Garr255/Werner - Auction shilling

[furuknap]

Holy shit. There's actually enough information here to open an investigation on Inaba. The quote tags were edited, and the screenshot appears fake. I think QuestionAuthority might be right:

Quote from: Inaba on Today at 02:58:55
Quote
I did not request a refund. If you refund me, I expect the full amount of BTC I paid to be refunded. If you are able to do this I will gladly take my business elsewhere, because believe it or not you have competition now

You'll get the full amount you paid in USD, since that's how our products are priced. 

As a point of fact, you did request a refund, let me quote you:

Quote
but your business operations and ethic are both unacceptable.

You find them unacceptable, I understand.  We will cut ties and move on and you no longer have to deal with the unacceptable (to you) business nature.  We do not want to force you into a position where you are must deal with an unacceptable situation, so we are removing that roadblock from your happiness.  I'm done here, your refund will be processed by COB tomorrow.

I think you're misunderstanding my logic. Take Apple Computer for example. A company that produces an admittedly good product, but not in the most ethical way. I am open about how they shouldn't employ FoxConn for their assembly etc, but they do it anyway, and I live with it.

My intentions are not to anger anyone, or disrupt my business relationship with BFL. I just want to promote honesty, and discourage the opposite.

Give me truth and I'll give you peace. Most people think that's simple enough.

Hahaha... post with the wrong sock puppet account there, sport?  Epic!

*EDIT* - For those of you who may have missed it, Garr just accidentally posted with his Werner account and then deleted the post and reposted with Garr when he realized he screwed up.

I was refreshing this thread every 30 seconds to not miss any of this juicy garbage and I didn't see that. I think you're smoking something.

Yes, by all means, open an investigation.  Lets see the IP logs of the posts and the post history.  SMF does have soft delete, right?  I use it on vBulletin all the time, any posts that are deleted are removed from public view, but I can view and recover them when I need to.

I still have the thread open in my browser as well, looking at it right now as a matter of fact.  In fact, lets post Garr's Skype log to me:

