Dooglus is supporting ponzis

[The Sceptical Chymist]

If pirateat40 came on this forum after getting out of jail and started dissecting arguments of people he suspected of scamming--and all the while denying that he himself is a scammer--my guess is that he would get a collective STFU from the community.   That's how I feel about quickseller.  No credibility whatsoever, and the difference between the two is a matter of degree of course, but it's a similar scenario.

In any case, this is just fighting that shouldn't be happening.   If we're so concerned about ponzis then the obvious solution is to ban them.  What's the excuse why we don't do this again?  And if they're not banned then everyone should back the F off.  And I agree with vod that there should be disclosure but that's not happening.  Just nuke ponzis.  They will die off.  I see so many of the older members defending the status quo around here,  and it's nauseating.  Not just about this, either but 'nuff said.

[tspacepilot]

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis  

This looks more like some kind of personal attack to smear Dooglus's reputation, especially with the last part of your comment.  I understand your overall point, but I don't believe that Dooglus's intent was to A) be part of a ponzi or B) make a profit from it.  I think you're mistaken and you need to consider the weight of the argument you're making with respect to the justification of it all.  I think you've made your point, nuff said.

Of course it is a smear campaign against dooglus, Quickseller wants to be on DT again while Doog who's currently in DT has crossed out QS... If Quickseller is known for one thing it's his smear campaigns.

Exactly this^^^.  And, in case anyone wasn't aware, he's also using his army of alts to try to amply the effect of his smear campaign.  See, here for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389916.0  newtons1 is an alt of QS, he created that thread at the same time as this one.  Who knows how many other people in these threads are actually just QS doing his smear-army thing?

[Quickseller]

Vod do you think it is okay to help ponzis become more popular?

My stance is the same as Dooglus and Theymos - if a Ponzi scheme is presented in an honest fashion then it's not fraudulent.

The issue I have is most ponzis are not honest - they do not state that you will lose your money when the program collapses.

Even if a ponzi is obviously a ponzi, newbies may not know the risks.  The risks need to be posted clearly on the ponzi.  If they are, I consider it gambling, and have no problem with it.

Here is a snippet from the OP of the specific ponzi that dooglus was trying to help:

[size= 24pt][u ][b ]What's Difference?![/b][/u][/size]
[size= 17pt]
The way CLAM stakes allows for the first ever truly loseless "ponzi".

If necessary I can explain to you in detail as to why this is not true, as I know that you know as well as I do that this is impossible.

To put it another way, dooglus was helping a ponzi that is deceitful collect additional money from gamblers/"investors"

Although this is not the case, even if the ponzi that dooglus was helping was being 100% honest and transparent, there was nothing to stop another dishonest ponzi from using the script that dooglus improved to scam others.

So Vod, what do you think of dooglus helping a ponzi that was not being honest?

[Your Point Is Invalid]

If pirateat40 came on this forum after getting out of jail and started dissecting arguments of people he suspected of scamming--and all the while denying that he himself is a scammer--my guess is that he would get a collective STFU from the community.   That's how I feel about quickseller.  No credibility whatsoever, and the difference between the two is a matter of degree of course, but it's a similar scenario.

In any case, this is just fighting that shouldn't be happening.   If we're so concerned about ponzis then the obvious solution is to ban them.  What's the excuse why we don't do this again?

If you get scammed by a ponzi then you probably deserve to be, the forum should go around patrolling where we spend our Bitcoins

[Quickseller]

If pirateat40 came on this forum after getting out of jail and started dissecting arguments of people he suspected of scamming--and all the while denying that he himself is a scammer--my guess is that he would get a collective STFU from the community.   That's how I feel about quickseller.  No credibility whatsoever, and the difference between the two is a matter of degree of course, but it's a similar scenario.

In any case, this is just fighting that shouldn't be happening.   If we're so concerned about ponzis then the obvious solution is to ban them.  What's the excuse why we don't do this again?

If you get scammed by a ponzi then you probably deserve to be, the forum should go around patrolling where we spend our Bitcoins

Noone deserves to get scammed, however you are correct to say that the forum (as in the administration and moderators) should not tell "us" how to spend our own money. However that does not mean that as a community we should openly accept it when a member of our community is engaging in behavior that is actively helping scammers steal additional money from people that might not fully understand what they are investing in.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

If pirateat40 came on this forum after getting out of jail and started dissecting arguments of people he suspected of scamming--and all the while denying that he himself is a scammer--my guess is that he would get a collective STFU from the community.   That's how I feel about quickseller.  No credibility whatsoever, and the difference between the two is a matter of degree of course, but it's a similar scenario.

