Lauda, Sold bitcointalk accounts, Giving neg for others for same reason.

[actmyname]

OK, lets remove all negative ratings for account selling from back then. You are not objective. Again.

Alright. Let's do it. Remove all negative ratings for account selling by Lauda back in 2013.

Wait, why am I saying 'by Lauda'? Because you're trying to enforce this suggestion of a double standard.

@actmyname you should really pull your head out of lauda's ass. 

But it's nice and cozy in here!

[1715398817]

1715398817

[1715398817]

1715398817

[1715398817]

1715398817

[1715398817]

1715398817

[1715398817]

1715398817

[1715398817]

1715398817

[Bitcoin_BOy$]

OK, lets remove all negative ratings for account selling from back then.

Who asks to remove negative ratings?
@actmyname asked to punish Lauda same way he is tagging everyone involved in account trading/account farming.

Nice job Mr. Detective, you're defending Lauda and don't fearofnegativeACC  

[Lauda]

First of all(since you are using my reference) i never said Lauda sold account(s) neither there is proof of that.

And then some wonder why they get tagged for lying.

using 2 accounts for different signature campaigns but this is not against rules - lauda is..was? against it - and this is somehow flow in his trust ratings.

It is not.

As I said there is flaw in his trust ratings.

What flaw?

Who is lying now? Please, tell me how this can be a lie.

It's rather simple: It's a shitpost for post padding. I was certain that I was never involved in such deals before the shill came with the connection, and I stand by it[1].

There are most certainly multiple ways of something like that happening:
1) Temporary loss of control of the account due to whatever reason (e.g. hacking).

You ARE saying that everyone is stupid.

That's also a possibility.

Do you see how this looks like?
You are trying to defend yourself in every single possible way while other DT's are staying apart from this, now please tell me that no one see this obvious facts.

There is nothing to defend myself from. I paid the price for shitposting long ago. You are not being rational. You can easily find random members and a few of their statements/ideas/views that fully contradict their positions/statements of today[2].

@lauda - lots of your trust ratings are unjustified and should be rated neutral - by you, but other DT members should tag them negative(something you requested in past when you were removed from DT).

Which ratings are we talking about? Obviously I will request others to tag all of them should I drop out. Some DT1 members couldn't give a damn about anything other than their own profit, thus exclusions which would release hundreds of scammers into the wild are always a possibility.

Almost all negative ratings are good for community but you are being hypocrite.

How so?

@actmyname you should really pull your head out of lauda's ass.  

He is arguing rather unbiased IMO.
[1] There's always a possibility that I could be mistaken. See [2].

[Lauda]

But you placed 0.02btc bid on account, that is certainly not shitposting, it is buying account and that post isn't edited as you can see from picture in "known alts of everyone".

I disagree. Bids are used for post padding more often than you'd think and that behavior fits exactly my profile from back then.

Possibility that everyone is stupid or possibility that you were hacked?

The possibility of either one is non zero.

Why did you give him negative? Maybe he was shitposting for post padding too?(disclaimer i am not pekelengito)

This isn't 2013/4.

He was negatived 2017-10-24, 4 days after he made bid, but still you didn't give negative to:
...

...
OP? Not negative rated.... Why?
flaw..or? Help me to understand..or go with regular "i don't have time to tag every singl...."

I must have missed them, but newbie accounts are a waste of time to tag anyways (it's essentially playing whack-a-mole). I'll get to them soon^TM.

And IMO his head is deep in your ass.

He's barely made any private contact with me, thus I highly doubt that.

Fuck off you idiot, only reason why you did create this topic is because you were negative rated. I didn't came to attack or defend lauda i am saying there is flaw in his trust ratings.

Harsh and honest. I like you; you sound a lot like me. Are you my alt?

[BTCflower10]

What about the linked addresses?

[Lauda]

What about the linked addresses?

What about them?

[BTCflower10]

What about the linked addresses?

What about them?

Avoiding the Issue

Fallacies are scientific ways of determining who is wrong or right in debate. You literally just lost this debate by committing the above fallacy.

Until you provide a valid explanation of how your own addresses are linked to an account you claim you never controlled, you must lose DT status.

