

[TerminatorXL]

@TheGambler

You are the one who is scamming everyone on the forum. Why should we trust you instead of Quickseller, who is a trusted member of the forum. You have started serveral Ponzis(I guess) and scammed serveral people. Quickseller prevent these scams.

OP's credibility is irrelevant - his initial claim is not in dispute, FAIK. Quickseller tried to start a ponzi with OP. After OP rejected Quickseller's proposition & started this thread, Qickseller explained away his ponzi proposal by claiming he was trying to entrap OP.

Other than entrapment being grossly unethical, Quickseller's excuse falls squarely into the "yeah, right" category.

Edit: Are you Quickseller's alt? Did you buy "josef2000" (or any other accounts) from Quickseller/ACCTseller?

It was actually a ponzi game not a ponzi scam. A ponzi game, in theory can be a non-scam and there were many people advocating that people running ponzi games not be given negative trust because they can, in theory be "fair" (I was not one of these people). A ponzi scam on the other hand is simply something that is designed to build up credibility over a long enough time so that it can attract large amounts of money and eventually run away with investors' money (it also continuously will pay out older participants with new participants' money). Even if the entrapment claim/defense was not true, the facts being presented would not make me any less trustworthy (although one could argue that my judgment was poor by attempting to run a legit game with a well known scammer).

So let's see... Buying/selling forum account, manipulating the trust system by using multiple accounts, propositioning users to start ponzis. An upstanding citizen & a pillar of this community is you.

In order for something to be considered entrapment, the person committing the crime/scam would need to otherwise not commit such crime/scam if they were not influenced by the person attempting to entrap them. IIRC, the OP has scammed with either 5 or 6 HYIP schemes, none of which were ran at the same time, and it appears that he is about to add another one to his list. I believe well over half of these were done prior to me initially contacting him about running a potential ponzi game.

A textbook case of entrapment. You've propositioned OP to start a ponzi. Just like a cop coming up to you & proposing the two of you rob a bank - entrapment.
Your having prior bank robberies to your name won't change a thing

[Quickseller]

In order for something to be considered entrapment, the person committing the crime/scam would need to otherwise not commit such crime/scam if they were not influenced by the person attempting to entrap them. IIRC, the OP has scammed with either 5 or 6 HYIP schemes, none of which were ran at the same time, and it appears that he is about to add another one to his list. I believe well over half of these were done prior to me initially contacting him about running a potential ponzi game.

A textbook case of entrapment. You've propositioned OP to start a ponzi. Just like a cop coming up to you & proposing the two of you rob a bank - entrapment.
Your having prior bank robberies to your name won't change a thing

Well the fact that the OP ran ponzi scams after I contacted him without my assistance would show that he was planning on scamming in the future. Additional evidence would be that the OP was in the middle of a HYIP scam when I contacted him.

Furthermore I was not asking him to scam, I was asking him to start a ponzi game, which as I previously mentioned, several people have argued that can be ran honestly.

The point of my proposition was not to get him to try to scam, it was to try to find his additional alts

[TerminatorXL]

A clear-cut case of entrapment. Knowing that OP may have ran ponzis before, is currently running a ponzi, or that he may otherwise be a total scumbag changes nothing.
Of course, had anyone propositioned you to start a ponzi, my guess is you wouldn't buy the "I just wanted to out your alts, for the common good!" excuse.
The excuse becomes particularly weak once your dealings in forum accounts & trust manipulation are considered

[josef2000]

Edit: Are you Quickseller's alt? Did you buy "josef2000" (or any other accounts) from Quickseller/ACCTseller?

No I am not. And I am not somehow persobally connected with Quickseller. I have never sold my account and am not in control of Quickseller.
I can confirm that too by signing with an old bitcoin address

[TerminatorXL]

Edit: Are you Quickseller's alt? Did you buy "josef2000" (or any other accounts) from Quickseller/ACCTseller?

No I am not. And I am not somehow persobally connected with Quickseller. I have never sold my account and am not in control of Quickseller.
I can confirm that too by signing with an old bitcoin address

Quickseller is clearly not Quickseller's original account. His first post is an offer to sell accounts, which, you'll agree, is an improbable thing for a real n00b to do.