In any case, this is just fighting that shouldn't be happening.   If we're so concerned about ponzis then the obvious solution is to ban them.  What's the excuse why we don't do this again?

If you get scammed by a ponzi then you probably deserve to be, the forum should go around patrolling where we spend our Bitcoins

Noone deserves to get scammed, however you are correct to say that the forum (as in the administration and moderators) should not tell "us" how to spend our own money. However that does not mean that as a community we should openly accept it when a member of our community is engaging in behavior that is actively helping scammers steal additional money from people that might not fully understand what they are investing in.

The forum has a soft spot for dooglus, i dont know why

[tspacepilot]

The forum has a soft spot for dooglus, i dont know why

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here.  I don't know if you know the history of dooglus, how he has been trusted with ginormous sums of money in bitcoin and has proven himself responsible with it time and again, even under extreme pressures.

I also don't know if you know the history of quickseller and his army-of-alts smear campaigns.  This very thread was started by his alt.  This is usually what he does, he creates a new account or uses one of his many farmed accounts to start smear threads, then, halfway through the thread, Quickseller pops in and basically takes over the argumentation from his alt.  I don't know if it's because he just gets tired of logging into so many accounts or what.  Anyway, a bit of history search will show you that QS has been on the attack against dooglus for approximately 1 year.  I don't know if it's just a coincidence, but this is around the same time that dooglus stuck up for me against quickseller and his alts when QS was actively smearing me with his army.  QS ended up going down in flames when it was shown the kinds of scams he was doing with his alts.  I think ever since then QS has made it his mission in life to try to destroy dooglus reputation.

In any case, consider the argumentation he's presenting, the same argument could be made against him.  He knows that the many many many accounts he sells and farms are used to perpetrate scams, therefore by selling them and farming them, he's perpetrating scamming himself.  If he doesn't accept that argument, then he really ought to leave dooglus alone.  If dooglus were actually, actively supporting ponzis, don't you think that someone other than QS would have something to say about it?

[Your Point Is Invalid]

The forum has a soft spot for dooglus, i dont know why

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here.  I don't know if you know the history of dooglus, how he has been trusted with ginormous sums of money in bitcoin and has proven himself responsible with it time and again, even under extreme pressures.

I also don't know if you know the history of quickseller and his army-of-alts smear campaigns.  This very thread was started by his alt.  This is usually what he does, he creates a new account or uses one of his many farmed accounts to start smear threads, then, halfway through the thread, Quickseller pops in and basically takes over the argumentation from his alt.  I don't know if it's because he just gets tired of logging into so many accounts or what.  Anyway, a bit of history search will show you that QS has been on the attack against dooglus for approximately 1 year.  I don't know if it's just a coincidence, but this is around the same time that dooglus stuck up for me against quickseller and his alts when QS was actively smearing me with his army.  QS ended up going down in flames when it was shown the kinds of scams he was doing with his alts.  I think ever since then QS has made it his mission in life to try to destroy dooglus reputation.

In any case, consider the argumentation he's presenting, the same argument could be made against him.  He knows that the many many many accounts he sells and farms are used to perpetrate scams, therefore by selling them and farming them, he's perpetrating scamming himself.  If he doesn't accept that argument, then he really ought to leave dooglus alone.  If dooglus were actually, actively supporting ponzis, don't you think that someone other than QS would have something to say about it?

He doesnt sell accounts again, the code that dooglus fixed will always be used

[suchmoon]

He doesnt sell accounts again, the code that dooglus fixed will always be used

Are you sure that all sold accounts stopped being used?

[Your Point Is Invalid]

He doesnt sell accounts again, the code that dooglus fixed will always be used

Are you sure that all sold accounts stopped being used?

no, but they can only be used for 1 scam, the code can be used alot of times on alot of sites

[suchmoon]

He doesnt sell accounts again, the code that dooglus fixed will always be used

Are you sure that all sold accounts stopped being used?

no, but they can only be used for 1 scam, the code can be used alot of times on alot of sites

And QS only ever sold one account who only ever logged in once and committed one single scam? Your analogy is invalid.

