Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 02:57:23 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Going after Trendon Shavers, Pirateat40, BTCST  (Read 48228 times)
mp420
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 501


View Profile
August 09, 2013, 10:31:54 AM
 #321

No legit business can offer the kind of returns he offered.

People who say "X is impossible" are amusing to me, regardless of X.


Okay, let's rephrase that. No legit business, absent rampant hyperinflation scenarios where the real interest rate is much lower, can offer the kind of returns he offered.

Reasoning:

1) Legit businesses do not operate in a vacuum. There's always competition, and even if there isn't, there's a risk of competition.
2) Credit is readily available for legit businesses. Even credit card debt is practically free of interest compared to what Pirate offered.
3) To hedge against the risk of someone else starting a competing business with much lower interest expenses, a legit business, if it ever issues debt at astronomical rates, MUST pay those high-interest loans off immediately when feasible. Actually it wouldn't have made sense to issue debt at those rates to begin with (which is why it was crystal clear from the beginning that BTCST was a ponzi scheme), but even if it had made sense, he would have had no other option than to pay the initial debt off completely very quickly after getting the business running.

It's astonishing how little financial common sense many Bitcoin ethusiasts have. No wonder all those suckers were so easily drawn into the scam.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513609043
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513609043

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513609043
Reply with quote  #2

1513609043
Report to moderator
1513609043
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513609043

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513609043
Reply with quote  #2

1513609043
Report to moderator
1513609043
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513609043

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513609043
Reply with quote  #2

1513609043
Report to moderator
Cyberdyne
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630



View Profile
August 09, 2013, 11:02:27 AM
 #322

No legit business can offer the kind of returns he offered.

People who say "X is impossible" are amusing to me, regardless of X.


Okay, let's rephrase that. No legit business, absent rampant hyperinflation scenarios where the real interest rate is much lower, can offer the kind of returns he offered.

Reasoning:

a legit business, if it ever issues debt at astronomical rates, MUST pay those high-interest loans off immediately when feasible.

Stuck in a loop: People who say "a legit business MUST X" are amusing to me, regardless of X.

It's like they've completely shut off the possibility that there could ever be people who know things about business that they don't know.

Everyone on the internet is automatically an expert at everything though.
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 09, 2013, 12:24:52 PM
 #323

Everyone on the internet is automatically an expert at everything though.

Yes, because they could be, which means they actually are. Welcome to contemporary America.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
Vandroiy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
August 09, 2013, 01:12:45 PM
 #324

This is still going on? Allow me to try once again.

You don't derive that BS&T was a Ponzi using only formal logic statements. Almost anything is somehow possible. If I claim to be an alien who has traveled to Mars and back yesterday, nobody can formally prove me wrong. Pirate's chances of being legitimate were just small -- not in a "I don't believe it" kind of way, but in the way a physicist uses the word. Let's do an example; there are much better combinations in the threads from back then, but this already shows the point:

  • BS&T scaled on a smooth exponential, which means its reservoir of unfulfilled trades at horrible rates was really large compared to the entire market. I'd bet chances for that to be below 20%.
  • Pirateat40 made statements that seem unbefitting for a qualified trader. I'd give it a maximum 40% that he is able to beat competition by such a wide margin.
  • There are wealthy investors around who would finance an operation like his if explained under NDA. This would also help speed up the fundraising process to avoid competition. I'd give him 1:4 at best that he neither found a way to use a large investor nor had a situation in which he'd stop taking deposits and switch to his own funds.
  • The above statements are independent.

With only this primitive reasoning, I already expect a maximum probability of legitimacy of 0.2 * 0.4 * 0.25 = 2%.

Go figure what happens when looking at more independent statements, such as the abundant warning signs of a Ponzi scheme! The possibility of legitimacy becomes bunk, nothing a serious analyst would care about. I could not assign a final probability to it because it becomes noise to the probability of myself being insane, among other things that become relevant at such low probabilities.

Now maybe some people disagree on the points above. But it shouldn't be hard to find three to four independent statements like this and conclude that "non-Ponzi" chances are just horribly low.
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 10, 2013, 11:47:22 AM
 #325

This is still going on? Allow me to try once again.

