Lutpin and Lauda : Please ?

[abhishek.g]

This isn't helping your case.

Nothing is, abhishek.g is currently evading several bans, which will result in this account being permanently banned sooner or later aswell.


Proof (because I don't make statements without):

1KWK5pZwFzm8oxemXNMy6EotHT5Ed4C2v7 on their profile (http://archive.is/2RHwq).
1MMofYc38wp1caEF7dKe11PHrQmeULcBBp on the profile of xkrishna (http://archive.is/L0R4B).
17uUJnmPAtuDaTaajwGuS1fB9FpZVYAgEo used by xmaxbit (http://archive.is/2HsfH).
1DwFmSqcGVd2d1ynmbNmAFAdatjVk93za3 used by abhishekthakur (http://archive.is/xbPHY).

Connected via fcb6fe73b466806628962ad5400c355d1d1a201469b1750ad7662fd19bccdbca and a4e3bb961d5138836b77c8007d2b8088a57f193b3a5bd2c504215633b297c5f8

I rest my case.

I think you forgot to explain how this guy is a scammer. You posted connections to several accounts that are alleged to be spammer. If he is evading a permanent ban then he will probably get banned, although sometimes some people who are permanently banned are allowed to come back, either under a new name or under their old name(s).

Exactly , they denied me for a campaign, I asked reason and they now say I think that I am entitled to join sig campaign. Hey come on, do I not deserve to know the reason ? They have interlinked a one time signature spam and trust abuse(deleted) with the scamming part. I ask a one single question :
If I cut your earning source for an invalid reason, how will you react ? If I am a trust abuser who are you then ?

[1713858969]

1713858969

[1713858969]

1713858969

[1713858969]

1713858969

[1713858969]

1713858969

[1713858969]

1713858969

[minifrij]

I think you forgot to explain how this guy is a scammer. You posted connections to several accounts that are alleged to be spammer.

Red trust doesn't always make someone a scammer, it shows that the person leaving the feedback doesn't trust the person recieving it. Lutpin has made his reasoning clear for the red mark in his feedback, as did Lauda.
Would you trust someone that spams and ban evades, along with little trustworthy things to their name?

In addition, would you not consider somebody delivering a sub-par product for what you pay to be scamming? In that case, signature spamming and getting paid is scamming the owner.

And all I can say for you is RIP english .

You're not in any place to insult anyone else's literacy.

[abhishek.g]

Red trust doesn't always make someone a scammer, it shows that the person leaving the feedback doesn't trust the person recieving it. Lutpin has made his reasoning clear for the red mark in his feedback, as did Lauda.
Would you trust someone that spams and ban evades, along with little trustworthy things to their name?

In addition, would you not consider somebody delivering a sub-par product for what you pay to be scamming? In that case, signature spamming and getting paid is scamming the owner.

Really ? Then why do you think I was given the name of trust abuser when I did same ? This is not something personal here .

And all I can say for you is RIP english .

You're not in any place to insult anyone else's literacy.
[/quote]

Then why is he insulting and advising about what he has got no clue ?

[actmyname]

Red trust doesn't always make someone a scammer, it shows that the person leaving the feedback doesn't trust the person recieving it. Lutpin has made his reasoning clear for the red mark in his feedback, as did Lauda.
Would you trust someone that spams and ban evades, along with little trustworthy things to their name?

In addition, would you not consider somebody delivering a sub-par product for what you pay to be scamming? In that case, signature spamming and getting paid is scamming the owner.

Really ? Then why do you think I was given the name of trust abuser when I did same ? This is not something personal here .

Because that negative feedback had no justifiable reason behind it and therefore was abusing the system. Retaliatory feedback is usually a big no-no.

And all I can say for you is RIP english .

You're not in any place to insult anyone else's literacy.

Then why is he insulting and advising about what he has got no clue ?

Irrelevant, and you were the one who had ignored everything Bitcoinsummoner had said to only reply with "RIP english". Certainly, someone has no clue, and it's not them. And that goes along with the fact that you use poor grammar and spelling so you're in no position to begin insulting other people's English skills.

[abhishek.g]

Red trust doesn't always make someone a scammer, it shows that the person leaving the feedback doesn't trust the person recieving it. Lutpin has made his reasoning clear for the red mark in his feedback, as did Lauda.
Would you trust someone that spams and ban evades, along with little trustworthy things to their name?

In addition, would you not consider somebody delivering a sub-par product for what you pay to be scamming? In that case, signature spamming and getting paid is scamming the owner.

Really ? Then why do you think I was given the name of trust abuser when I did same ? This is not something personal here .

Because that negative feedback had no justifiable reason behind it and therefore was abusing the system. Retaliatory feedback is usually a big no-no.

And all I can say for you is RIP english .

You're not in any place to insult anyone else's literacy.

Then why is he insulting and advising about what he has got no clue ?

Irrelevant, and you were the one who had ignored everything Bitcoinsummoner had said to only reply with "RIP english". Certainly, someone has no clue, and it's not them. And that goes along with the fact that you use poor grammar and spelling so you're in no position to begin insulting other people's English skills.

Well If mine is not then they also do not have any relevance. Someone has got no clue and it definitely includes you. If you are that good at english then answer this query :

Show me a sentence where you can use two "in(s)" consecutively. Lets see who is poor.

[Vod]

Show me a sentence where you can use two "in(s)" consecutively. Lets see who is poor.

When you have sex with your girlfriend, you put your one IN in.   

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Show me a sentence where you can use two "in(s)" consecutively. Lets see who is poor.

When you have sex with your girlfriend, you put your one IN in.  

That's a LOL right there.  

Edit:  I thought Canada was on the metric system.

