hilariousandco, Mitchell,Vod,Ognasty Bitblisscoin.com could be a scamsite

[OgNasty]

No campaign manager should be seeing this as a marketing strategy and letting it go unhindered, especially from a group like ALU whom centers themselves around being "Trusted. Experienced."

This one is not on ALU, but solely on aTriz. People seem to make *unusual* assumptions as to how ALU works, although some of those aren't because of malevolent intent (unlike QS's).

Please explain what the point of ALU is, if a member's actions don't reflect upon the group?  I don't want to make any assumptions.

[1714156382]

1714156382

[1714156382]

1714156382

[1714156382]

1714156382

[allahabadi]

I have scolded the youngling for his naivety and errors in judgement

Looks like Atriz is a baby, also is that the standard procedure for dealing with them, cause I see members negging for far more inconspicuous issues; waiting for @ibminer to decided whether it's neg-worthy or not

No campaign manager should be seeing this as a marketing strategy and letting it go unhindered, especially from a group like ALU whom centers themselves around being "Trusted. Experienced."

This one is not on ALU, but solely on aTriz. People seem to make *unusual* assumptions as to how ALU works, although some of those aren't because of malevolent intent (unlike QS's).

Please explain what the point of ALU is, if a member's actions don't reflect upon the group?  I don't want to make any assumptions.

I guess, to have plausible deniability if something goes caput and to claim universal success if any project performs.  

[Lauda]

Please explain what the point of ALU is, if a member's actions don't reflect upon the group?  I don't want to make any assumptions.

Senseless question. It is not my job to babysit others, the same way it is not your job to babysit NastyFans members; the same way that a member's actions don't reflect on the whole NastyFans group (/charity/whatever it is).

I guess, to have plausible deniability if something goes caput and to claim universal success if any project performs. 

You came here out of spite? Pathetic.

[allahabadi]

-snip-

Senseless question. It is not my job to babysit others, the same way it is not your job to babysit NastyFans members; the same way that a member's actions don't reflect on the whole NastyFans group (/charity/whatever it is).

I think an economic or fiduciary relationship is more close-knit than a fan group, so in my opinion, it does reflect on other associates, unless they categorically disown and disassociate themselves.

I guess, to have plausible deniability if something goes caput and to claim universal success if any project performs. 

You came here out of spite? Pathetic.

For what? Sorry, I don't remember. Was just strolling by.

[OgNasty]

Please explain what the point of ALU is, if a member's actions don't reflect upon the group?  I don't want to make any assumptions.

Senseless question. It is not my job to babysit others, the same way it is not your job to babysit NastyFans members; the same way that a member's actions don't reflect on the whole NastyFans group (/charity/whatever it is).

Don't compare ALU to NastyFans.  NastyFans is a public organization anyone can be a part of that is largely funded by my personal donations.  ALU is a private organization run by you and it's members are hand selected by you to represent your for profit services.  ALU is funded by apparently lying to investors to scam them out of their funds.  So, now that it is a documented fact that an ALU member worked with an ICO team to lie to potential investors in an attempt to fraudulently separate them from their funds, you feel it doesn't come back on you at all?  You think it is ok that you still "trust" this member who fraudulently acted to destroy the name of ALU and arise questions about whether or not you are in charge of an organization that's purpose appears to be to help scam users out of their money with fraudulent claims?  You think it is ok that a member who has been caught trying to scam investors with an ICO is a part of ALU?

[Bazinga442]

Senseless question. It is not my job to babysit others, the same way it is not your job to babysit NastyFans members; the same way that a member's actions don't reflect on the whole NastyFans group (/charity/whatever it is).
You came here out of spite? Pathetic.

Comparing Nastyfans to ALU is disingenuous. Deny it all you want, but this is on ALU.

Atriz is 1/3 or so of ALU and I assume you all get a share from campaign proceeds? If this is the case you are all culpable. Throwing atriz under the bus means nothing.

It seems to be company policy to promote scams, and Atriz just admitted it.

[Lauda]

I think an economic or fiduciary relationship is more close-knit than a fan group, so in my opinion, it does reflect on other associates, unless they categorically disown and disassociate themselves.

So you are telling me that when, e.g., someone is caught doing something wrong in a company, it reflects on the other employees? Yes, that makes perfect sense.

