Banning Butthurt People/ Trolls

[Lauda]

Classic argumentum ad hominem.

There is no ad hominem here. Fallacies are beyond your level, you should avoid using them.

LaudaM, are a proven extortionist criminal.

Nope. That's a continued lie (read sting operation) that is being pushed ad naseum by Quickseller & co out of spite. Maybe it is time to leave that basement and get a life?

[1715465461]

1715465461

[1715465461]

1715465461

[1715465461]

1715465461

[Moniro]

Classic argumentum ad hominem.

There is no ad hominem here.

Thank you for proving that you are a liar too.

You need help? Sure: argumentum ad hominem, is 'where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself':

Education doesn't seem to be one of your strong features.

[...] shows your lack of education and your bullshit. Keep drinking the kool-aid, but that ain't gonna help you get a better degree than high school.

Maybe it is time to leave that basement and get a life?

There is no reason to answer this way unless desperately trying to distract from the actual substance.

[Lauda]

Thank you for proving that you are a liar too.

Nope.

You need help? Sure: argumentum ad hominem, is 'where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself':

For this to be true, you'd need to have: a) An argument. b) Something worth rebutting. c) (My) Intent to to do so. Neither one is the case, especially not a and b.

There is no reason to answer this way unless desperately trying to distract from the actual substance.

To distract from the fact that you're a butthurt troll that needs to be banned? Now why would I want to do that?

[Moniro]

Thank you for proving that you are a liar too.

Nope.

You need help? Sure: argumentum ad hominem, is 'where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself':

For this to be true, you'd need to have: a) An argument. b) Something worth rebutting. c) (My) Intent to to do so. Neither one is the case, especially not a and b.

There is no reason to answer this way unless desperately trying to distract from the actual substance.

To distract from the fact that you're a butthurt troll that needs to be banned? Now why would I want to do that?

Gibberish quoted. Let us know when you are back to the substance.

Again, attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself:

you're a butthurt troll

Reminder:

Allowing stuff like this is just damaging for everyone [...] and ultimately the forum (which is already in a bad state)

-->

The above poster (LAUDA) is a good example of people that continue to be here despite having been caught in illegal schemes: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0

Tell us: extortionists/criminals do NOT hurt the forum? What right does a criminal have to play the police here? Make sure to post a valid reply.

[Aventhe]

Thank you for this suggestion. Rest assured there are more than one persons working on preparing the lawsuit indeed.

You're a funny guy. I'll also invite Satoshi to come watch Lauda get arrested.

Wait, wasn't barwizi sending the police to Lauda's house? Scary stuff... *facepalm*


Above all, there is a large difference between a sting operation and an extortionist. Explain this to me: Why would Lauda spend so much time finding scammers and negging them if she/ he could in fact join them and make money behind closed doors (secretly is what I mean). Also, why does Lauda often bust/ help bust scam ICOs with cryptodevil if, once again, he or she could join in on the ICO and make money off them by not exposing them, essentially blackmailing them.

However, you see none of that happening, do you?

[Pearls Before Swine]

Why would Lauda spend so much time finding scammers and negging them if she/ he could in fact join them

I don't see that happening, and I do believe Lauda's 'extortion attempt'
was a sting operation.  You either believe it or you don't.  Lauda's good works
outweigh that little lapse of good judgement.

However, regarding the logic of the above statement.  Quickseller spent a lot of
time scam busting....and then he pulled his escrow scam on a bunch of unwitting
victims who thought they were purchasing an escrow service with an independent
third party.  You know, a real escrow.  As in, a 3-sided transaction.  So just
because someone tries to bust scammers doesn't mean that person is not or would
not become one.  You never know.

[Lauda]

Above all, there is a large difference between a sting operation and an extortionist. Explain this to me: Why would Lauda spend so much time finding scammers and negging them if she/ he could in fact join them and make money behind closed doors (secretly is what I mean). Also, why does Lauda often bust/ help bust scam ICOs with cryptodevil if, once again, he or she could join in on the ICO and make money off them by not exposing them, essentially blackmailing them.

None of that matters, nor does the shill care about anyone actually engaging in any scammy/shady actions or similar. That's what happens when you end up on the wrong end of negative ratings.

I don't see that happening, and I do believe Lauda's 'extortion attempt'
was a sting operation.  You either believe it or you don't.  Lauda's good works
outweigh that little lapse of good judgement.

I think that it is fair to say that a number of people trust me on a much higher level than ever before.

However, regarding the logic of the above statement.  Quickseller spent a lot of
time scam busting....and then he pulled his escrow scam on a bunch of unwitting
victims who thought they were purchasing an escrow service with an independent
third party.  You know, a real escrow.  As in, a 3-sided transaction.  So just
because someone tries to bust scammers doesn't mean that person is not or would
not become one.  You never know.

Quickseller is a prime example of someone who deceived the public and who showed his true colors after his crimes were exposed.

[Moniro]

LaudaM, are a proven extortionist criminal.

Nope. That's a continued lie [...]

Wrong. You are lying again.

Above all, there is a large difference between a sting operation and an extortionist. Explain this to me: Why would Lauda spend so much time finding scammers and negging them if she/ he could in fact join them and make money behind closed doors (secretly is what I mean). Also, why does Lauda often bust/ help bust scam ICOs with cryptodevil if, once again, he or she could join in on the ICO and make money off them by not exposing them, essentially blackmailing them.