There's nothing to suggest that you are not Quickseller's original account, so not sure what a signed message would prove

[josef2000]

Edit: Are you Quickseller's alt? Did you buy "josef2000" (or any other accounts) from Quickseller/ACCTseller?

No I am not. And I am not somehow persobally connected with Quickseller. I have never sold my account and am not in control of Quickseller.
I can confirm that too by signing with an old bitcoin address

Quickseller is clearly not Quickseller's original account. His first post is an offer to sell accounts, which, you'll agree, is an improbable thing for a real n00b to do.

There's nothing to suggest that you are not Quickseller's original account, so not sure what a signed message would prove

The thing is Quickseller registered before I had registered. I could impossible be Quicksellers first account.

[Quickseller]

I repeat that I was not trying to get him to scam. If you were to read my further conversation with him then you would have seen that I explicitly said that the ponzi game was going to be run in a fair way and that scamming was not an option (I don't doubt this this why he initially declined my offer).

It is an accepted practice to give negative trust to any accounts of a scammer which what the plan was to do.

You clearly do not have an understanding of the legal definition of entrapment as the above would indicate that the OP was going to start additional ponzis with or without my proposition (and he did start additional ponzis after my proposition without my involvement). Either that or you are trying to push your agenda so hard that you fail to use any logic in your argument.

Additionally I am not sure why you are using this account when you speak out so freely against the default trust system with your "main" account.

[Quickseller]

Edit: Are you Quickseller's alt? Did you buy "josef2000" (or any other accounts) from Quickseller/ACCTseller?

No I am not. And I am not somehow persobally connected with Quickseller. I have never sold my account and am not in control of Quickseller.
I can confirm that too by signing with an old bitcoin address

Quickseller is clearly not Quickseller's original account. His first post is an offer to sell accounts, which, you'll agree, is an improbable thing for a real n00b to do.

There's nothing to suggest that you are not Quickseller's original account, so not sure what a signed message would prove

The thing is Quickseller registered before I had registered. I could impossible be Quicksellers first account.

See my above post. He is trying to push his agenda so hard that he can't even use logic to make his arguments.

[TerminatorXL]

>which what the plan was to do.

Of course, had anyone propositioned you to start a ponzi, my guess is you wouldn't buy the "I just wanted to out your alts, for the common good!" excuse.

>You clearly do not have an understanding of the legal definition of entrapment

Knowing that OP may have ran ponzis before, is currently running a ponzi, or that he may otherwise be a total scumbag changes nothing.

>I am not sure why you are using this account
No better way to show how absurd condoning alts & dealing in forum accounts really is. Working within the system to take it down

P.S. I do not try to disguise my agenda. I believe that accounts should not be bought and sold, that alt accounts should not be condoned, and that default trust is conceptually flawed, and, recently, has been empirically shown to be shit. I think these points are self-evident to an average child, and am a bit surprised I'm meeting with this much resistance.

[Quickseller]

I am not a scammer. I was trying to start a business that the OP was an expert in. There is a good reason to out the OPs alts because he is a scammer. There is no reason to out my alts.

I am saying that your main account often speaks out against the trust system since a specific change was made to it which you did not agree with. I see no reason to want to hide behind an alt to make arguements to change/remove the trust system.

[TerminatorXL]

>I see no reason to want to hide behind an alt to make arguements to change/remove the trust system.
Frustrating, ain't it, dealing with alts?
Glad to let you experience it for yourself (when it's not you hiding behind one of your alts, that is)

[redsn0w]

Are you serious? Is the OP an 'alt of moreia'   ? Amazing, he caused a lot of trouble/problem here in the forum. In that case I am supporting quickseller, he should leave a negative trust to all the alleged scammers (because this is the function of the trust system, and if someone doesn't agree he can remove him from the personal trust list ... with the use of '~').

[Quickseller]

>I see no reason to want to hide behind an alt to make arguements to change/remove the trust system.
Frustrating, ain't it, dealing with alts?
Glad to let you experience it for yourself

No it is not frustrating, I know exactly who you are. The more accurate adjective would be baffling.

What is frustrating is the fact you are using invalid logic and reasoning to make your arguements. I had thought that you were able to act reasonably, however I think I was wrong.