You don't derive that BS&T was a Ponzi using only formal logic statements. Almost anything is somehow possible. If I claim to be an alien who has traveled to Mars and back yesterday, nobody can formally prove me wrong. Pirate's chances of being legitimate were just small -- not in a "I don't believe it" kind of way, but in the way a physicist uses the word. Let's do an example; there are much better combinations in the threads from back then, but this already shows the point:

  • BS&T scaled on a smooth exponential, which means its reservoir of unfulfilled trades at horrible rates was really large compared to the entire market. I'd bet chances for that to be below 20%.
  • Pirateat40 made statements that seem unbefitting for a qualified trader. I'd give it a maximum 40% that he is able to beat competition by such a wide margin.
  • There are wealthy investors around who would finance an operation like his if explained under NDA. This would also help speed up the fundraising process to avoid competition. I'd give him 1:4 at best that he neither found a way to use a large investor nor had a situation in which he'd stop taking deposits and switch to his own funds.
  • The above statements are independent.

With only this primitive reasoning, I already expect a maximum probability of legitimacy of 0.2 * 0.4 * 0.25 = 2%.

Go figure what happens when looking at more independent statements, such as the abundant warning signs of a Ponzi scheme! The possibility of legitimacy becomes bunk, nothing a serious analyst would care about. I could not assign a final probability to it because it becomes noise to the probability of myself being insane, among other things that become relevant at such low probabilities.

Now maybe some people disagree on the points above. But it shouldn't be hard to find three to four independent statements like this and conclude that "non-Ponzi" chances are just horribly low.

Oh hai V.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
November 11, 2013, 08:35:43 AM
 #326

Stuck in a loop: People who say "a legit business MUST X" are amusing to me, regardless of X.

It's like they've completely shut off the possibility that there could ever be people who know things about business that they don't know.

Everyone on the internet is automatically an expert at everything though.
Are you opposed to learning a lesson on some sort of principle? People who say things that are phenomenally improbable and where they have an enormous incentive to lie, where they are anonymous and everyone in the past who has made similar claims has been lying, are almost certainly lying. This is an undeniable fact and the effort spent evading it and attacking the people explaining it would be comical if they weren't doing so much real harm to real people.

Nobody has ever found any legitimate, low risk investment that requires taking on more and more high interest debt, yet any number of scams are based on this. The probability that the person asking you for money will be the first is near zero, and absent some plausible explanation of how they could possibly be that person, only a fool would consider any other possibility than that it's a scam. This is simple, basic common sense.

Simply put, anyone who sees an absurdly high interest rate and thinks "what a wonderful opportunity" rather than "what an obvious scam" lacks common sense. And, honestly, anyone who suggests that the community ought not to learn this lesson, in my opinion, is most likely seeking to exploit that lack of common sense. There is no other reason I can think of to preserve it rather than combat it.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Cyberdyne
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630



View Profile
November 11, 2013, 09:09:16 AM
 #327

Simply put, anyone who sees an absurdly high interest rate and thinks "what a wonderful opportunity" rather than "what an obvious scam" lacks common sense.

In keeping an open mind, for me it is neither of those.

It is more like "this is probably a scam, but since I recognize that there are things in this universe that I am not an expert in, and will never be an expert in, it's possible that it's actually a wonderful opportunity."

It's not lacking common sense to say that something being a scam is not a complete certainty. It's just logical.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
November 11, 2013, 09:16:32 AM
 #328

Then just multiply your potential profit with the extreme low probability its not a scam and you can see why its definitely stupid to "invest" in it.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
November 11, 2013, 09:19:46 AM
 #329

It's not lacking common sense to say that something being a scam is not a complete certainty. It's just logical.
I totally disagree. In fact, to talk about what can be known with "complete certainty" is the very opposite of common sense. Common sense is about making decisions that will almost always be right given that we never have complete certainty. Common sense is not letting scammers sucker you in with arguments about how you can't know their obvious lies are nonsense with "complete certainty" and how you must always entertain the possibility that might have found some miracle. Common sense is knowing there are no miracles, not keeping your mind perpetually opened to the possibility that there might be so that you can be taken advantage of.