For what? Sorry, I don't remember. Was just strolling by.

Go shitpost somewhere else.

ALU is a private organization run by you and it's members are hand selected by you to represent your for profit services.  

No.

ALU is funded by apparently lying to investors to scam them out of their funds.

There are no ALU funds nor is there ever a case of funding of this "private organization", thus this statement is false.

You feel it doesn't come back on you at all?  

No.

You think it is ok that you still "trust" this member who fraudulently acted to destroy the name of ALU and cast doubt upon whether or not you are in charge of an organization that's purpose appears to be to help scam users out of their money with fraudulent claims?  

Wrong. It is not that he acted, it is that he did not act on it. The latter part of the statement just shows how biased and full of nonsense you are. Fits your record. Time to get back to the badgering, eh?

You think it is ok that a member who has been caught trying to scam investors with an ICO is a part of ALU?

It is none of your business who is and who isn't a member[1], nor what my opinion on that is.

Atriz is 1/3 or so of ALU and I assume you all get a share from campaign proceeds? If this is the case you are all culpable. Throwing atriz under the bus means nothing.

See, another shameless assumption as previously stated. There are no "ALU funds" and there are no split proceeds.

It seems to be company policy to promote scams, and Atriz just admitted it.

There is no company.
You need to make up better FUD, this is just child's play. Try using something that is commonly used by liberals.
[1] The relevant party can be switched out with someone else if need be. The letters don't even need to be changed. Lucky I guess.

[OgNasty]

ALU is a private organization run by you and it's members are hand selected by you to represent your for profit services.  

No.

Yes.

ALU is funded by apparently lying to investors to scam them out of their funds.

There are no ALU funds nor is there ever a case of funding of this "private organization", thus this statement is false.

So what is ALU then?  Just a forum thread with no organization whatsoever?

You feel it doesn't come back on you at all?  

No.

Must be nice to think you can advertise services for scammers, and then have no liability whatsoever.

You think it is ok that you still "trust" this member who fraudulently acted to destroy the name of ALU and cast doubt upon whether or not you are in charge of an organization that's purpose appears to be to help scam users out of their money with fraudulent claims?  

Wrong. It is not that he acted, it is that he did not act on it.

Wrong, he did act on it.  He continued with his charade knowing full well it was a lie.  I don't care what he didn't do, I care what he did do.  In this case, he did go along with a lie in order to scam users out of their funds with the excuse that the scam was a marketing strategy.

You think it is ok that a member who has been caught trying to scam investors with an ICO is a part of ALU?

It is none of your business who is and who isn't a member, nor what my opinion on that is.

Then why make the information public?  I would think ALU exists to give it's members a united front that the organization is backed by more than one person, giving it the illusion of having more accountability if one of them goes rogue, yet you have now openly stated that ALU is in no way responsible for the actions of it's members, which in my opinion makes it worthless and you should be open about this.  You seem to state that nobody needs to know who it's members are and if some of them are scammers it's nobody's business.  I disagree, a lot.

[suchmoon]

I'm eager to hear other opinions.

aTriz seems to be either extremely naive or outright malicious, neither of which is good for trust. And calling fraudulent misrepresentation a "marketing strategy" is really stretching the "naive" part.

I'm biased though. I'm not fond of ICOs in general.

[Lauda]

ALU is a private organization run by you and it's members are hand selected by you to represent your for profit services.  

No.

Yes.

No. It is not run by me.

So what is ALU then?  Just a forum thread with no organization whatsoever?

Why would I want to disclose our inner workings to you exactly? You need an actually profitable endeavor to copy?

Must be nice to think you can advertise services for scammers, and then have no liability whatsoever.

Managers don't advertise, and this is not related to me.

Wrong, he did act on it.  He continued with his charade knowing full well it was a lie.  I don't care what he didn't do, I care what he did do.  In this case, he did go along with a lie in order to scam users out of their funds with the excuse that the scam was a marketing strategy.

No, it is not his charade. In order for it to be his charade, he'd either have to: a) Make the statement himself. b) Back it up. c) Be part of the team who made it. None of these apply. What he did wrong was not stopping both threads as soon as that statement was made. Any exaggeration beyond this is just malicious on anyone's end. 

