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

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Coindetective, you really ought to open up another thread for this, because this one is about Lauda and we've gone way off topic.

And I don't get if or what you're insinuating about aTriz and me.  We're not the same person.  If you think you can prove otherwise, be my guest--but do it in another thread dedicated to that purpose, please.

Also, did I misspell "believe" at some point?  Because you keep writing "belive" in huge, bold letters as if to mock someone's improper spelling of the word.

[Deena]

This forum needs more coindetectives. 

Or at least less dishonest scamming greenies. 

[Thekool1s]

Or at least less dishonest scamming greenies. 

You mean users like Quickseller? 

[huntingscammers123]

 Here is no evidence for headline.

Thanks coindetective for the false feedbacks, why don't you prove it?

The moment I start exposing The Pharmacist, you emerge out of nowhere and give me red tag. Hmmm, that s really convenient, isn't it? Your explanation for that neg tag is that I am "Stupid spammer". That is really strong, justified evidence for the tag, ha? A good one, I have to say, I did have a laugh when I saw that. Maybe you should add childish in between or DANGEROUS. I d suggest DANGEROUS!

Dude, I already told you and your alts, feel free to neg tag me as much as you want, actually, try to neg tag me more without reason, especially using this king of explanations, it s fun! I ve got nothing to lose here, I don't do and will never do sig campaigns and red tags can't hurt me, especially these unjustified ones. This makes me dangerous, ha! In your mind, I should be immediately banned cause I might expose false Bitcointalk guardians like you, who are actually account farmers and scammers, how they intentionally sabotage competition for their signature campaigns and hurt new users. I know there are really honest people here who keep assholes and scammers away of this forum, they do it for free and I salute that. But, there is this other, fake kind.

Cause if you were anything else, I do not see what would be your interest in my discussion with my good old friend The Pharmacists.

About my feedback to you, I think I ve citied references from your waste library of neg tags you have received in the past. They do sound quite legit to me. As my friend The Pharmacist would say, I strong BELIVE they re legit!

So you just keep playing your game my alt buddy, I already came clean with what I did. Let see whether you can afford to come clean as well. The clock is ticking, tic,tac,tic,tac!

Have a great day!



 

No, the thread, where aTriz was accused to pay for post writing, closed with result, that it is untrue accusation. Also other threads against aTriz where nonsense. There is no single evidence. Only one member posted to have evidence, that account was baught, but also didn't proove. So it is nonsense post for me.
But another member got my attention, who posted in these threads and seems to have support from "prominent" members
Aventhe
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1054592

"This user's email address was changed recently."
He uses same prooves to neg members on forum.
Look at his history.
First post of Aventhe is in Invites and Accounts. Seems, that he couldn't delete whole thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2092911.msg20909276#msg20909276
Bids in account sale thread, edited and "changed his mind"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2132459.msg21346161#msg21346161
"Ooops.

I was meant to write, I bid 0.14, but I have changed my mind. I hope accounts are clean, but I do not want to go into account trading. Sorry..."

First many posts in spamming threads. Then suddenly stops spamming and begins as bounty manager.

[actmyname]

Look at his history

Okay.

First post of Aventhe is in Invites and Accounts. Seems, that he couldn't delete whole thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2092911.msg20909276#msg20909276

Interesting. What does that mean, though?

Bids in account sale thread, edited and "changed his mind"

Ah! Here's the critical point!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2132459.msg21346161#msg21346161
"Ooops.

Wait... He didn't change his mind. He didn't edit it. You cannot edit posts in Auctions. Aventhe was literally just posting the fact that they did not want to get involved in account trading.

I was meant to write, I bid 0.14, but I have changed my mind. I hope accounts are clean, but I do not want to go into account trading. Sorry..."

Read above.

First many posts in spamming threads. Then suddenly stops spamming and begins as bounty manager.

And? Plenty of users come from a spammy beginning.
 e.g. Lauda, The Pharmacist [/quote]Enjoy your invisible response.

[Deena]

You mean users like Quickseller? 

I don't know him. But if he's part of the green circle of trust the forum and it's honest users would be better off without him indeed.

[sellkeysHasBeenhacked]

Lauda is indeed a former spammer.

source :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872

Name:   Lauda
Posts:   21990
Activity:   1680
Position:   Legendary

proof Posts with different Activity far up to 7x++ fold

he forgot where he came from <==== spammer   

[Deena]

Lauda is indeed a former spammer.

I improved your sentence for you.  

You may also replace the 'p' for a 'c' in the sentence without changing its truth value.  