Common sense is knowing when *not* to keep an open mind. Common sense is knowing when you know something. Entertaining miniscule possibilities is the antithesis of common sense.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Cyberdyne
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630



View Profile
November 11, 2013, 09:24:05 AM
 #330

It's not lacking common sense to say that something being a scam is not a complete certainty. It's just logical.
I totally disagree. In fact, to talk about what can be known with "complete certainty" is the very opposite of common sense. Common sense is about making decisions that will almost always be right given that we never have complete certainty. Common sense is not letting scammers sucker you in with arguments about how you can't know their obvious lies are nonsense with "complete certainty" and how you must always entertain the possibility that might have found some miracle. Common sense is knowing there are no miracles, not keeping your mind perpetually opened to the possibility that their might be so that you can be taken advantage of.

Okay sure, I'll sum up by saying:

Logic compels me to believe in the possibility that some suspicious-looking investment scheme is not a scam.

Common sense compels me to not invest in such wacky schemes, despite the possibility of it being legit.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
November 11, 2013, 09:32:59 AM
 #331

Okay sure, I'll sum up by saying:

Logic compels me to believe in the possibility that some suspicious-looking investment scheme is not a scam.

Common sense compels me to not invest in such wacky schemes, despite the possibility of it being legit.
And I have no problem with that position. What I have a *huge* problem with is people who say things like:

"People who say "X is impossible" are amusing to me, regardless of X."

And

"It's not lacking common sense to say that something being a scam is not a complete certainty."

And

"Stuck in a loop: People who say "a legit business MUST X" are amusing to me, regardless of X.
It's like they've completely shut off the possibility that there could ever be people who know things about business that they don't know."

These are all things you said, and they are all foolish and harmful. Invoking notions of metaphysical certainty, in a conversation about anything but metaphysics, is an attempt to reject common sense and has the actual effect of causing people to make bad decisions. It is also, quite simply, wrong.

"Impossible" does *not* mean "beyond logical possibility". Buying a car that goes 300 miles per gallon of gas is not a logical impossibility, but it is also impossible. "Complete certainty" is a metaphysical concept. Its relevance to investing is nil. And "MUST" does not mean complete metaphysical certainty either.

That is all complete and harmful foolishness.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Cyberdyne
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630



View Profile
November 11, 2013, 09:44:23 AM
 #332

"Impossible" does *not* mean "beyond logical possibility".

If that's really true, then this is the point in my day when I learn something, thanks.

Er, now considering the possibility that my definition of 'impossible' is flawed.


No wait, sorry it's still amusing - Why would anyone (who hasn't inspected every single car on the earth) ever claim that buying a car that gets 300 mpg is impossible? How do they know that? Amusing.


donut
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 246


View Profile
November 11, 2013, 04:29:58 PM
 #333

"Impossible" does *not* mean "beyond logical possibility".


I think you may be confusing "impossible" with "improbable". Impossible means that it will never ever happen under any conceivable circumstances. Improbable is just highly unlikely - like guessing a private key is about as unlikely as walking through a wooden door.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
November 11, 2013, 06:48:53 PM
 #334

I think you may be confusing "impossible" with "improbable". Impossible means that it will never ever happen under any conceivable circumstances. Improbable is just highly unlikely - like guessing a private key is about as unlikely as walking through a wooden door.
No, that's not what "impossible" means. That's a childish word game. In fact, that's a concept that is so rarely useful there is no need to give it is own word. I just picked four completely random uses of the word "impossible" in a Google search:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/09/10/impossible-to-default/
"It Is Impossible For The US To Default"
This clearly means it is impractical under the current circumstances. But this use of the word "impossible" is not wrong. To respond to the writer of this headline that there are conceivable circumstances under which the US would default would be idiotic, and everyone knows it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/david-calling/355981/compromise-impossible-egypt-david-pryce-jones
"Compromise Is Impossible in Egypt"
Really? Compromise will never happen in Egypt under any conceivable circumstances? Really? Is this headline wrong?

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/238710
Okay, this is a poem.

http://news.yahoo.com/blackberry-impossible-value-now-165548321.html
This uses the word "impossible" to refer to something that is merely difficult to do well. Wow, so many people don't understand how to correctly use the word "impossible".

Quote
No wait, sorry it's still amusing - Why would anyone (who hasn't inspected every single car on the earth) ever claim that buying a car that gets 300 mpg is impossible? How do they know that? Amusing.
Because that's how the English language works. That's what the word "impossible" means.