Luckily it's beer o'clock so I'll assume you posted this just to amuse me.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

He doesnt sell accounts again, the code that dooglus fixed will always be used

Are you sure that all sold accounts stopped being used?

no, but they can only be used for 1 scam, the code can be used alot of times on alot of sites

And QS only ever sold one account who only ever logged in once and committed one single scam? Your analogy is invalid.

Luckily it's beer o'clock so I'll assume you posted this just to amuse me.

The number of accounts QS sold is limited, the amount of times the code can be used is unlimited, am I wrong?

[tspacepilot]

He doesnt sell accounts again, the code that dooglus fixed will always be used

He's been saying that for 2 years now, however, I've caught him selling accounts in this time.  We know that he's not an honest person because of his lying, what makes you think we can believe him when he says he doesn't sell accounts now.

The number of accounts QS sold is limited, the amount of times the code can be used is unlimited, am I wrong?

Technically both numbers would have a finite upper bound, therefore limited.  In any case, the idea that because dooglus looked a broken line of code and fixed it means that he's supporting everything that anyone might ever use that code for is about as valid as the idea that QS supports everything that might ever be done with his sold accounts.  What's more, when you look at the context here, a butthurt scammer who's out for revenge against a person who's been trusted time and again with huge sums of money and proven himself responsible, that's when it becomes outlandish.  When another thread pops up with the same topic using a new username in about a month, let's all do the responsible thing and ignore it.  QS will keep beating this drum with new accounts as long as we keep responding to it.

[suchmoon]

He doesnt sell accounts again, the code that dooglus fixed will always be used

Are you sure that all sold accounts stopped being used?

no, but they can only be used for 1 scam, the code can be used alot of times on alot of sites

And QS only ever sold one account who only ever logged in once and committed one single scam? Your analogy is invalid.

Luckily it's beer o'clock so I'll assume you posted this just to amuse me.

The number of accounts QS sold is limited, the amount of times the code can be used is unlimited, am I wrong?

You clearly said "1 scam". I don't know or care if you're right or wrong, just that your argument doesn't make sense even after you altered it twice.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

He doesnt sell accounts again, the code that dooglus fixed will always be used

Are you sure that all sold accounts stopped being used?

no, but they can only be used for 1 scam, the code can be used alot of times on alot of sites

And QS only ever sold one account who only ever logged in once and committed one single scam? Your analogy is invalid.

Luckily it's beer o'clock so I'll assume you posted this just to amuse me.

The number of accounts QS sold is limited, the amount of times the code can be used is unlimited, am I wrong?

You clearly said "1 scam". I don't know or care if you're right or wrong, just that your argument doesn't make sense even after you altered it twice.

Each account can only be used for 1 scam

[suchmoon]

Each account can only be used for 1 scam

Not true. But if you're saying that QS should take responsibility for up to 1 scam per sold account - I'm all for it. Let's start with Master-P.

[cpfreeplz]

Each account can only be used for 1 scam

Not true. But if you're saying that QS should take responsibility for up to 1 scam per sold account - I'm all for it. Let's start with Master-P.

Mmmmmm... pretty sure he had like... 2 or 3 scams going on... or a dozen. .

Anywho, I don't really see an issue with fixing code. If he fixed code for a website that sold guns/drugs/live girls on Webcam some people would find find that immoral too. That's all this is (worst case scenario) is immoral. Not a scam lol.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

Each account can only be used for 1 scam

Not true. But if you're saying that QS should take responsibility for up to 1 scam per sold account - I'm all for it. Let's start with Master-P.

The accounts he sold may not be used to scam, the code dooglus fixed will be used for the sole purpose of scamming, an I wrong?

[owlcatz]

Each account can only be used for 1 scam

Not true. But if you're saying that QS should take responsibility for up to 1 scam per sold account - I'm all for it. Let's start with Master-P.

The accounts he sold may not be used to scam, the code dooglus fixed will be used for the sole purpose of scamming, an I wrong?

It doesn't matter, your point is invalid. QS lost his or her rep, even with me, long ago. I consider whoever it is (You? lol) an untrustworthy character.

I don't care what you think about it to be honest. I have dealt with QS directly so I'm not trolling... Like you are. QS? 

[owlcatz]

Each account can only be used for 1 scam

Not true. But if you're saying that QS should take responsibility for up to 1 scam per sold account - I'm all for it. Let's start with Master-P.

LOL, suchmoon always wins the internet... Like... Daily.