Requesting-Vod be prevented deleting posts Self Modded thread/Removed from DT

[Bobsurplus]

It was a forum name with an anon identity. Point final.

Not so.  Quickscammer admitted he was both accounts. 

Yes I understand. But at the time no one was the wiser. So it was just a forum name with an anon identity.
Also, I dont believe that QS forced anyone to use his selfmade lol escrow. They were free to use Danny or TF or whoever if they wanted.
Anyway.. Im done here.. Yall both cool in my book. Just wanted to get my point across and I think I did just that.

Peace out guys.

[TheButterZone]

Listen bro, take all that legalese back to the court room. The escrow for all intents and purposes was a third party. It was a forum name with an anon identity. Point final.

Your final point remains indefensible and will be quickly laughed out of court with a contempt citation, as there is 20 BTC on the line for a libel case.

One intent and purpose was to fraudulently obtain escrow fees, otherwise none of the Quickseller escrows where Quickseller admitted to being the NON-THIRD PARTY, but 1/2 COUNTERPARTY, fraudulent escrow agent, would have been a paid service; they would have ALL been free, yet still not by OED definition - ONLY indefensible bullshitter definition, "escrows".

But at the time no one was the wiser.

AKA an element of fraud.

[Bobsurplus]

Listen bro, take all that legalese back to the court room. The escrow for all intents and purposes was a third party. It was a forum name with an anon identity. Point final.

Your final point remains indefensible and will be quickly laughed out of court with a contempt citation, as there is 20 BTC on the line for a libel case.

One intent and purpose was to fraudulently obtain escrow fees, otherwise none of the Quickseller escrows where Quickseller admitted to being the NON-THIRD PARTY, but 1/2 COUNTERPARTY, fraudulent escrow agent, would have been a paid service; they would have ALL been free, yet still not by OED definition - ONLY indefensible bullshitter definition, "escrows".

No bro.. If you were the prosecutor and I was the defense and you tried to play that shit Id just smack you down with the fact that your victim entered into a deal with an anon figure he met online going by a pseudonym and therefor had no real reason to believe that his escrow and vendor/buyer were not the same person. For all your client knows it very well could have been the same person and he has no expectation otherwise.

[jonald_fyookball]

Listen bro, take all that legalese back to the court room. The escrow for all intents and purposes was a third party. It was a forum name with an anon identity. Point final.

Your final point remains indefensible and will be quickly laughed out of court with a contempt citation, as there is 20 BTC on the line for a libel case.

One intent and purpose was to fraudulently obtain escrow fees, otherwise none of the Quickseller escrows where Quickseller admitted to being the NON-THIRD PARTY, but 1/2 COUNTERPARTY, fraudulent escrow agent, would have been a paid service; they would have ALL been free, yet still not by OED definition - ONLY indefensible bullshitter definition, "escrows".

No bro.. If you were the prosecutor and I was the defense and you tried to play that shit Id just smack you down with the fact that your victim entered into a deal with an anon figure he met online going by a pseudonym and therefor had no real reason to believe that his escrow and vendor/buyer were not the same person. For all your client knows it very well could have been the same person and he has no expectation otherwise.

Your logic is even worse than Quicksellers.  If that's possible.

"Because it was an internet forum, there was no presumption of honesty, therefore my client is innocent."

hahahaha

[Bobsurplus]

Listen bro, take all that legalese back to the court room. The escrow for all intents and purposes was a third party. It was a forum name with an anon identity. Point final.

Your final point remains indefensible and will be quickly laughed out of court with a contempt citation, as there is 20 BTC on the line for a libel case.

One intent and purpose was to fraudulently obtain escrow fees, otherwise none of the Quickseller escrows where Quickseller admitted to being the NON-THIRD PARTY, but 1/2 COUNTERPARTY, fraudulent escrow agent, would have been a paid service; they would have ALL been free, yet still not by OED definition - ONLY indefensible bullshitter definition, "escrows".

No bro.. If you were the prosecutor and I was the defense and you tried to play that shit Id just smack you down with the fact that your victim entered into a deal with an anon figure he met online going by a pseudonym and therefor had no real reason to believe that his escrow and vendor/buyer were not the same person. For all your client knows it very well could have been the same person and he has no expectation otherwise.

Your logic is even worse than Quicksellers.  If that's possible.

"Because it was an internet forum, there was no presumption of honesty, therefore my client is innocent."

hahahaha

No but you cant enter into a contract with anyone unless you have at least a real name. So any contract entered by one fake name to another fake name cant possibly be executed.

[jonald_fyookball]

Listen bro, take all that legalese back to the court room. The escrow for all intents and purposes was a third party. It was a forum name with an anon identity. Point final.

Your final point remains indefensible and will be quickly laughed out of court with a contempt citation, as there is 20 BTC on the line for a libel case.