Can we stop the childish word games now? Please.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
November 11, 2013, 07:57:07 PM
 #335

impossible |imˈpäsəbəl|
adjective
not able to occur, exist, or be done: a seemingly impossible task | [ with infinitive ] : it was almost impossible to keep up with him.
• very difficult to deal with: she was in an impossible situation.
• informal (of a person) very unreasonable: “Impossible woman!” the doctor complained.
ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin impossibilis, from in- ‘not’ + possibilis (see possible) .

not. able. to. occur.

It matters not one whit to me that you have been able to find four articles on the interwebs that misuse the word. We already have a concise and compact term for the improbable - and that is.... 'improabable'. Why on earth would we overload the meaning onto another word (impossible), leaving us no compact and concise word to use to convey the meaning of 'not able to occur'? It defies all reason.

As an aside, the real performance of bitcoin against a numeraire of USD is not that far off of Pirate's advertised performance of his so-claimed investment against a numeraire of bitcoin. Using the concept of the numeraire to factor out the evident compounding of BTCST against USD, should we not then logically conclude that the performance of bitcoin is so outrageous as to make it an obvious scam by your stated criteria?

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
Cyberdyne
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630



View Profile
November 11, 2013, 08:10:30 PM
 #336

not. able. to. occur.

Yes, thank you. I'm dumbfounded that a grown adult (especially one who has decided to use the word 'childish') could define it any other way.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
November 12, 2013, 01:47:48 AM
 #337

impossible |imˈpäsəbəl|
adjective
not able to occur, exist, or be done: a seemingly impossible task | [ with infinitive ] : it was almost impossible to keep up with him.
• very difficult to deal with: she was in an impossible situation.
• informal (of a person) very unreasonable: “Impossible woman!” the doctor complained.
ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin impossibilis, from in- ‘not’ + possibilis (see possible) .

not. able. to. occur.
Definitions don't work that way. You can't parse them like a lawyer to figure out what does or doesn't quality.

Quote
It matters not one whit to me that you have been able to find four articles on the interwebs that misuse the word. We already have a concise and compact term for the improbable - and that is.... 'improabable'. Why on earth would we overload the meaning onto another word (impossible), leaving us no compact and concise word to use to convey the meaning of 'not able to occur'? It defies all reason.
They were randomly selected. Impossible and improbable don't mean the same thing. Impossible conveys a much higher level of unlikelihood than "improbable" does. There is no common English term for actual metaphysical impossibility because it is only useful in metaphysics.

Quote
As an aside, the real performance of bitcoin against a numeraire of USD is not that far off of Pirate's advertised performance of his so-claimed investment against a numeraire of bitcoin. Using the concept of the numeraire to factor out the evident compounding of BTCST against USD, should we not then logically conclude that the performance of bitcoin is so outrageous as to make it an obvious scam by your stated criteria?
I know you're being deliberately idiotic but just in case anybody thinks you're being serious rather than playing a childish game of "gotcha", the difference is that nobody claimed that you should trust them to invest your money in Bitcoins because Bitcoins were certain to appreciate in this way and that such an investment was low in risk.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
November 12, 2013, 04:30:38 AM
 #338

impossible |imˈpäsəbəl|
adjective
not able to occur, exist, or be done: a seemingly impossible task | [ with infinitive ] : it was almost impossible to keep up with him.
• very difficult to deal with: she was in an impossible situation.
• informal (of a person) very unreasonable: “Impossible woman!” the doctor complained.
ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin impossibilis, from in- ‘not’ + possibilis (see possible) .

not. able. to. occur.
Definitions don't work that way. You can't parse them like a lawyer to figure out what does or doesn't quality.

You can't refer to a dictionary to determine the meaning of a word? Crazy.

Quote from: JoelKatz
Quote
It matters not one whit to me that you have been able to find four articles on the interwebs that misuse the word. We already have a concise and compact term for the improbable - and that is.... 'improabable'. Why on earth would we overload the meaning onto another word (impossible), leaving us no compact and concise word to use to convey the meaning of 'not able to occur'? It defies all reason.
They were randomly selected.

Seems unlikely, but I'll take your word for it. After all, I can see the predominance of people using 'loose' when they men 'lose'. Just because it is widespread does not make it correct.