None of that matters, nor does the shill care about anyone actually engaging in any scammy/shady actions or similar. That's what happens when you end up on the wrong end of negative ratings.

I don't see that happening, and I do believe Lauda's 'extortion attempt'
was a sting operation.  You either believe it or you don't.  Lauda's good works
outweigh that little lapse of good judgement.

I think that it is fair to say that a number of people trust me on a much higher level than ever before.

However, regarding the logic of the above statement.  Quickseller spent a lot of
time scam busting....and then he pulled his escrow scam on a bunch of unwitting
victims who thought they were purchasing an escrow service with an independent
third party.  You know, a real escrow.  As in, a 3-sided transaction.  So just
because someone tries to bust scammers doesn't mean that person is not or would
not become one.  You never know.

Quickseller is a prime example of someone who deceived the public and who showed his true colors after his crimes were exposed.

As seen here once again it's typical behavior of Lauda not to directly reply to the substance at all and trying to deceive by attacking others.

On another note it does not matter whether 'a number of people trust you (sic) on a much higher level than ever before', as criminals too have friends and partners who may trust them. This argument, again, is completely worthless.

Let's repeat it over and over again until you get it:

Gibberish quoted. Let us know when you are back to the substance. You cannot escape.

Again, attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself:

you're a butthurt troll

Reminder:

Allowing stuff like this is just damaging for everyone [...] and ultimately the forum (which is already in a bad state)

-->

The above poster (LAUDA) is a good example of people that continue to be here despite having been caught in illegal schemes: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0

Tell us: extortionists/criminals do NOT hurt the forum? What right does a criminal have to play the police here? Make sure to post a valid reply.[/size]

You are a proven criminal and a brazen hypocrite for trying to play the forum police. So far you have not been able to make a single valid argument justifying your position.

Answer the above bolded question. For your instance it's a simple no/yes question and does not demand any further gibberish.

[Moniro]

Reminder:

Allowing stuff like this is just damaging for everyone [...] and ultimately the forum (which is already in a bad state)

-->

The above poster (LAUDA) is a good example of people that continue to be here despite having been caught in illegal schemes: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0

Tell us: extortionists/criminals do NOT hurt the forum? What right does a criminal have to play the police here? Make sure to post a valid reply.

You are a proven criminal and a brazen hypocrite for trying to play the forum police. So far you have not been able to make a single valid argument justifying your position.

Answer the above bolded question. For your instance it's a simple no/yes question and does not demand any further gibberish.

4 days have passed - no reply.  Ignoring the substance will not work.
Reminder: Tell us, extortionists/criminals do NOT hurt the forum? Should criminals have the right to play the forum police here? Answer the above bolded question. It's a yes/no question.

To those who're new: LaudaM was caught in an extortionist crime which is illegal both in his birth country Croatia as well as in Austria where he currently lives. At the same time Lauda's profile remains in Bitcointalk's Default Trust, allowing a criminal to blemish other users profiles. There has not been any solid argument as to why LaudaM should not be removed from default trust and tagged appropriately like any other criminal.

Edit: 1 week has passed

[The Sceptical Chymist]

It's a stupid, loaded question anyway.  Lauda doesn't have to answer to you or your alt accounts who keep bumping this dead horse issue.

Nobodt gives a shit about this anymore except butthurt whiners like you.  Everyone else has long moved on.  As much as quickseller is a scammer, having perpetrated a significant escrow scam which he'll never live down, we've moved on from the point of creating and bumping threads about it.  He got severely negged, and Lauda didn't.  The community has spoken.   You lost this one, let it go already.

[Moniro]

this dead horse issue

Extortion is a serious crime and far from a dead horse issue.

stupid, loaded question anyway

Your biased opinion is irrelevant. I suppose Lauda can speak for himself.

Are extortionists/criminals not hurting the forum?
Should extortionists/criminals be included in Default Trust?
Should criminals have the right to play the forum police here?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

this dead horse issue

stupid, loaded question anyway

Your biased opinion is irrelevant. I suppose Lauda can speak for himself.

There is a simple question to answer.

Are extortionists/criminals not hurting the forum?
Should extortionists/criminals be included in Default Trust?
Should criminals have the right to play the forum police here?

Your opinion is even more biased and more irrelevant, since this is a dead issue.  But you go ahead and keep waiting with whatever trap you're hoping to spring.  I'm telling you why you're not getting an answer, but you're so busy beating this dead horse that you won't listen to reason.  Quickseller.

[Moniro]

Your opinion is even more biased and more irrelevant, since this is a dead issue.  But you go ahead and keep waiting with whatever trap you're hoping to spring.  I'm telling you why you're not getting an answer, but you're so busy beating this dead horse that you won't listen to reason.  Quickseller.

This is nothing more than your biased personal opinion. I repeat, extortion is a serious crime and far from a dead horse issue.

Your argument is completely worthless as one particular person (whoever that may be) posting about a crime does not in any way make the crime committed by the other person less severe or irrelevant. This logic of yours is entirely flawed.

Again, gibberish is not required. Lauda can speak for himself and there is a simple question to answer.

Every post that does not answer the above question/s is obvious distraction from the substance.