[6/19/2013 3:15:00 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Hi josh.zerlan, I'd like to add you as a contact. Garrett Ian MacDonald
[6/19/2013 3:25:13 AM] Josh Zerlan: What can I help you with?
[6/19/2013 3:25:17 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Thanks for adding me
[6/19/2013 3:25:21 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: free for a call?
[6/19/2013 3:25:30 AM] Josh Zerlan: No, it's too late at night for that.
[6/19/2013 3:25:54 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: I was wondering what your policy is on canceling orders, sir.
[6/19/2013 3:26:04 AM] Josh Zerlan: With regards to what?
[6/19/2013 3:28:17 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Dude this is Garr. I have to shamefully apologize for calling your company out, and making you think I don't want to deal with you, because most of my orders are not for me and have been sold to other people already.
[6/19/2013 3:29:07 AM] Josh Zerlan: You know, that might have carried some weight before you used a sock puppet account to troll me, then used your own account to lie about it and AGAIN essentially call me a liar.
[6/19/2013 3:29:21 AM] Josh Zerlan: You and I both know Werner is your sock puppet account
[6/19/2013 3:29:28 AM] Josh Zerlan: Given the speed you did your editing, I suspect you posted from the same IP
[6/19/2013 3:29:52 AM] Josh Zerlan: So getting a mod to check the IPs on those two posts will probably yield up the proof required to call you out on that
[6/19/2013 3:30:04 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: I'm just saying, it will hurt other customers more than me if you terminate our relationship. The terms I've agreed to with them exempt me from you canceling my order without a formal request.
[6/19/2013 3:30:34 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: It will hurt me a lot as well, still
[6/19/2013 3:30:36 AM] Josh Zerlan: Right... so you think it's ok to abuse me and BFL at your liesure and I should just bend over and take it?  It doesn't work like that here.
[6/19/2013 3:31:10 AM] Josh Zerlan: You did make a formal request.  You explicitly stated that our business ethics etc... were unacceptable.
[6/19/2013 3:31:15 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Well in my defense, can you argue against my accusations? This is not the outcome I intended.
[6/19/2013 3:32:00 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Are you a believer in implied word, or actual word. Because I am actually asking you to not cancel my orders, please.
[6/19/2013 3:33:46 AM] Josh Zerlan: Yes, I can easily arguing against your accusations. I already did.  There are orders ahead of you in the queue that were in before Bitpay. Most notably some FPGA orders that were never delivered at the customer request and converted into ASIC orders.  There's not a lot of them, but there's some of them.
[6/19/2013 3:34:16 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Okay, that does make sense
[6/19/2013 3:34:46 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: now that you tell me straight up and not through (what I suspect to be) a puppet.
[6/19/2013 3:34:58 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: ^sorry if I'm wrong about that
[6/19/2013 3:35:06 AM] Josh Zerlan: Unlike you, Garrett, I have but one account (or two if you cound BFL_Josh).
[6/19/2013 3:35:15 AM] Josh Zerlan: I'm not duplicious or dishonest like you appear to be at this point.
[6/19/2013 3:35:17 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: a smart person would use a VPN with a sock puppet account.
[6/19/2013 3:36:04 AM] Josh Zerlan: Yes, you could have been using a VPN with your puppet, but given the speed you switched it up, unless your VPN was on another computer, I doubt you had time to switch off your VPN and back on.
[6/19/2013 3:36:05 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Honestly I just want you to be forthcoming with your business operations
[6/19/2013 3:36:18 AM] Josh Zerlan: Dude, your credibility is shot after the stunt with Werner.
[6/19/2013 3:36:28 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: I don't want to discuss that.
[6/19/2013 3:36:38 AM] Josh Zerlan: Are you honestly sitting there trying to lecture me on being forthcoming after that?
[6/19/2013 3:36:57 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: I'm not bothering arguing that.
[6/19/2013 3:37:21 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Really I wish we weren't here having this discussion
[6/19/2013 3:38:12 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: You have to admit, that being an outsider of BFL, and seeing people be sent units with the explicit agreement that they would post picutres, that it looks shady.
[6/19/2013 3:38:25 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: I just want to get the truth.
[6/19/2013 3:38:59 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: And with your explaination for the FPGA orders, I believe I have it. At least part of it.
[6/19/2013 3:39:07 AM] Josh Zerlan: There's been several singles sent out, there's only one picture that I know of, and that's Allten.  We are shipping out in order.  I know it's hard to believe, but the majority of our orders don't come from Bitcointalk members.
[6/19/2013 3:39:21 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: It's totally believable
[6/19/2013 3:39:38 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: just something that most don't take into account as often as we should
[6/19/2013 3:39:42 AM] Josh Zerlan: Bitcointalk forum members are a signifigant faction, yes, but they are by no means a majority.
[6/19/2013 3:40:05 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Yep that is analogous with cognitive shareholders
[6/19/2013 3:40:18 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: so I understand that.
[6/19/2013 3:40:29 AM] Josh Zerlan: So, if you want to clean the slate, fine.  You need to apologize publically for calling me and BFL liars, admit Werner is your sock puppet account and apologize for utilizing it to troll me.
[6/19/2013 3:40:44 AM] Josh Zerlan: Then we can just forget it happened and move on.
[6/19/2013 3:46:01 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Okay, writing a post now...
[6/19/2013 4:02:56 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Done. I genuinely appreciate your giving me the opportunity to keep my orders.
[6/19/2013 4:05:58 AM] Josh Zerlan: That is probably one of the most disingenuous apologies I have ever seen, I have to admit.
[6/19/2013 4:07:09 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: It wasn't intended to be anything more than you asked.
[6/19/2013 4:07:20 AM] Garrett Ian MacDonald: Again, sorry for making you and I both look like cunts.
[6/19/2013 4:07:22 AM] Josh Zerlan: Clearly

Quoted for posterity to avoid modification.

[1715035367]

1715035367

[1715035367]

1715035367

[1715035367]

1715035367

[1715035367]

1715035367

[Maged]

Why does Maged even post here with speculation at all, when all Theymos needs to do is check the post edit history? Hell, it's probably already been broadcast across RSS when he made the first post. I'm dumbfounded as to personal opinion, speculation and accusations need to enter something so seemingly cut and dry. Is it because Garr255 is a friend of Maged and he's trying to protect him? It certainly can't be that Maged thinks BFL and Inaba are dishonest, as he wouldn't have accepted payment from funds paid by BFL to false advertise here. Maybe it's all fake resistance to make it appear that the mods are objective of Inaba and not just on his payroll now.