One intent and purpose was to fraudulently obtain escrow fees, otherwise none of the Quickseller escrows where Quickseller admitted to being the NON-THIRD PARTY, but 1/2 COUNTERPARTY, fraudulent escrow agent, would have been a paid service; they would have ALL been free, yet still not by OED definition - ONLY indefensible bullshitter definition, "escrows".

No bro.. If you were the prosecutor and I was the defense and you tried to play that shit Id just smack you down with the fact that your victim entered into a deal with an anon figure he met online going by a pseudonym and therefor had no real reason to believe that his escrow and vendor/buyer were not the same person. For all your client knows it very well could have been the same person and he has no expectation otherwise.

Your logic is even worse than Quicksellers.  If that's possible.

"Because it was an internet forum, there was no presumption of honesty, therefore my client is innocent."

hahahaha

No but you cant enter into a contract with anyone unless you have at least a real name. So any contract entered by one fake name to another fake name cant possibly be executed.

So, you're a lawyer?

Or you've studied contract law?

[Vod]

No but you cant enter into a contract with anyone unless you have at least a real name. So any contract entered by one fake name to another fake name cant possibly be executed.

That's not true Bob.  Anytime you make an agreement with someone, you have entered into a contract with them.  RL identity is not necessary.

[Bobsurplus]

Listen bro, take all that legalese back to the court room. The escrow for all intents and purposes was a third party. It was a forum name with an anon identity. Point final.

Your final point remains indefensible and will be quickly laughed out of court with a contempt citation, as there is 20 BTC on the line for a libel case.

One intent and purpose was to fraudulently obtain escrow fees, otherwise none of the Quickseller escrows where Quickseller admitted to being the NON-THIRD PARTY, but 1/2 COUNTERPARTY, fraudulent escrow agent, would have been a paid service; they would have ALL been free, yet still not by OED definition - ONLY indefensible bullshitter definition, "escrows".

No bro.. If you were the prosecutor and I was the defense and you tried to play that shit Id just smack you down with the fact that your victim entered into a deal with an anon figure he met online going by a pseudonym and therefor had no real reason to believe that his escrow and vendor/buyer were not the same person. For all your client knows it very well could have been the same person and he has no expectation otherwise.

Your logic is even worse than Quicksellers.  If that's possible.

"Because it was an internet forum, there was no presumption of honesty, therefore my client is innocent."

hahahaha

No but you cant enter into a contract with anyone unless you have at least a real name. So any contract entered by one fake name to another fake name cant possibly be executed.

So, you're a lawyer?

Or you've studied contract law?

Neither nor. But I believe I do know common sense and that's if I get someone to sign a contract and he puts a fake name on it and I fail at the due diligence part to catch that shit im up shits creek without a paddle if Im looking for compensation. Excuse me mr judge, the contract was signed by John doe, but Id like to sue Abdulla Akbar because he signed it....

[Bobsurplus]

No but you cant enter into a contract with anyone unless you have at least a real name. So any contract entered by one fake name to another fake name cant possibly be executed.

That's not true Bob.  Anytime you make an agreement with someone, you have entered into a contract with them.  RL identity is not necessary.

How are you going to prove I signed your contract in a court of law if it does not have my signature on it?

[Vod]

No but you cant enter into a contract with anyone unless you have at least a real name. So any contract entered by one fake name to another fake name cant possibly be executed.

That's not true Bob.  Anytime you make an agreement with someone, you have entered into a contract with them.  RL identity is not necessary.

How are you going to prove I signed your contract in a court of law if it does not have my signature on it?

You don't have to sign anything.  You just need to agree.  Verbal contracts are made all the time. 

[Bobsurplus]

No but you cant enter into a contract with anyone unless you have at least a real name. So any contract entered by one fake name to another fake name cant possibly be executed.

That's not true Bob.  Anytime you make an agreement with someone, you have entered into a contract with them.  RL identity is not necessary.

How are you going to prove I signed your contract in a court of law if it does not have my signature on it?

You don't have to sign anything.  You just need to agree.  Verbal contracts are made all the time. 

Reminds me of this move I just saw called horrible bosses 2.
Yall should check it out.
Verbal contract wont hold any water here.

[Vod]

Verbal contract wont hold any water here.

I agree with you.  If Quickscammer wants to sue me, he'll need to:

1) Sue the forum for my IP
2) Sue my ISP for my address
3) Serve me
4) Prove in court I was the person in the household using the computer at the time.

That can get quite expensive.  Good thing he has that 20btc!   

[TheButterZone]

No but you cant enter into a contract with anyone unless you have at least a real name. So any contract entered by one fake name to another fake name cant possibly be executed.

More indefensible BS by Bobsurplus, whose "logic" would require every contract killer and their hit caller, who didn't use their legal names in contract, no matter any amount of other proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to be found innocent.

Contempt of court, law, humanity.

[Bobsurplus]

More indefensible BS by Bobsurplus, whose logic would require every contract killer who didn't use their legal name in contract, no matter any amount of other proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to be found innocent.

Contempt of court, law, humanity.

