Retracted [re:lauda]

[TMAN]

Why don't you go as far as to explicitly deny that you have a pill addiction?

For all the reasons mentioned by others in this.

The standard of evidence is the same as what is frequently published in the mainstream media. This is not a baseless claim. The "other" people who have posted not to dispute this are wrong. You can either accept what I am saying as fact, or you can dispute it and others can judge based on our respective reputations (assuming of course additional evidence is not presented, at which point the additional evidence + reputations will be considered by others).

Ok, say you are right.. say that lauda likes to munch on pills the same way you like to munch on your own penis..

so fucking what?? what does that have to do with the price of a chicken in the supermarket? what does that have to do with Lauda's unquestionable thirst for knowledge of bitcoin?

[actmyname]

I'm sure that with the state of the forum, we all need pills to cure our headaches when we have to truck through a sea of garbage.

[Slow death]

I have been told by someone...

and then you decided to accuse Lauda without evidence... you think this is something right?

When I saw the title of the thread, I thought you had proof given the nature of the title, when I open the thread, I see only your words, you do not have a proof and you have the courage to create a thread accusing someone of doing something very serious without presenting proof.

you can be accused with defamation crime

[minifrij]

This is not a baseless claim.

Without evidence, the claim has about as much basis as me saying that you pluck chickens for sexual gratification. Only saying that you have a source 'close to Lauda' doesn't count as evidence.
You should also realize that anecdotal evidence is invalid. Just because someone says they saw Lauda post 'Xans LOL' in some IRC channel doesn't necessarily mean that they did at all.


Also quite funny to see TC rise again. Wonder if he'll actually come back properly, or fade into obscurity for a few months more before doing something else involving trust.

[ibminer]

Sorry for the delay (life happens/busy).

I will start by saying that I will ask my source if I can give you his name, however I wont be able to recommend him doing so.

My source tells me that he was told by people close to Lauda that Lauda has a serious pill addiction. My source also tells me that Lauda has often talked about drugs in "chatrooms" (which could be a number of things). You knowing who my source is will not really change anything, you knowing who my source is would still make this an anon's word against Lauda's word -- actually Lauda has not actually denied this, so it would be against nothing.

Based on your message, it looks like I am not going to be getting anything, which in my mind just makes you look bad.

Do you trust your source enough to know you are not being setup with bad information to make you look like a mudslinger?
I feel like that may be where this ends up heading if something isn't provided.

Knowing your source is certainly important because it should not be expected for me, or anyone, to entertain 3rd hand information without knowing anything about who the 2nd or 3rd hand sources even are? Let alone the evidence they are providing, which is also absent. And to top it off, this is coming from a guy who clearly has had an active agenda to eliminate/damage/expose Lauda, for whatever reason... and in my mind this makes you more subjective to interpretation of whatever evidence is presented.

The standard of evidence is the same as what is frequently published in the mainstream media.

The mainstream media is not the best example of a group looking for a non-biased point of view featuring accurate & factual information.
I do hope I never start equating my standards for evidence to standards provided by the mainstream media.

Lauda having a pill addiction may or may not be a big deal, however if Lauda were to outright deny this, then my source might provide more information, might provide names of those who gave this information (with things like chat logs/PMs), or those who directly know of this might come forward themselves to prevent Lauda from lying about this.

So all your source needs is for Lauda to say:
"No, I am not a pill addict" and they will reveal themselves and provide additional information?  
... or are they just going to provide more baseless 3rd hand information without revealing themselves?


I'm not sure why it matters to your source if Lauda denies it or not.
IMO, based on Lauda's responses to this thread, one can reasonably assume Lauda is denying that they take pills:

I'd like to know what pills I'm taking as well.

I believe this says "I don't take pills" and is an explicit denial...
Better yet, maybe I have a source who told me Lauda denied the pill addiction explicitly in a PM.
If Lauda does not explicitly deny my information, based on the preponderance of the evidence presented, Lauda has explicitly denied the pill addiction.
So, reveal the source & information or this just ends up as mudslinging.

[Vod]

I believe this says "I don't take pills" and is an explicit denial...

Yep, but who the hell cares what Lauda does on her free time?  (I have decided to call Lauda a she from now on instead of using neutral pronouns... easier.)

Is her addiction interfering with anyone?  Is she doing crazy things while she is on pills?

As far as I can tell she is doing well in the bitcoin world.