Then why make the information public?  I would think ALU exists to give it's members a united front that the organization is backed by more than one person, giving it the illusion of having more accountability if one of them goes rogue, yet you have now openly stated that ALU is in no way responsible for the actions of it's members, which in my opinion makes it worthless and you should be open about this.  

There you have your answer. You would think. ALU can never be responsible for the actions of individuals.

You seem to state that nobody needs to know who it's members are and if some of them are scammers it's nobody's business.  I disagree, a lot.

Former, correct. Latter, incorrect. Quite the number of *managers* don't disclose any members (some notable names have people working with them, but these people are usually just in the background), yet you don't seem to take interest in who is working with who unless it revolves around me.

[Bazinga442]

I'm eager to hear other opinions.

aTriz seems to be either extremely naive or outright malicious, neither of which is good for trust. And calling fraudulent misrepresentation a "marketing strategy" is really stretching the "naive" part.

I'm biased though. I'm not fond of ICOs in general.

Lets keep making excuses for him. He is a naive lovable chap. Where is your negative trust for Atriz and ALU? i guess it is reserved for account farmers.

Coward.

[allahabadi]

I think an economic or fiduciary relationship is more close-knit than a fan group, so in my opinion, it does reflect on other associates, unless they categorically disown and disassociate themselves.

So you are telling me that when, e.g., someone is caught doing something wrong in a company, it reflects on the other employees? Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Ofc it does, why would you think organizations disassociate themselves from wrongdoers or agencies scrutinize entire companies even if an individual is found engaged in malicious activity, it does cast more than a shadow of doubt.
I expect better of individuals who go around telling others to uphold high morality in terms of Fraud on this forum.

Caeser's wife must be above suspicion.

For what? Sorry, I don't remember. Was just strolling by.

Go shitpost somewhere else.

Are you the OP? Is this thread sanctioned by your SMAS-list? How come this post is a shit-post, just cause it doesn't agree with you?

[OgNasty]

ALU is a private organization run by you and it's members are hand selected by you to represent your for profit services.  

No.

Yes.

No. It is not run by me.

Must be nice to think you can advertise services for scammers, and then have no liability whatsoever.

Managers don't advertise, and this is not related to me.

Wrong, he did act on it.  He continued with his charade knowing full well it was a lie.  I don't care what he didn't do, I care what he did do.  In this case, he did go along with a lie in order to scam users out of their funds with the excuse that the scam was a marketing strategy.

No, it is not his charade. In order for it to be his charade, he'd either have to: a) Make the statement himself. b) Back it up. c) Be part of the team who made it. None of these apply. What he did wrong was not stopping both threads as soon as that statement was made. Any exaggeration beyond this is just malicious on anyone's end. 

Then why make the information public?  I would think ALU exists to give it's members a united front that the organization is backed by more than one person, giving it the illusion of having more accountability if one of them goes rogue, yet you have now openly stated that ALU is in no way responsible for the actions of it's members, which in my opinion makes it worthless and you should be open about this.  

There you have your answer. You would think. ALU can never be responsible for the actions of individuals.

You seem to state that nobody needs to know who it's members are and if some of them are scammers it's nobody's business.  I disagree, a lot.

Former, correct. Latter, incorrect. Quite the number of *managers* don't disclose any members (some notable names have people working with them, but these people are usually just in the background), yet you don't seem to take interest in who is working with who unless it revolves around me.

Quoting for ridiculousness.  You've heard it from Lauda.  ALU is nothing.  Has no accountability.  Has no funds.  Shares nothing between it's members.  It's members can post announcements for scams and that is not considered their action or responsibility nor does it reflect upon the other members.  Basically, if ALU is pushing an ICO it means that it could be a scam and Lauda is perfectly fine with that so long as it doesn't effect him negatively in any way.  This evidenced from the fact that a fellow ALU member has now openly admitted to taking part in a scam to steal investor funds through fraud and still maintains a positive trust rating from Lauda.  

Why would I want to disclose our inner workings to you exactly? You need an actually profitable endeavor to copy?

Ya, you know me.  Broke as a joke barely getting by in my shanty.  Clearly my motivations must be financial and not trying to make this place better by getting rid of the trash that is flooding this forum with ICOs and turning away newbies from Bitcoin by giving them an awful first experience investing in scams.

[Lauda]

Quoting and debunking for ridiculousness.

ALU is nothing.  

Labels are unnecessary.

Has no accountability.  

Lacking context.

