Multi-Accounting Scammer Viceroy/buyer VIEW BONUS: Grue and Crumbs Bitchfight

[r3wt]

i wasn't threatening you. i was giving you the heads up before you wind up in the boat i and several others are in. he seems to be able to obtain access to peoples private information somehow. just a heads up before you fuck up. i pm'd the mods what he did to me and so far all i hear is crickets.

[grue]

Listen, this is not the place to try and put your yellowing law degree to use. Stop spamming the thread.

You are here:

You seem to have missed my point: This is the subforum for non-technical grievances.  Being the only one, it's also the most fitting. Human language is horribly imprecise, dicdefs are horribly vague, incomplete, obsolescent &, on top of that, inconsistent across publishers/versions/dates.  English is not a formal language, dicdefs are descriptive, not definitive -- any logical deduction is guaranteed to end in disaster:  Garbage in - garbage out. i hope we're on the same page.
Just to humor you, and 'coz i'm as neardsly, i'll address your first one:
Of course, when Obama lied, he scammed the american people.  We good?

First, if you're going to bite the bullet and say obama's a scammer, you might want to know that not even republicans (or fox news) calls him a scammer. So your point falls apart right there. Second, what's wrong with using logic? If your definition can lead to absurd implications, it's not correct, period. Third, if you check all the other threads in the "scam accusations", you'll see that most of the threads are about people actually losing money/bitcoins/altcoins/merchandise. Forth, if I applied the logic of "slander" == "scam", then I can make a thread accusing Oldsport of being a "scammer" for slandering another member. Viceroy/buyer might be slandering people and using sockpuppet accounts, but that doesn't make it okay to call him something he's not.

[...]
A threat sent via PM:

Just a heads up, you don't wanna trifle with BTCTalkAccounts. he is dangerous imo. google the word "doxxing". this is more or less what he does for a living. he steals peoples identities and extorts payment from them in bitcoin. he did it to me just this past week.

LOL 2GOLD4ME. He was warning you about a dangerous member and now you're saying he's threatening you? Might want to rename this board "Member Threats". 

[Oldsport]

Listen, this is not the place to try and put your yellowing law degree to use. Stop spamming the thread.

You are here:

You seem to have missed my point: This is the subforum for non-technical grievances.  Being the only one, it's also the most fitting. Human language is horribly imprecise, dicdefs are horribly vague, incomplete, obsolescent &, on top of that, inconsistent across publishers/versions/dates.  English is not a formal language, dicdefs are descriptive, not definitive -- any logical deduction is guaranteed to end in disaster:  Garbage in - garbage out. i hope we're on the same page.
Just to humor you, and 'coz i'm as neardsly, i'll address your first one:
Of course, when Obama lied, he scammed the american people.  We good?

First, if you're going to bite the bullet and say obama's a scammer, you might want to know that not even republicans (or fox news) calls him a scammer. So your point falls apart right there. Second, what's wrong with using logic? If your definition can lead to absurd implications, it's not correct, period. Third, if you check all the other threads in the "scam accusations", you'll see that most of the threads are about people actually losing money/bitcoins/altcoins/merchandise. Forth, if I applied the logic of "slander" == "scam", then I can make a thread accusing Oldsport of being a "scammer" for slandering another member. Viceroy/buyer might be slandering people and using sockpuppet accounts, but that doesn't make it okay to call him something he's not.

I'm politely asking you to stop posting in my thread. You lost the argument on the definitive level and now you're still trying to debate and grasp for reasons to still be right. Please stop. If you have an issue with the word I used, tough luck but please stop whining about it. Oh and I never said he was actively threatning me. Since you love linguistics it might please you to look up the word threat:
 "an indication of something impending"

He indicated that if I did not stop bothering Viceroy/Btctalkaccounts/buyer then there would be something negative impending ( my doxxing etc.).

[grue]

I'm politely asking you to stop posting in my thread. You lost the argument on the definitive level and now you're trying to debate that you're grasping for reasons to still be right. Please stop. If you have an issue with the word I used, tough luck but please stop whining about it.