Check the logs, Theymos, and we don't want to hear you say "oh well when matthew was misleading it was serious, but when Garr did it it was obviously a prank". /thread

You're confusing several factors here. First off, we've never had someone who hasn't otherwise scammed people be reported for bid shilling. Thus, it's important to hear all sides on the matter. Second off, protecting the scammer is how we always start off an investigation. It's everyone else's job to convince us that we're wrong. That's just how this works.

As for "all Theymos needs to do is check the post edit history", user-deleted posts are considered private information (or if not, they should be), and private information can only be released when a scammer has been confirmed. In general, for someone to scam, there needs to be a victim. When there is a victim, a settlement can be made without ever declaring someone a scammer. That's why I'm not asking Theymos for the information yet. Also, there is enough evidence in the post history of Werner to not even need this information until a judgement is made. But again, for any of that to happen, we need someone to step up and say that they believe that they were scammed by Werner's shill bids.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Second off, protecting the scammer is how we always start off an investigation.

How many seconds after my pirate bet ended did I get a scammer tag, and who contacted me to confirm things first? What "investigation" was there? Theymos doesn't have a very good record of being anything but reactionary. You on the other hand, I agree do a good job investigating in most cases.

As for "all Theymos needs to do is check the post edit history", user-deleted posts are considered private information (or if not, they should be)

Public information is considered private?

But again, for any of that to happen, we need someone to step up and say that they believe that they were scammed by Werner's shill bids.

I believe I was scammed by Werner's shill bids as I was planning on bidding but didn't because Werner outbid my maximum bid. He robbed me of potential profit and he should pay me for that. Now that someone has come forward, it appears you need to step up your investigation to "get off the couch" mode.

Why would we be waiting on you to tell Theymos anything, is he too busy counting the 6000 BTC donated to him to do his job? (Yes, I appear to be trolling but I'm actually dead serious).

[Maged]

Second off, protecting the scammer is how we always start off an investigation.

How many seconds after my pirate bet ended did I get a scammer tag, and who contacted me to confirm things first? What "investigation" was there? Theymos doesn't have a very good record of being anything but reactionary. You on the other hand, I agree do a good job investigating in most cases.

Doesn't matter. That case was extremely clear, especially because the contract even said that you would take a scammer tag if you didn't pay.

As for "all Theymos needs to do is check the post edit history", user-deleted posts are considered private information (or if not, they should be)

Public information is considered private?

That's the question, isn't it. A situation like this really hasn't ever come up, so until we are convinced otherwise, it's best to take the most conservative position. In this case, that would be considering the information to be private. I would like to hear arguments for and against this position.

But again, for any of that to happen, we need someone to step up and say that they believe that they were scammed by Werner's shill bids.

I believe I was scammed by Werner's shill bids as I was planning on bidding but didn't because Werner outbid my maximum bid. He robbed me of potential profit and he should pay me for that. Now that someone has come forward, it appears you need to step up your investigation to "get off the couch" mode.

That would only be possible if he had won one of the auctions. However, since he didn't, that means that you would have been outbid regardless. Therefore, only the winners of the auctions can claim to have been scammed.

Why would we be waiting on you to tell Theymos anything, is he too busy counting the 6000 BTC donated to him to do his job? (Yes, I appear to be trolling but I'm actually dead serious).

Theymos is very busy and can't really take the time right now to handle issues that don't already have a clear consensus. He's free to respond, of course, but I won't push him to.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Doesn't matter. That case was extremely clear, especially because the contract even said that you would take a scammer tag if you didn't pay.

Yes, but I never said I wouldn't pay, I merely said I was paying a certain address that Theymos didn't agree with. Isn't that the point of communication and an "investigation"? No one even asked me, I just got a graphic from Theymos and a scammer tag. Don't make a fool of yourself by pretending that isn't reactionary. No matter how wrong I was for the prank, it was intended to be reactionary, I got exactly what I intended to get (and way way too much more I might add which I still feel stupid for), and that kind of reactionary attack from Theymos proves that he does what he wants, not what is just. When I ask him about removing a tag, he says "I will wait and see what the community thinks". That is a lack of integrity if I've ever seen one. Who gives a shit what the "community thinks"? I'm either a scammer or I'm not. I either scammed or I didn't. Doesn't Theymos have the ability to decide which one it is? Does he need to be babysat? If so, he really shouldn't be giving out scammer tags in the first place. Oh he doesn't anymore? Good! When is his given inappropriate and inaccurate "untrustworthy" tag going to be removed since he's no longer attempting to play god and just leaving it to the community to decide? Should we have a vote then so that busy Theymos isn't bothered?