Are you fucking retarded? How is a contract killer using a fake name going to save him from a murder charge? LoL, We are talking about apples and oranges here.
One is a breach of trust/contract situation and the other is one of the most despicable things one person can do to another which in some places carries the death penalty.

Maybe put down the drink and sober up a bit before running off at the mouth agian.

Thanks bro.

[ABitNut]

What Bob is pretty much right about is that we have little recourse against an anonymous entity. What Bob is wrong about is that that somehow excuses whatever that anonymous entity did.

And I love the logic, "The victim thought it was a third party at the time so nothing wrong happened."

"The users of Mt. Gox thought it was a great exchange, so nothing wrong happened."

[TheButterZone]

More indefensible BS by Bobsurplus, whose "logic" would require every contract killer and their hit caller, who didn't use their legal names in contract, no matter any amount of other proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to be found innocent.

Contempt of court, law, humanity.

Are you fucking retarded? How is a contract killer using a fake name going to save him from a murder charge? LoL, We are talking about apples and oranges here.
One is a breach of trust/contract situation and the other is one of the most despicable things one person can do to another which in some places carries the death penalty.

Maybe put down the drink and sober up a bit before running off at the mouth agian.

Thanks bro.

We're talking about victimful crimes. Fraud and murder, both have victims, regardless of the victims speaking up or not.

I have never drank more than 15 mL of alcoholic beverages, but thanks for digging your pit of indefensible, contemptible bullshit even deeper.

[Bobsurplus]

What Bob is pretty much right about is that we have little recourse against an anonymous entity. What Bob is wrong about is that that somehow excuses whatever that anonymous entity did.

And I love the logic, "The victim thought it was a third party at the time so nothing wrong happened."

"The users of Mt. Gox thought it was a great exchange, so nothing wrong happened."

Umm we are not talking about any loss of money here are we?

If so I may be wrong but I did not see where QS had stolen any money or covered up a hack as was the case with mtgox.

[Bobsurplus]

More indefensible BS by Bobsurplus, whose logic would require every contract killer who didn't use their legal name in contract, no matter any amount of other proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to be found innocent.

Contempt of court, law, humanity.

Are you fucking retarded? How is a contract killer using a fake name going to save him from a murder charge? LoL, We are talking about apples and oranges here.
One is a breach of trust/contract situation and the other is one of the most despicable things one person can do to another which in some places carries the death penalty.

Maybe put down the drink and sober up a bit before running off at the mouth agian.

Thanks bro.

We're talking about victimful crimes. Fraud and murder, both have victims, regardless of the victims speaking up or not.

I have never drank more than 15 mL of alcoholic beverages, but thanks for digging your pit of indefensible, contemptible bullshit even deeper.

You can run these big words around all day bro, anyone who reads this conversation knows how full of shit you are and how wrong your position is. Especially in the last post about the hitman getting off of a murder charge because he used an alias. LMAO. 15ml, more like 40oz.

[TheButterZone]

What Bob is pretty much right about is that we have little recourse against an anonymous entity. What Bob is wrong about is that that somehow excuses whatever that anonymous entity did.

And I love the logic, "The victim thought it was a third party at the time so nothing wrong happened."

"The users of Mt. Gox thought it was a great exchange, so nothing wrong happened."

Umm we are not talking about any loss of money here are we?

If so I may be wrong but I did not see where QS had stolen any money or covered up a hack as was the case with mtgox.

We absolutely are. The escrow fees for a non-existent by definition, escrow agent.

You are either bold-faced lying or willfully ignorant. Your choice.

LMAO. 15ml, more like 40oz.

Your choice is bold-faced lies, then. You're libeling against one of the core tenets of my identity at this point. I have not and will never intentionally drink more than that amount of alcohol. The first time was when I was served champagne as a minor at a wedding reception, despite requesting Martinelli's non-alcoholic sparking apple cider and only taking a sip of the champagne to make sure, and the second time was when I tasted a few drops from a wine bottle when I was of legal age. Both times I got a headache from such a minuscule amount.

[Bobsurplus]

What Bob is pretty much right about is that we have little recourse against an anonymous entity. What Bob is wrong about is that that somehow excuses whatever that anonymous entity did.

And I love the logic, "The victim thought it was a third party at the time so nothing wrong happened."

"The users of Mt. Gox thought it was a great exchange, so nothing wrong happened."

Umm we are not talking about any loss of money here are we?

If so I may be wrong but I did not see where QS had stolen any money or covered up a hack as was the case with mtgox.

We absolutely are. The escrow fees for a non-existent by definition, escrow agent.

You are either bold-faced lying or willfully ignorant. Your choice.

Nahh dude.. The buyer or seller, whoever it was who paid the escrow fee got what they paid for.. They paid to have an account, not a person, hold money for them during a business deal.
Who was behind the account has no bearing on the situation at hand because the payer got what he paid for which was an account to hold said funds.

Stop trying to beat me up here.. This (bct) is a fucking anonymous world, where everyone is using pseudonyms. If you dont like the rules then dont play the game.