[actmyname]

Lauda is indeed a former spammer.

source :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872

Name:   Lauda
Posts:   21990
Activity:   1680
Position:   Legendary

proof Posts with different Activity far up to 7x++ fold

he forgot where he came from <==== spammer  

That is an extremely asinine argument. There is no reason why someone cannot post more than once a day and still have quality responses.

An increased quantity in posts ≠ A decreased quality in posts (until we reach high levels)[/quote]

[actmyname]

This is clearly buying account. First bid 0.01btc second bid 0.02btc and third bid http://prntscr.com/hgikxp 0.031BTC!
I can't describe you how disappointed I am.

The screenshot literally contradicts your comment. The third bid was 0.03. Xanis bid 0.031, which was not an authorized increment. Don't you think spammers could potentially use that?As for the first bid, that's usually a thing that people do to bump up their post count. Sometimes you'll get random people entering Collectible auctions because they know the auction's starting bid is always lower than the value of the actual item.

Same thing here.I can't say anything about the second bid of 0.02, though. I'm not clear on the account prices back then so this could have a legitimate bid.

[Quickseller]

I can't say anything about the second bid of 0.02, though. I'm not clear on the account prices back then so this could have a legitimate bid.

The account apparently ended up selling for 0.03 BTC, so neither of his bids were that far from that. Also lauda actually bid higher than the high bid amount, it is only that he was bidding in too low of increments that caused lauda to not win that auction -- although it is interesting that there is not actually any trace of auction rules on that thread....

[actmyname]

although it is interesting that there is not actually any trace of auction rules on that thread....

You can't bid as 0.0202

You can only for 0.01 increment, so you are biding 0.03

[The Sceptical Chymist]

@parhamceust

Is my username really that hard to spell?  How could you fuck that up so badly?

This is a thread that's just going to keep going on and on way past the point of anyone caring anymore, just like the threads Quickseller keeps bumping for his masturbatory fantasies of getting Lauda removed from DT.  Wouldn't it be even cooler if someone bumped the thread where he hemmed and hawed over the fact that he got busted for his escrow scam?  Does no one else see the hypocrisy in this? Not that this is a thread about QS, but he seems to have no problem giving his hypocritical opinion in any thread that has to do with Lauda--and no one besides him and his alts find anything of value in said opinion.

[vsyc]

@parhamceust

Is my username really that hard to spell?  How could you fuck that up so badly?

This is a thread that's just going to keep going on and on way past the point of anyone caring anymore, just like the threads Quickseller keeps bumping for his masturbatory fantasies of getting Lauda removed from DT.  Wouldn't it be even cooler if someone bumped the thread where he hemmed and hawed over the fact that he got busted for his escrow scam?  Does no one else see the hypocrisy in this? Not that this is a thread about QS, but he seems to have no problem giving his hypocritical opinion in any thread that has to do with Lauda--and no one besides him and his alts find anything of value in said opinion.

But lauda really bad person that has some mental issues, why are you here protecting it? Is that your job?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

@parhamceust

Is my username really that hard to spell?  How could you fuck that up so badly?

This is a thread that's just going to keep going on and on way past the point of anyone caring anymore, just like the threads Quickseller keeps bumping for his masturbatory fantasies of getting Lauda removed from DT.  Wouldn't it be even cooler if someone bumped the thread where he hemmed and hawed over the fact that he got busted for his escrow scam?  Does no one else see the hypocrisy in this? Not that this is a thread about QS, but he seems to have no problem giving his hypocritical opinion in any thread that has to do with Lauda--and no one besides him and his alts find anything of value in said opinion.

But lauda really bad person that has some mental issues, why are you here protecting it? Is that your job?

I must say, Lauda's feedback for you was a tad harsh, but we're in agreement on a lot of other things.   The thread here isn't about your feedback, though.  Look at the title of this thread.   Hesheitweyouthey gives appropriate feedback to account sellers, and it bothers me not one whit if Lauda once upon a time bought or sold one.  The point is that Lauda doesn't now, and now sees how toxic such sales are to the community.   

Every pharmaceutical has a risk:benefit profile--nothing is 100% perfect.  Lauda's positive contribution to bitcointalk far outweighs his/her/its side effects.   

There's open war going on here against scammers and shitposters.  You have to take sides, else there's infighting and anarchy.  That feedback about being a bch shill is between you and Lauda.  That's not my fight.

[vsyc]

@parhamceust

Is my username really that hard to spell?  How could you fuck that up so badly?