That's the question, isn't it. A situation like this really hasn't ever come up, so until we are convinced otherwise, it's best to take the most conservative position. In this case, that would be considering the information to be private. I would like to hear arguments for and against this position.

It's either public or it's private. Is this post public or private? If I post it with the intention of people to see it, then later change my mind, does that change my intentions? You really are corrupted if you are even discussing this.

That would only be possible if he had won one of the auctions. However, since he didn't, that means that you would have been outbid regardless. Therefore, only the winners of the auctions can claim to have been scammed.

So what you're saying is, as long as you attempt to scam but don't succeed, it's okay? Oh well then, it seems that pirate bet for which I didn't accept a single bitcoin for anyone could be argued as just an attempted and failed scam, so it was okay since nothing of value was lost! You really must be corrupt if you're still arguing this.

Theymos is very busy and can't really take the time right now to handle issues that don't already have a clear consensus. He's free to respond, of course, but I won't push him to.

Dear leader needs time to count forum money and cover tracks for Garr255 it appears. How many shares of his mining or stock operation do you and Theymos hold? Do I need to explain why such a conflict of interest needs to be transparently addressed right now or have you gone so far off the deep end of corruption and hypocrisy back there behind the curtains of money?

[Darktongue]

 If you have ever sold on eBay.  You will find until something like this happens to you.  You really haven't had the full experience.  Countless times I've had someone bid on an auction and get pissed because they wher outbid. They bid and bid until the legitimate buyer stops.  Once this happens the price is so inflated they can't pay.  They will throw a sock puppet into the mix to cover some ass.   Ebays bid history will usually show a puppet wthin moments and or the time it would take to make a fake ass account.

Perhaps an auction system is in order.  Or hell just do away with auctions period.  Let bitmit handle it. I mean this is funny shit and all but Jesus Christ... it isn't worth the stroke some of you are in the throws of.

[Matthew N. Wright]

 If you have ever sold on eBay.  You will find until something like this happens to you.  You really haven't had the full experience.  Countless times I've had someone bid on an auction and get pissed because they wher outbid. They bid and bid until the legitimate buyer stops.  Once this happens the price is so inflated they can't pay.  They will throw a sock puppet into the mix to cover some ass.   Ebays bid history will usually show a puppet wthin moments and or the time it would take to make a fake ass account.

Perhaps an auction system is in order.  Or hell just do away with auctions period.  Let bitmit handle it. I mean this is funny shit and all but Jesus Christ... it isn't worth the stroke some of you are in the throws of.

The "stroke" is a moral dilemma. Grow up and join the adult conversation when you're ready to be an honest and self-governing adult. Now excuse this adult while I go back to calling Theymos a poopyhead.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I'm nit meaning to be insulting here or childish.

I was being sarcastic starting from the second sentence if you couldn't tell  

[Pierre]

So yea I'm just gonna work off the assumption that Garr255 and Werner is in fact the same person. Yes the evidence is not 100% but it's enough for me to put them on my personal blacklist.

For example, if you look at Werner's posts you'll notice that about 90% of them happens between 2am and 7am German time. If he was actually German that would be some seriously weird hours to be posting to this forum!

[mufa23]

Maged, we aren't asking for his deleted messages to be made public. (Or at least, I'm not.) If you and the rest of the staff wish to disclose them upon discovering there is truth to the accusation, that's fine.

We, the donators and people of this forum, just wish that Theymos would investigate the accusation. We all know Theymos is a busy guy. But since Garr255 is holding a portion of the forum's funds, I don't understand why this wouldn't merit a high priority for Theymos and bitcointalk's staff. If you would pass this information on to Theymos, that would awesome. That way we can close this thread and end the drama and speculation.

Thanks,
   -Mufa

[John (John K.)]

Relax guys.  Theymos will respond here soon enough after checking stuff up, according to what I've heard from him some time ago.

[mufa23]

Relax guys.   Theymos will respond here soon enough after checking stuff up, according to what I've heard from him some time ago.

That's wonderful news, John. Thank you for giving us an update!