Quickseller, on the other hand, has a terrible reputation for doing things and he is sober! (we assume)

Live and let live. 

[Lauda]

IMO, based on Lauda's responses to this thread, one can reasonably assume Lauda is denying that they take pills:

I'd like to know what pills I'm taking as well.

I believe this says "I don't take pills" and is an explicit denial...

I can neither confirm nor deny this, but you have good deduction skills.

So, reveal the source & information or this just ends up as mudslinging.

I doubt either one will show up; not even *fake evidence*.

Also looks like QS moved from -1010 to -498 somewhat recently so he may have just slipped underneath amaclin?  Although QS is still a bit more active... wonder why the score went up?

The Pharmacist was excluded from Tomatocage and OgNasty's trust lists, therefore his trust rating no longer shows at DT depth 2.

This is weird.

This explains it.

[nullius]

I’ve been intending to catch up here.  Unlike Quickseller, who does not deny being “busy” hustling for crack, I myself am legitimately busy making people happy (or sometimes, sad).  For now, I just had to stop by and remark on this:

This explains it.

Being new here, hereto I’d only seen evidence that OgNasty is a slippery jerk.  Now, I may know him by the company he keeps.  Transitive trust is a double-edged sword, after all.  Thank you.

(OgNasty has “sold items to QS”, but “Risked BTC” is 0.0 and there’s no reference link?  Of course.)

So, reveal the source & information or this just ends up as mudslinging.

I doubt either one will show up; not even *fake evidence*.

Hey, I got red-tagged yesterday with 21,000,000 BTC “at risk” due to my “vast generalisations to suit USG narrative”.  May I please have some fake evidence that I be a spook or a USG shill?  (Evidently, discussing PGP and/or defending Segwit from FUD can be dangerous.)

[Lauda]

-snip-
Being new here, hereto I’d only seen evidence that OgNasty is a slippery jerk.  Now, I may know him by the company he keeps.  Transitive trust is a double-edged sword, after all.  Thank you.

You should watch out for a negative rating though. aTriz got one for using FTFY on one of his statements (but it was later changed to neutral).

(OgNasty has “sold items to QS”, but “Risked BTC” is 0.0 and there’s no reference link?  Of course.)

I wouldn't give someone that, given their history, even if I had successful deals with them.

Hey, I got red-tagged yesterday with 21,000,000 BTC “at risk” due to my “vast generalisations to suit USG narrative”.  May I please have some fake evidence that I be a spook or a USG shill? 

He got you, just admit it already..or don't.

[Quickseller]

Do you trust your source enough to know you are not being setup with bad information to make you look like a mudslinger?
I feel like that may be where this ends up heading if something isn't provided.

It is difficult to prove this, but I don't think he is doing this.

Knowing your source is certainly important because it should not be expected for me, or anyone, to entertain 3rd hand information without knowing anything about who the 2nd or 3rd hand sources even are? Let alone the evidence they are providing, which is also absent. And to top it off, this is coming from a guy who clearly has had an active agenda to eliminate/damage/expose Lauda, for whatever reason... and in my mind this makes you more subjective to interpretation of whatever evidence is presented.

If you are looking for a signed message from lauda ordering pills over long periods of time, or a video of someone I claim to be lauda taking pills, I will tell you this evidence does not exist, and does not exist for almost every other drug addict out there.

The standard of evidence is the same as what is frequently published in the mainstream media.

The mainstream media is not the best example of a group looking for a non-biased point of view featuring accurate & factual information.
I do hope I never start equating my standards for evidence to standards provided by the mainstream media.

When someone in the media publishes something, they will say how they know said fact, and will ask the subject of an article for a comment/response. Sometimes the subject will not respond to the request for comment, and when this happens some readers might wait for a response before deciding if they believe the article. Sometimes the subject will respond, and when they do not explicitly deny the allegations, most readers will accept what is published as fact, even if they personally do not know enough information themselves to come to this same conclusion, or even if there is not enough public information to prove this in court. Sometimes the subject will outright deny the allegation, at which point readers will have to use the available facts to evaluate if they believe what is being said or not, and sometimes the writer may publish additional evidence if sufficient number of readers do not believe them.

Lauda having a pill addiction may or may not be a big deal, however if Lauda were to outright deny this, then my source might provide more information, might provide names of those who gave this information (with things like chat logs/PMs), or those who directly know of this might come forward themselves to prevent Lauda from lying about this.