[Quickseller]

Are you serious? Is the OP an 'alt of moreia'  ? Amazing, he caused a lot of trouble/problem here in the forum. In that case I am supporting quickseller, he should leave a negative trust to all the alleged scammers (because this is the function of the trust system, and if someone doesn't agree he can remove him from the personal trust list ... with the use of '~').

Yes the OP is an alt of moreia. He even admits it above (actually he claims moreia is an alt of the OP, but that is a distinction without a difference).

[TerminatorXL]

^^My logic is sound. Claiming otherwise, without sound counterarguments, simply makes you seem desperate.
...and sucks you in deeper into this quagmire which, if you recall, I've tried to help you avoid

*Try to avoid multiple, consecutive posts. Looks like you're simply padding your post count

[Quickseller]

^^My logic is sound. Claiming otherwise, without sound counterarguments, simply makes you seem desperate.
...and sucks you in deeper into this quagmire which, if you recall, I've tried to help you avoid

You claimed that I was trying to entrap the OP when my proposition was not illegal nor would be a scam. In order for something to be considered entrapment, one needs to try to get someone to do something illegal.

If you want to go back to your police officer analogy, that what I did was similar to a police officer asking someone to start a legit business with someone but asking for him that persons' assets be disclosed.

[redsn0w]

Are you serious? Is the OP an 'alt of moreia'  ? Amazing, he caused a lot of trouble/problem here in the forum. In that case I am supporting quickseller, he should leave a negative trust to all the alleged scammers (because this is the function of the trust system, and if someone doesn't agree he can remove him from the personal trust list ... with the use of '~').

Yes the OP is an alt of moreia. He even admits it above (actually he claims moreia is an alt of the OP, but that is a distinction without a difference).

Oh ok, then he should go fuck himself. He is only a poor bastard, and that type of people should learn to respect the others.


Have a great day guys, this forum is amazing (every day !).

[TerminatorXL]

^^My logic is sound. Claiming otherwise, without sound counterarguments, simply makes you seem desperate.
...and sucks you in deeper into this quagmire which, if you recall, I've tried to help you avoid

You claimed that I was trying to entrap the OP when my proposition was not illegal nor would be a scam. In order for something to be considered entrapment, one needs to try to get someone to do something illegal.

If you want to go back to your police officer analogy, that what I did was similar to a police officer asking someone to start a legit business with someone but asking for him that persons' assets be disclosed.

>In order for something to be considered entrapment, one needs to try to get someone to do something illegal.
Ponzis are illegal, so that criterion is met. This forum allowing them to be planned and advertised is neither here nor there (other than providing ammo for LEO).

>I did was similar to a police officer asking someone to start a legit business
No, otherwise you would have asked him to help you sell alpaca socks

[...]
The thing is Quickseller registered before I had registered. I could impossible be Quicksellers first account.

In that case, how would signing an address prove you're not him?
Explain?

[Quickseller]

You really are an idiot and really do not like listening. Re-read the thread, if you still think it was entrapment then read it again, if your mind is still not changed then learn the definition of entrapment, if still not changed then read the thread again, if your mind is still not changed then continue to re-read the thread.

If you are claiming that josef2000 is my main/first account then it would be impossible that he would have registered after I registered (your specific claim was that he is my main account). Additionally you present nothing more then speculation that we are the same person and you base that speculation on the fact that he disagrees with you.

Edit: I am surprised as to how many people have voted in the poll. So far 43 people have voted after only ~50 hours while 80 people voted in the replacing default trust thread after 5 days, and that proposal was much more controversial then me being in default trust.

[TerminatorXL]

>You really are an idiot
You really are a rude little faggot, though not sure what spewing slurs adds to this discussion.

>If you are claiming that josef2000 is my main/first account then it would be impossible that he would have registered after I registered (your specific claim was that he is my main account)
No. My specific claim is that signing an addy would neither prove or disprove him being you.

>I am surprised as to how many people have voted in the poll.
I haven't voted once. Though I could, from multiple accounts.
The reason I haven't is just that - anyone with an account farm can vote as much and as often as needed

BTW, I'm helping you earn with your sig, bro! And you're repeatedly failing to thank me.