What's wrong? dissenting opinion that you can't refute? Hint: this is a forum, a place for discussion. If you wanted a place where everyone will support you no questions asked, you came to the wrong place. Keep in mind I'm not arguing viceroy/buyer didn't slander or have multiple accounts. I'm simply arguing that "scammer" is the wrong word to use.

edit:
I like how you won the argument by using well thought out counter arguments and refutations. /s

edit2:
I do have an issue with the word you're using. You're calling someone a scammer, when he didn't scam anyone. That's slander, period.

edit3:
stop editing that post, just make a new reply ffs.

He indicated that if I did not stop bothering Viceroy/Btctalkaccounts/buyer then there would be something negative impending ( my doxxing etc.).

He was simply warning you that Btctalkaccounts is a dangerous person. If you're going to call that a "threat", you might want to call your DA and get your local sheriff convicted for "threatening" the public.

[crumbs]

[...]

You seem to have missed my point: This is the subforum for non-technical grievances.  Being the only one, it's also the most fitting. Human language is horribly imprecise, dicdefs are horribly vague, incomplete, obsolescent &, on top of that, inconsistent across publishers/versions/dates.  English is not a formal language, dicdefs are descriptive, not definitive -- any logical deduction is guaranteed to end in disaster:  Garbage in - garbage out. i hope we're on the same page.
Just to humor you, and 'coz i'm as neardsly, i'll address your first one:
Of course, when Obama lied, he scammed the american people.  We good?

First, if you're going to bite the bullet and say obama's a scammer, you might want to know that not even republicans (or fox news) calls him a scammer. So your point falls apart right there. Second, what's wrong with using logic? If your definition can lead to absurd implications, it's not correct, period. Third, if you check all the other threads in the "scam accusations", you'll see that most of the threads are about people actually losing money/bitcoins/altcoins/merchandise. Forth, if I applied the logic of "slander" == "scam", then I can make a thread accusing Oldsport of being a "scammer" for slandering another member. Viceroy/buyer might be slandering people and using sockpuppet accounts, but that doesn't make it okay to call him something he's not.

This is getting ridiculous.  This exact phrase, "Obama is a scammer," nets me: "About 947,000 results (0.25 seconds)" on Google.  If we're down to being all technical & pedantic, then at least some people don't find the notion ridiculous.  As far as Fox News?  Who cares?
 -"If your definition can lead to absurd implications, it's not correct, period." -- definitions don't "lead" to anything, derivations do.  Learn to logic.
 -"...if you check all the other threads in the "scam accusations", you'll see that most of the threads are about people actually losing money..." -- This is exactly why we're having this back & forth, the point i'm trying to *address* in my original post.  If i didn't feel that [in this instance] multiple accounts are created to defraud people ["losing money," as you put it], we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 -"if I applied the logic of "slander" == "scam", then I can make a thread accusing Oldsport of being a "scammer"" --Irrelevant to the topic at hand.  Start/don't any thread you want.

Curio:  I've just found out that not only is socking condoned, but shilling (bidding up one's own auctions) is also 100% legit as far as Theymos is concerned. 

[grue]

This is getting ridiculous.  This exact phrase, "Obama is a scammer," nets me: "About 947,000 results (0.25 seconds)" on Google.  If we're down to being all technical & pedantic, then at least some people don't find the notion ridiculous.  As far as Fox News?  Who cares?

https://i.minus.com/iVw1xL2C11LnF.png
your point? If you walked to up to someone and asked if Obama was a scammer, you would likely get a weird look. People may respond that he's a liar or a terrible president, but no one is going to call him a scammer.

-"If your definition can lead to absurd implications, it's not correct, period." -- definitions don't "lead" to anything, derivations do.  Learn to logic.

nope, it's valid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

-"...if you check all the other threads in the "scam accusations", you'll see that most of the threads are about people actually losing money..." -- This is exactly why we're having this back & forth, the point i'm trying to *address* in my original post.  If i didn't feel that [in this instance] multiple accounts are created to defraud people ["losing money," as you put it], we wouldn't be having this discussion.

um, ok?

-"if I applied the logic of "slander" == "scam", then I can make a thread accusing Oldsport of being a "scammer"" --Irrelevant to the topic at hand.  Start/don't any thread you want.