[Vod]

Show me a sentence where you can use two "in(s)" consecutively. Lets see who is poor.

When you have sex with your girlfriend, you put your one IN in.  

That's a LOL right there.  

Edit:  I thought Canada was on the metric system.

The entire world is on the metric system - sans US of A.

[abhishek.g]

The question was not meant to be answered by a boob licker , i.e Vod 
Do you have any clean answer which is not vulgar and not related to sex ? Lol

[Quickseller]

I think you forgot to explain how this guy is a scammer. You posted connections to several accounts that are alleged to be spammer.

Red trust doesn't always make someone a scammer, it shows that the person leaving the feedback doesn't trust the person recieving it. Lutpin has made his reasoning clear for the red mark in his feedback, as did Lauda.
Would you trust someone that spams and ban evades, along with little trustworthy things to their name?

Uh, yes, negative trust is meant for anyone who has scammed someone, who has attempted to scam someone, or who is believed to be a scammer:

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

The forum administration sometimes will allow someone to resume posting after being permanently banned after some amount of time has elapsed (depending on the amount of "trouble" the person previously caused), sometimes a new account is created, is allowed to continue posting, but the old account is not unbanned, and sometimes the old account(s) is unbanned.

None of the reasoning provided by either Lutpin nor Lauda give any insight to why the OP is a scammer, nor have they said anything along the lines of "trust me, this person is a scammer, but I cannot disclose how I know this" (this would only be used when someone is an alt of a scammer).

In addition, would you not consider somebody delivering a sub-par product for what you pay to be scamming? In that case, signature spamming and getting paid is scamming the owner.

Not in the OP's case, no (nor in the majority of other similar cases). It is my understanding that the OP was previously paid for a set number of posts made after an enrollment post (and/or enrollment time), made in a specific subset of sections, while wearing a specific signature until a specific time. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the OP was not paid until after he delivered his services, allowing the owner of the company he was advertising for to withhold payment if the quality of service was less then expected, which dilutes this kind of claim. 

[abhishek.g]

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the OP was not paid until after he delivered his services, allowing the owner of the company he was advertising for to withhold payment if the quality of service was less then expected, which dilutes this kind of claim.

It is not so , what cause me to act this way is the behaviour of yahoo (became bossy and started abusing) while I accept that I messaged him 8x a week only once as I was feeling helpless and I was unable to open the sheet properly from my phone. The spreadsheet used to have payment info and I was unable to find sheet no. 2  in that spreadsheet, I already said him sorry but he was very rude. So are these guys Lutpin and Lauda. They relate ban evasion with scamming . I waited and enough is enough. Now I have left them the feedbacks they deserve. He removed me from Byteball signature campaign due to the talk between us and no other reason. I do not know why do they take job if can not handle people. He could simply ask not to message me.

They should remember that they reside on the same earth where we do. You will be respected if you love people and not hate them . Do not categorize every single guy in the same category .

[Quickseller]

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the OP was not paid until after he delivered his services, allowing the owner of the company he was advertising for to withhold payment if the quality of service was less then expected, which dilutes this kind of claim.

It is not so , what cause me to act this way is the behaviour of yahoo (became bossy and started abusing) while I accept that I messaged him 8x a week only once as I was feeling helpless and I was unable to open the sheet properly from my phone. The spreadsheet used to have payment info and I was unable to find sheet no. 2  in that spreadsheet, I already said him sorry but he was very rude. So are these guys Lutpin and Lauda. They relate ban evasion with scamming . I waited and enough is enough. Now I have left them the feedbacks they deserve. He removed me from Byteball signature campaign due to the talk between us and no other reason. I do not know why do they take job if can not handle people. He could simply ask not to message me.

They should remember that they reside on the same earth where we do. You will be respected if you love people and not hate them . Do not categorize every single guy in the same category .

So you were not paid at all? Regardless of if you were paid after the fact, or if you did not receive payment, neither is the basis of a negative rating.

[abhishek.g]

So you were not paid at all? Regardless of if you were paid after the fact, or if you did not receive payment, neither is the basis of a negative rating.

I was paid by yahoo. He is good at making payments. But he removed me from signature campaign in the middle while he should not have done this as the trust ratings were good and not negative earlier .

[minifrij]

Uh, yes, negative trust is meant for anyone who has scammed someone, who has attempted to scam someone, or who is believed to be a scammer:

That's not true and you know it. If that were the case then why did you post each of these feedbacks, none of which stating that the user was a scammer or was believed to be:





And my personal favorite:

You were right for tagging that guy. What sort of a lowlife would deceive another party in a deal by acting as both a part of the deal and the escrow?


You tagged these people using the trust system because you do not trust them, as you explicitly said in several of your ratings. This is no different to what Lauda or Lutpin is doing in my opinion. Please stop holding people do a double standard simply just because you dislike them, it's obvious and is extremely childish.

[abhishek.g]

Uh, yes, negative trust is meant for anyone who has scammed someone, who has attempted to scam someone, or who is believed to be a scammer:

That's not true and you know it. If that were the case then why did you post each of these feedbacks, none of which stating that the user was a scammer or was believed to be:





And my personal favorite:

You were right for tagging that guy. What sort of a lowlife would deceive another party in a deal by acting as both a part of the deal and the escrow?


You tagged these people using the trust system because you do not trust them, as you explicitly said in several of your ratings. This is no different to what Lauda or Lutpin is doing in my opinion. Please stop holding people do a double standard simply just because you dislike them, it's obvious and is extremely childish.

If its "childish" then I must not have gotten feedbacks after I left them . This is indeed true and this is the case . If you follow the forum , them why are you escaping this one ? Unless you accept, no one can make you understand this .