This is a thread that's just going to keep going on and on way past the point of anyone caring anymore, just like the threads Quickseller keeps bumping for his masturbatory fantasies of getting Lauda removed from DT.  Wouldn't it be even cooler if someone bumped the thread where he hemmed and hawed over the fact that he got busted for his escrow scam?  Does no one else see the hypocrisy in this? Not that this is a thread about QS, but he seems to have no problem giving his hypocritical opinion in any thread that has to do with Lauda--and no one besides him and his alts find anything of value in said opinion.

But lauda really bad person that has some mental issues, why are you here protecting it? Is that your job?

I must say, Lauda's feedback for you was a tad harsh, but we're in agreement on a lot of other things.   The thread here isn't about your feedback, though.  Look at the title of this thread.   Hesheitweyouthey gives appropriate feedback to account sellers, and it bothers me not one whit if Lauda once upon a time bought or sold one.  The point is that Lauda doesn't now, and now sees how toxic such sales are to the community.   

Every pharmaceutical has a risk:benefit profile--nothing is 100% perfect.  Lauda's positive contribution to bitcointalk far outweighs his/her/its side effects.   

There's open war going on here against scammers and shitposters.  You have to take sides, else there's infighting and anarchy.  That feedback about being a bch shill is between you and Lauda.  That's not my fight.

Agree, topic is wrong though negative sentiments against this person is shared, not to support possible scammers and other shill will do personal topic when will not be lazy!

[MainIbem]

    
Re: Lauda, Sold bitcointalk accounts, Giving neg for others for same reason.
November 16, 2017, 12:19:55 AM
   
Reply with quote  #2
Not really. Things change over time. What was acceptable then is no longer acceptable now.

    
Re: Lauda, Sold bitcointalk accounts, Giving neg for others for same reason.
November 16, 2017, 06:09:58 AM
   
Reply with quote  #10
OP is a liar, similar to QS. You said you had left the forum, but you didn't. In addition to that, you are now stating that I have sold accounts(?). Now you wake up with an army of shills, which is exactly why you were tagged. Pathetically ironic.

Quote from: Quickseller on November 16, 2017, 02:26:06 AM
Quote from: actmyname on November 16, 2017, 12:19:55 AM
Not really. Things change over time. What was acceptable then is no longer acceptable now.
This is something he did over at least two years, including a time when this activity was considered scammy behavior. He was trying to buy at least 10 accounts as part of a single transaction at one point.
The only thing I did for is post from a second account for a period of time. I have not tried nor purchased any accounts to my knowledge. As always, everything that you and your moppets are saying is a lie.

The spirit in these comments is enough to show humility of the person involved. When someone has show this attitude, there should be room for forgiveness. Since there seem not to be a recent similar action, then let bygone be bygone.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The spirit in these comments is enough to show humility of the person involved. When someone has show this attitude, there should be room for forgiveness. Since there seem not to be a recent similar action, then let bygone be bygone.

Which is exactly why no one except Quickseller and a handful of angry trolls/scammers that Lauda negged care about these accusations against Lauda.  Staff doesn't care.  People on DT generally don't care.  That's because Lauda owned up to the screw up in judgement with the sting operation, whereas QS still thinks he did nothing wrong by taking two sides of a three-sided escrow transaction, which he did repeatedly and deceitfully withheld this from the other parties in the escrow transactions.   Big, big difference between the two situations

[BitNaija]

I can't say anything about the second bid of 0.02, though. I'm not clear on the account prices back then so this could have a legitimate bid.

The account apparently ended up selling for 0.03 BTC, so neither of his bids were that far from that. Also lauda actually bid higher than the high bid amount, it is only that he was bidding in too low of increments that caused lauda to not win that auction -- although it is interesting that there is not actually any trace of auction rules on that thread....

I can't imagine that someone could have 242 negative trust and still posting. There must be something wrong. Not all those negative trust are wrongly giving. Man check yourself.

[hedgy73]

This thread is announced for only one reason. F@cking scammers want to legalize account trading on bitcointalk and avoid a red tag when doing so. All of bought/sold accounts are involved in promoting of a scam projects, account farming, trust farming, shilling, blackmailing, fishing, spreading maleware, cheating in bounty campaigns, scamming, spamming.. e.t.c.. So, if you ask me, the red tag is not enough, and it will be much more better, to ban all that accounts permanently. And I really do not care if Lauda "fucked his friends mom or girlfriend in the past". The important thing is, what he/she is doing right now, and to be honest, he/she is doing the right and very helpful thing for this forum, by exposing and red-tagging all that scammers.

Well said