[Lauda]

Avoiding the Issue

Fallacies are scientific ways of determining who is wrong or right in debate. You literally just lost this debate by committing the above fallacy.

Baboon, don't act smart and use things that you have little understanding of. Claiming that something is absolutely false just because it contains a fallacy is itself a fallacy[1]. You just played yourself.

Until you provide a valid explanation of how your own addresses are linked to an account you claim you never controlled, you must lose DT status.

"I claim I've never controlled"? You're a liar.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

[BTCflower10]

Why don't you create a thread asking theymos to post all of your alts that he believes you have currently and ever have had?

Why don't you?

Avoiding the Issue

Why don't you create a thread asking theymos to post all of your alts that he believes you have currently and ever have had?

[Lauda]

Avoiding the Issue

That one doesn't even apply. Are you really that degenerate?

Why don't you create a thread asking theymos to post all of your alts that he believes you have currently and ever have had?

That's none of your business.

[BTCflower10]

Avoiding the Issue

Fallacies are scientific ways of determining who is wrong or right in debate. You literally just lost this debate by committing the above fallacy.

Baboon, don't act smart and use things that you have little understanding of. Claiming that something is absolutely false just because it contains a fallacy is itself a fallacy[1]. You just played yourself.

Until you provide a valid explanation of how your own addresses are linked to an account you claim you never controlled, you must lose DT status.

"I claim I've never controlled"? You're a liar.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Fallacies ARE how we determine who wins and loses debate. Whichever side commits more is what determines who has the strongest argument. I never said you were proven wrong - I said you lost the debate, and there is a big difference... "baboon".

[Lauda]

Fallacies ARE how we determine who wins and loses debate. Whichever side commits more is what determines who has the strongest argument. I never said you were proven wrong - I said you lost the debate, and there is a big difference... "baboon".

There is no actual debate nor would I lose a debate against idiots like Quickseller, OP or other shills of users that I've busted. Now dance Muppet.

[BTCflower10]

Why don't you take advantage of the opportunity Quickseller is giving you to prove him wrong?

[Lauda]

Why don't you take advantage of the opportunity Quickseller is giving you to prove him wrong?

There is nothing that needs to be proven wrong. I'd have to be out of my damn mind to do something just because the pathetic scammer [1] asked for it. Snowflake, you lines are getting weaker.
[1] Context for the uninformed: Quickseller pulled bogus escrow scams, stealing pennies per escrow deal, and thus destroyed his reputation (among other things).

[BTCflower10]

Avoiding the Issue

Why don't you want theymos proving Quickseller wrong about you?

[actmyname]

Fallacies ARE how we determine who wins and loses debate. Whichever side commits more is what determines who has the strongest argument.

False. More fallacies ≠ Worse argument.

Strong argument without fallacies + many fallacies  > Bad argument without fallaciesIf I make a strong point to which you are unable to respond but the debate continues and I begin to use ad hominem against you, my argument in summation is still strong.

[BTCflower10]

Fallacies ARE how we determine who wins and loses debate. Whichever side commits more is what determines who has the strongest argument.

False. More fallacies ≠ Worse argument.

Strong argument without fallacies + many fallacies  > Bad argument without fallaciesIf I make a strong point to which you are unable to respond but the debate continues and I begin to use ad hominem against you, my argument in summation is still strong.

Whichever side commits more fallacies does determine the strongest argument ≠ Whichever side commits more fallacies is the strongest argument

Nice try though.

[BTCflower10]

Why don't you want theymos proving Quickseller wrong about you?

[bitlover2013]

First of all there's a valid evidence that Lauda sold bitcointalk accounts, and bet on buying accounts through his alt Xanis.

Lauda recently sent me a negative feedback for having multiple bitcointalk accounts. Contradiction  ?

Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2393049.msg24620117#msg24620117

I don't believe you and no one will believe you. Watch your actions man and  never accuse Lauda heir of Zeus for these stuff. Lauda is perfect and was born here in bitcointalk forum. This is his kingdom and no one have the balls to fight him. You understand?

[cipher-x_09]

Having multiple accounts is illegal but joining your multiple accounts in one signature is not that's one moderator said. Maybe she caught you joining your other accounts in one signature campaigns, or the one you are selling is yours and not from others. Enough lets just be careful on what we are doing.