It's to show how ridiculous your logic is.

u posted a le epic me me

[crumbs]

This is getting ridiculous.  This exact phrase, "Obama is a scammer," nets me: "About 947,000 results (0.25 seconds)" on Google.  If we're down to being all technical & pedantic, then at least some people don't find the notion ridiculous.  As far as Fox News?  Who cares?

https://i.minus.com/iVw1xL2C11LnF.png
your point? If you walked to up to someone and asked if Obama was a scammer, you would likely get a weird look. People may respond that he's a liar or a terrible president, but no one is going to call him a scammer.

You're not in kindergarten & you're not talking to a 2-yr-old.  You claimed that the notion of Obama being called a scamer is absurd on its face.  I presented you with 947,000 reasons to think otherwise.  In .25 seconds.  Next.

-"If your definition can lead to absurd implications, it's not correct, period." -- definitions don't "lead" to anything, derivations do.  Learn to logic.

nope, it's valid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I repeat, learn to logic.  This has nothing to do with reductio ad absurdum.  How old are you?

-"...if you check all the other threads in the "scam accusations", you'll see that most of the threads are about people actually losing money..." -- This is exactly why we're having this back & forth, the point i'm trying to *address* in my original post.  If i didn't feel that [in this instance] multiple accounts are created to defraud people ["losing money," as you put it], we wouldn't be having this discussion.

um, ok?

Are you daffy?

-"if I applied the logic of "slander" == "scam", then I can make a thread accusing Oldsport of being a "scammer"" --Irrelevant to the topic at hand.  Start/don't any thread you want.

It's to show how ridiculous your logic is.

You are the one who stated logic=scam.  You succeeded at pointing out the absurdity of your own logic.

u posted a le epic me me

[BTCTalkAccounts]

Him and BTCtalkaccounts ARE THE SAME.

I'm going to just say this once, so listen carefully:


You are the dumbest fucking person on this entire planet. I wouldn't go as far as to say the whole universe, but I can say for 100% fact that you are the dumbest living organism on Earth.

I don't doubt that you think I am viceroy, you're so dumb that you actually think that.

* BTCTalkAccounts warns everyone not to trade with Oldsport

See what I did there?  

Your name is ruined, you can accuse everyone of everything but it won't make you any more reputable and nobody is going to ever trade with you again. Please PM me if you need a new account with better rep or contact me on BM, like I said before I have the best inventory by far.

Also, about the trust you left me, both of those things are allowed by ToS, it is encouraged to have a different forum account for business and pleasure so you can express your opinion without people thinking that your business supports that option. Selling accounts is allowed too provided the account isn't stolen.

[Oldsport]

Him and BTCtalkaccounts ARE THE SAME.

I'm going to just say this once, so listen carefully:


You are the dumbest fucking person on this entire planet. I wouldn't go as far as to say the whole universe, but I can say for 100% fact that you are the dumbest living organism on Earth.

I don't doubt that you think I am viceroy, you're so dumb that you actually think that.

* BTCTalkAccounts warns everyone not to trade with Oldsport

See what I did there?  

Your name is ruined, you can accuse everyone of everything but it won't make you any more reputable and nobody is going to ever trade with you again. Please PM me if you need a new account with better rep or contact me on BM, like I said before I have the best inventory by far.

Which of your accounts should I pm? You, viceroy, buyer...? 

[BTCTalkAccounts]

Which of your accounts should I pm? You, viceroy, buyer...? 

LOL!

Like I said, I'm only going to say it once. Now fuck you.

[grue]

You're not in kindergarten & you're not talking to a 2-yr-old.  You claimed that the notion of Obama being called a scamer is absurd on its face.  I presented you with 947,000 reasons to think otherwise.  In .25 seconds.  Next.

Yay appeal to tone!

nope, it's valid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I repeat, learn to logic.  This has nothing to do with reductio ad absurdum.  How old are you?

Please explain to me how it's not logic instead of "L2LOGIC LOL". I claimed that your broad definition of "scam" can lead to absurd situations. Therefore, the definition can't be valid. Please tell me what logical error I made here. Although I do have to admit it's funny because you were anti-logic a few posts ago.

[...]any logical deduction is guaranteed to end in disaster[...]

Are you daffy?

so is ur mom (you see where this is going?)

You are the one who stated logic=scam.  You succeeded at pointing out the absurdity of your own logic.