Quote from: JoelKatz
Impossible and improbable don't mean the same thing.

Thank you for that admission.

Quote from: JoelKatz
Impossible conveys a much higher level of unlikelihood than "improbable" does.

Yes - impossible conveys a probability of zero - to infinite decimal places. So says the dictionary.

Quote from: JoelKatz
There is no common English term for actual metaphysical impossibility because it is only useful in metaphysics.

Don't be obtuse. Of course there is a simple single word for probability = 0, as it is such a simple and useful concept. As the dictionary so says.

Quote from: JoelKatz
Quote
As an aside, the real performance of bitcoin against a numeraire of USD is not that far off of Pirate's advertised performance of his so-claimed investment against a numeraire of bitcoin. Using the concept of the numeraire to factor out the evident compounding of BTCST against USD, should we not then logically conclude that the performance of bitcoin is so outrageous as to make it an obvious scam by your stated criteria?
I know you're being deliberately idiotic but just in case anybody thinks you're being serious rather than playing a childish game of "gotcha", the difference is that nobody claimed that you should trust them to invest your money in Bitcoins because Bitcoins were certain to appreciate in this way and that such an investment was low in risk.

Well, no. I was not being deliberately idiotic. Are you now saying that the relative probability of an event occurring depends directly upon whether or not certain parties are claiming you can make a profit off it? Now who's being metaphysical? Actually, I know that is not what you mean to assert - but I cannot devine what it is that you mean to convey in your retort.

JoeKatz, I respect you in many things. However, If your plan is to argue that the dictionary is employing an incorrect definition, I just don't know how to carry on a meaningful discussion.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
November 12, 2013, 06:25:14 AM
 #339

You can't refer to a dictionary to determine the meaning of a word? Crazy.
No. You can't. You have to look at how native speakers actually use the word. Really.

Quote
Seems unlikely, but I'll take your word for it. After all, I can see the predominance of people using 'loose' when they men 'lose'. Just because it is widespread does not make it correct.
That is correct, widespread use is not quite equivalent to correctness. I'll happily point you towards sources that explain where the truth is between prescriptivism and descriptivism.

Quote
Quote from: JoelKatz
Impossible conveys a much higher level of unlikelihood than "improbable" does.

Yes - impossible conveys a probability of zero - to infinite decimal places. So says the dictionary.
No, it doesn't. "Impossible" is not a measure of probability. It's not a mathematical concept. You can google "* is impossible" and take 50 random samples. The majority of them will *not* be using "impossible" this way.

Quote
Well, no. I was not being deliberately idiotic. Are you now saying that the relative probability of an event occurring depends directly upon whether or not certain parties are claiming you can make a profit off it? Now who's being metaphysical? Actually, I know that is not what you mean to assert - but I cannot devine what it is that you mean to convey in your retort.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Seriously, I just explained it. It's not hard to understand. If the person who claims there's a high chance of a profit is the very same person who claims it's low risk and expects you to trust them with your money with no legal recourse, that increases the probability that it's a scam. Yes. Really. (But the real point was that speculating in the price of Bitcoin is high risk and anyone who says otherwise should be ignored. If it was a sure thing, the price would already be higher.)

Quote
JoeKatz, I respect you in many things. However, If your plan is to argue that the dictionary is employing an incorrect definition, I just don't know how to carry on a meaningful discussion.
If you don't know how to use a dictionary properly, then it really doesn't mean much to me that you respect me. Dictionaries point you at the general concept of a word, actual use by native speakers is authoritative. Native speakers going to a dictionary to tell each other how they "should" use a word is flat out idiotic and flips the way language works on its head. (With the possible exception of words with which they're not familiar.) You are essentially arguing that the majority of uses of the word "impossible" by native speakers is wrong, which is insane.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
EskimoBob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank


View Profile
November 12, 2013, 07:05:02 AM
 #340

This idiotic thread keeps popping up to "New post..." list because you 2, armchair linguist, (still practicing armchair law?) are thread crapping as usual. 
LOL, you 2 really need to get a life outside of this forum. Get out, go have a pint in your local and talk to someone, face to face.

While reading what I wrote, use the most friendliest and relaxing voice in your head.
BTW, Things in BTC bubble universes are getting ugly....
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!