[Deprived]

As for "all Theymos needs to do is check the post edit history", user-deleted posts are considered private information (or if not, they should be), and private information can only be released when a scammer has been confirmed. In general, for someone to scam, there needs to be a victim. When there is a victim, a settlement can be made without ever declaring someone a scammer. That's why I'm not asking Theymos for the information yet. Also, there is enough evidence in the post history of Werner to not even need this information until a judgement is made. But again, for any of that to happen, we need someone to step up and say that they believe that they were scammed by Werner's shill bids.

PMs are considered private information - and rightly so.  Yet you routinely ask people to send copies of PMs that an alleged scammer wrote so that they can be confirmed as existing.

If you'll confirm that a PM (which was NEVER intended to be public) is legitimate then what pathetic excuse is there for not confirming that a post made in public is genuine?  Your argument (giving it more credit than it deserves by even using that term) falls down because you are NOT being asked to release new information - just to confirm whether information that already exists in the public domain is genuine.

As, at best, that information reflects dishonest behaviour it's clearly in the interests of forum users to find the truth.  Remember that confirming (or otherwise) the existence of that information is NOT just about whether Garr had a sock-puppet or not.  It's also about clearing up whether or not Inaba tried to deceive when he posted that screen-shot.  At present there's a cloud hanging over TWO people's heads - and one of them, Inaba, has asked for the one over his to be cleared.

So you already HAVE a victim (if the post exists).  Inaba's reputation is being by damaged by Garr's mealy-mouthed attempt to give the impression that the post didn't exist - and that his statement of apology was forced and untrue.

At this rate everyone's going to have give negative rep to 3 people for this - not just one.  One for doing it and 2 for helping cover it up.

And we're back to the ludicrous position of a scam only being a scam if a victim comes forward.  As I've said before on this inane concept - there'd be no convicted murderers if that policy were applied more widely.  To be guilty of being a scammer doesn't require success on every occasion - incompetent scammers are also scammers, just not very good at it.  Provided there's an intended or potential victim then the perpetrator IS a scammer.  Even if the tag is only for successful scammers (so ones so bad noone will fall for it will never get a tag) then why does the victim need to complain?  The victims here have been identified (or at least some of them : we have no idea how many more sockies were out there).

I also disagree with the concept that a scammer who pays back ceases to be a scammer.  But at least on that point there's some general consistency - i.e. it doesn't only apply to people you're on good terms with.

[John (John K.)]

Relax guys.   Theymos will respond here soon enough after checking stuff up, according to what I've heard from him some time ago.

That's wonderful news, John. Thank you for giving us an update!

No problems.

[Maged]

As for "all Theymos needs to do is check the post edit history", user-deleted posts are considered private information (or if not, they should be), and private information can only be released when a scammer has been confirmed. In general, for someone to scam, there needs to be a victim. When there is a victim, a settlement can be made without ever declaring someone a scammer. That's why I'm not asking Theymos for the information yet. Also, there is enough evidence in the post history of Werner to not even need this information until a judgement is made. But again, for any of that to happen, we need someone to step up and say that they believe that they were scammed by Werner's shill bids.

PMs are considered private information - and rightly so.  Yet you routinely ask people to send copies of PMs that an alleged scammer wrote so that they can be confirmed as existing.

If you'll confirm that a PM (which was NEVER intended to be public) is legitimate then what pathetic excuse is there for not confirming that a post made in public is genuine?  Your argument (giving it more credit than it deserves by even using that term) falls down because you are NOT being asked to release new information - just to confirm whether information that already exists in the public domain is genuine.

Very good point. Thanks!

And we're back to the ludicrous position of a scam only being a scam if a victim comes forward.  As I've said before on this inane concept - there'd be no convicted murderers if that policy were applied more widely.

Not really. In that case, the victims that would come forward are those that were affected by the person's death, such as their family. Also, murder cannot be undone, so because there is no possible resolution, it is safe to not bother with waiting for a victim to come forward.

To be guilty of being a scammer doesn't require success on every occasion - incompetent scammers are also scammers, just not very good at it.  Provided there's an intended or potential victim then the perpetrator IS a scammer.  Even if the tag is only for successful scammers (so ones so bad noone will fall for it will never get a tag) then why does the victim need to complain?  The victims here have been identified (or at least some of them : we have no idea how many more sockies were out there).