Wait wat. Please quote the exact post where I said "logic = scam".

edit:
nice, oldsport added "Grue and Crumbs Bitchfight" to the topic title. Because when forum admins aren't in your favor (regarding duplicate accounts), you call "buyer" a scammer. If anyone opposes you, commence name calling.

[bitcoinplay]

BTCTalkAccounts == buyer == viceroy == grue == crumbs right?

[BTCTalkAccounts]

Just a heads up, you don't wanna trifle with BTCTalkAccounts. he is dangerous imo. google the word "doxxing". this is more or less what he does for a living. he steals peoples identities and extorts payment from them in bitcoin. he did it to me just this past week.

LOL!

I missed this part earlier. This isn't true there is nothing to worry about. I'm qualified to be a private investigator and I do dox people and do background checks before I do large trades (over $10,000). I also dox people who try to defraud me but I'm sure most people here do the same.

I have no interest in stealing identities, it's not what I do for a living, I already make enough money with what I do probably more than I could from ID fraud, but thats beside the point because it's immoral, wrong and illegal.

I have in the past caused my enemies damages, no ID fraud or anything serious. I would never do anything like that to a business partner, friend/acquaintance or stranger, however, only someone who continually tries to screw me.

Don't worry anyone (r3wt, oldsport) I'm not going to do shit because I'm too lazy and have other shit to do, besides, I do not consider you guys my "enemies" and neither of you have defrauded me, so your safe But Oldsport is still dumb as fuck it's hilarious to say the least.

[BTCTalkAccounts]

BTCTalkAccounts == buyer == viceroy == grue == crumbs right?

yeah listen to Oldsport, eveything he says makes perfect sense, he is 100% definitely not a scammer.

Here is an interesting thought, I have hundreds of accounts, why would I suddenly post on this thread with this account if I was Viceroy, doesn't make sense really, I could have used any account and it would have looked 1000 times less suspicious than an account that buys/sells accounts.

The reason I posted with this account is because I was browsing the forum, answering PM's on this account and stumbled across the threa and decided to post something which I forget, and then Mr Scammer Oldsport shows up to "out" me  

[grue]

BTCTalkAccounts == buyer == viceroy == grue == crumbs right?

mind = blown!

I should really ban myself.

[Oldsport]

BTCTalkAccounts == buyer == viceroy == grue == crumbs right?

yeah listen to Oldsport, eveything he says makes perfect sense, he is 100% definitely not a scammer.

Here is an interesting thought, I have hundreds of accounts, why would I suddenly post on this thread with this account if I was Viceroy, doesn't make sense really, I could have used any account and it would have looked 1000 times less suspicious than an account that buys/sells accounts, I could have even just logged in as a mod and trashed the thread altogether although I don't know for sure if I have any accounts with mod permissions on this board as I'm too lazy to check.

The reason I posted with this account is because I was browsing the forum, answering PM's on this account and stumbled across the threa and decided to post something which I forget, and then Mr Scammer Oldsport shows up to "out" me  

It's because you are not intelligent. And there is no legal way you got hundreds of accounts to this forum. You probably run some type of virus or you're FOS.

[grue]

It's because you are not intelligent. And there is no legal way you got hundreds of accounts to this forum. You probably run some type of virus or you're FOS.

The forum's administrator allows multiple accounts per person. So how is it not legal for him to get that many accounts? Is there some limit on accounts registered per hour?

[BTCTalkAccounts]

The forum's administrator allows multiple accounts per person. So how is it not legal for him to get that many accounts? Is there some limit on accounts registered per hour?

There is no point replying to this thread Oldsport is now posting under his next username.

[Oldsport]

It's because you are not intelligent. And there is no legal way you got hundreds of accounts to this forum. You probably run some type of virus or you're FOS.

The forum's administrator allows multiple accounts per person. So how is it not legal for him to get that many accounts? Is there some limit on accounts registered per hour?

You're really so stupid? Really? You believe he invested the time to make hundreds of forum accounts in order to sell them? There is 0 demand for 0 post newbie accounts. Anyone can make them. So anyone that sits down and makes 100s of forum accounts is an idiot or he fishes them.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Hmm, I actually think Buyer is Viceroy now.