Has no funds.  

It does not, and never did nor did anyone state otherwise.

Shares nothing between it's members.  

Lacking context.

Basically, if ALU is pushing an ICO it means that it could be a scam and Lauda is perfectly fine with that so long as it doesn't effect him negatively in any way.  

ALU is not pushing anything, and:

For the reference: I had no information about any kind of "marketing strategy" (prior to this thread/post), nor did I ever really look into that project as I haven't managed any aspect of it.

This evidenced from the fact that a fellow ALU member has now openly admitted to taking part in a scam to steal investor funds through fraud and still maintains a positive trust rating from Lauda.  

It looks like your maliciousness and stupidity got to you. Where exactly is the rating from Lauda? Bonus: Nobody was taking part in any scam. You aren't participating in a crime that you don't report.

Ya, you know me.  Broke as a joke barely getting by in my shanty.  Clearly my motivations must be financial and not trying to make this place better by getting rid of the trash that is flooding this forum with ICOs and turning away newbies from Bitcoin by giving them an awful first experience investing in scams.

Yes, the former is true. Just don't go back to your old habits, I don't need people visiting the hospital.
Very easy, then again you aren't known for your intellect and neither is Quickscammer.

[Bazinga442]

[OgNasty]

Labels are unnecessary.

Says the guy who has tried to label more people on this forum than any other user.  I can smell the desperation as your arguments turn to ash.  No Phoenix coming out of this one buddy.  

Yes, the former is true. Just don't go back to your old habits, I don't need people visiting the hospital.

Is this some sort of threat?  Pathetic.

I imagine your claims and actions will become more and more desperate as time passes

I called it months ago and it has been playing out before our very eyes.  Getting sloppier and more desperate by the day.  I won't even bring up the messaging users urging them to add me to their trust exclusion settings.  I feel like I'm watching someone drown in slow motion.

[Lauda]

Labels are unnecessary.

Says the guy who has tried to label more people on this forum than any other user.  

That has nothing to do with the putting a label/definition on ALU, literally nothing.

Is this some sort of threat?  Pathetic.

Nope. Next time use words.
I destroyed all your nonsense almost trivially. Move along and go back to supporting Quicksie the scammer. FTFM.

[OgNasty]

I destroyed all your nonsense almost trivially. Move along and go back to supporting scammers like Quicksie.

How do I support Quicksie?  You aren't helping yourself by posting more lies, although I guess your goal is to bury the recent posts as quickly as you can.  Seems to be your MO.

[Lauda]

I destroyed all your nonsense almost trivially. Move along and go back to supporting Quicksie the scammer. FTFM.

How do I support Quicksie?  You aren't helping yourself by posting more lies, although I guess your goal is to bury the recent posts as quickly as you can.  Seems to be your MO.

I updated the post after it has been made (the writing was unclear); updated the quote as well. You support him with your recent rating and jumping on any nonsensical bandwagon of his.
Let me not forget this part, leftover.

I won't even bring up the messaging users urging them to add me to their trust exclusion settings.  I feel like I'm watching someone drown in slow motion.

I won't even bring up messaging FJ urging them to remove/deny users. Both sad and pathetic, some of the reasons for which she left you.

* Lauda goes back to the non-ALU residence funded by non-ALU funds as I await a non-malicious response (no Quickseller, OgNasty or alts of the former).

[OgNasty]

I destroyed all your nonsense almost trivially. Move along and go back to supporting Quicksie the scammer. FTFM.

How do I support Quicksie?  You aren't helping yourself by posting more lies, although I guess your goal is to bury the recent posts as quickly as you can.  Seems to be your MO.

I updated the post after it has been made. You support him with your recent rating and jumping on any nonsensical bandwagon of his.

So anyone who rates you as the extortionist you are is now supporting QS?  Desperate, desperate, desperate.  I'm grabbing the popcorn to see how you try to weasel yourself out of this one.  Hope you've got something other than deflection in that bag of tricks.

The facts are that an ALU member publicly and with full knowledge was pushing lies on behalf of a fraudulent ICO for personal gain.  You are a member of ALU, and thus affiliated with the scammer through your own choice.  So what is your move?  Leave ALU?  Mark aTriz the admitted scammer with negative trust?  or...  Lash out at anyone who brings this up and try to deflect to bury the evidence against you?