I also disagree with the concept that a scammer who pays back ceases to be a scammer.  But at least on that point there's some general consistency - i.e. it doesn't only apply to people you're on good terms with.

I'm liking where this discussion is going. I'd love to hear more.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I guess theymos ain't too worried about the ~$25,000 USD under Garr's control.



Clearly, one can see that Garr stated that he can be trusted, but then in the very next post bumps his own auction.

I'm not sure what goes through Garr's head, but I'm pretty sure that this is not an isolated incident over and beyond the three shill bids. There is no way Garr can come here and say that that's all he's ever done that was not up to snuff pertaining to Bitcoin. Chances are there's more nefarious activities going on of which we're not yet aware of.

To negate the first sentence of this post, I'm pretty sure theymos has at least made contact with Garr to get the 250 BTC back into his control. If he does get them back, may I suggest placing them in Rassah's control along with the other 750 BTC he has. I truly trust that dude (maybe I should have said him).

Quick aside: How was Garr planning on hosting miners for others when he's planning on attending college this fall? If he lives on campus, he'll be breaking code regulations by operating miners that won't have UL tags.

[jhansen858]

Wow, Epic Thread. 

Matthew N. Wright - You most likely deserve the title untrustworthy.  You can't take honest debate and instead moderate people who just crushed you instead of giving a logical retort.  That is a bitch move.
Inaba - Clearly isn't lying here.  Was fair about after Garr owned up to the trolling.  Shows hes a stand up type of guy even when Garr clearly didn't mean what he said. 
Garr - An immature ambitious overachieving type A personality which has a sense of knowing when he crossed the line and fucked up.  Doesn't take it too far which is smart.  Can he learn from this, man up and make everyone whole?

I think its clear that Garr did scam via the bid.  He should offer an immediate refund 2x of the scammed amount(4 btc??) with option for a full refund.  If he does this, and deletes Werner account and fully admits what he did, that would be a solid resolution to this. 

Everyone makes mistakes.  If they own up to it, then it says alot about them and maybe they should be given a second chance.  But don't fucking deny it only to get called out later.  Be proactive and own up before someone calls you out.  Maybe the mods are giving him this chance.

This community should be more about banding together, not trying to get one over and bitching about everyone else.  The ball is in Garr's court for about 24 more hours before full disclosure should be forthcoming.

[Matthew N. Wright]

You most likely deserve the title untrustworthy.

That is a bitch move.

So which is it? Am I untrustworthy or a bitch? Being a bitch doesn't make someone untrustworthy. What I can't take is the continued hypocrisy by mouthpieces who ignore common sense in place of their own agendas. If repeating that for all to hear makes me a bitch, bring on the dog food.

[jhansen858]

You most likely deserve the title untrustworthy.

That is a bitch move.

So which is it? Am I untrustworthy or a bitch? Being a bitch doesn't make someone untrustworthy. What I can't take is the continued hypocrisy by mouthpieces who ignore common sense in place of their own agendas. If repeating that for all to hear makes me a bitch, bring on the dog food.

I know from personal experience your a bitch because instead of responding to my valid points a few days ago, you simply deleted my posts, then I reposted them and you deleted them again.  Then I had to post an entire new thread just to make my views known.  In that thread, others confirmed you were doing the same to them. 

But from what I can tell you got the untrustworthy tag by being a bitch to others.  Pulled some other bitch move by backing out of a bet that you publicly made?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

You most likely deserve the title untrustworthy.

That is a bitch move.

So which is it? Am I untrustworthy or a bitch? Being a bitch doesn't make someone untrustworthy. What I can't take is the continued hypocrisy by mouthpieces who ignore common sense in place of their own agendas. If repeating that for all to hear makes me a bitch, bring on the dog food.

I know from personal experience your a bitch because instead of responding to my valid points a few days ago, you simply deleted my posts, then I reposted them and you deleted them again.  Then I had to post an entire new thread just to make my views known.  In that thread, others confirmed you were doing the same to them. 

But from what I can tell you got the untrustworthy tag by being a bitch to others.  Pulled some other bitch move by backing out of a bet that you publicly made?

I love your post above. Pretty spot on, especially this part:

This community should be more about banding together, not trying to get one over and bitching about everyone else.

No qualms with you, and my sentiment is genuine, albeit the slight diss.

Later, bud.