So all your source needs is for Lauda to say:
"No, I am not a pill addict" and they will reveal themselves and provide additional information?  
... or are they just going to provide more baseless 3rd hand information without revealing themselves?

See my above comment.

IMO, based on Lauda's responses to this thread, one can reasonably assume Lauda is denying that they take pills:

I'd like to know what pills I'm taking as well.

I believe this says "I don't take pills" and is an explicit denial...

I think you are wrong. I don't agree this is a denial, however if you were to give (probably too much of) a benefit of the doubt, this is another of Lauda's non-denial denials, similar to his response to allegations that Lauda sold accounts in the past, when he said "I have not...purchased any accounts to my knowledge" -- he is giving himself an out in case someone presents additional evidence against him.

I would also point out that after he posted what you quoted, he was more clear that he is not going to explicitly deny being addicted to pills

It seems that Lauda is not interested in denying he is addicted to and/or abusing drugs. Very interesting indeed...

Of course not.

Well, I guess others can interpret the lack of a denial/dispute themselves.

I do not have to explain myself to you should I not want to. Until there is any kind of evidence [...]

I think it is important that Lauda, again tried to imply that you were right about this being a denial, after he was very explicit in saying he is not responding without seeing evidence.

Better yet, maybe I have a source who told me Lauda denied the pill addiction explicitly in a PM.

Using the word "maybe" is very different from outright saying that you have this information. I would also point out that denying this via a 3rd party, in private is yet another way (actually multiple ways) for lauda to get "out" of being exposed as lying to discredit allegations against him if additional evidence is presented against him.

Being new here,

The rationale behind pushing the claim that you are "new here" is obvious. It is also obvious that you are in fact not new here. Why don't you just say that you have been around longer than your account's age implies and just say that you have forgotten your password to your old account?

[TMAN]

A morning  in the life of quickseller..........

Wake up, its 4 am but I need to be up to deal with all my Pajeet clients and make mad satoshi from flipping accounts., Mums basement is really cold at this time of the morning, so I don my fedora, comb my neckbeard, check my sword is nice and sharp.. got to look after your sword when you are a neckbeard account farmer like me, you never know when you may need to defend yourself.

Now on to the ritual act I must perform every day, down on my knees I pull out my holy grail.. the cat picture that I imagine is Lauda, so down go my leather pants as I furiously have my 1st Lauda wank of the day.. I may not have much to work with being blessed with a micropeen, but the thumb and index finger duo does me. so I work it hard - micro peen grows to 1 1/2 inches as I ejaculate into my special cup (i'll save that to drink later, it will give me super troll strength)

Now I rise, check my beard and fedora again, then Boot up my Pentium 4 machine and shitpost away on 1256 alt accounts, get bounty collecting.. all those satoshi's add up. I do 2 deals for 20 member accounts each to Pajeet and Pajeeta, fuck theymos and his forum for removing me from DT.. I could of been the best I could of been like Blazed, but ill just take it out on Lauda later.
Pajeeta comes back and moans at me due to 7 of the accounts being tied together by timelord, oh shit thats 3 months of work down the drain again.. better get ready to rage at Lauda.

Take a break from account grinding, better go and check on mum make sure she  has enough chicken tendies in for me today..

[Zepher]

T, that made me laugh more than it should have done. A little too graphic in places, but hilarious nonetheless.

By the way QS, when are you seriously going to give up with these pathetic threads?? I would have thought that by now you would have realised how little your word means around here.

The way you attack people on this forum used to bother me - back when I was still learning the ropes around here, but now I just find you and your trolling a mixture of hilarious and sad.

Edit: Back on topic: I have a pill addiction too. I take a single paracetamol tablet most nights when I go to bed. Am I no longer trustworthy as a result?..

[ibminer]

Yep, but who the hell cares what Lauda does on her free time?  (I have decided to call Lauda a she from now on instead of using neutral pronouns... easier.)

Is her addiction interfering with anyone?  Is she doing crazy things while she is on pills?

While I believe others may argue over mental stability and other potential scientific evidence they could refer to which shows this pill does this, this, and this to your body/brain, etc. Personally, I don't believe I would have this type of response (I say this not knowing *any* details about the baseless allegations). I agree that Lauda can do whatever s/he wants and ingest whatever s/he wants - although I would strongly encourage responsible moderation, but we are all human (I think?).

My current concerns are not directly related to pill use but more about credibility, character, and the evolution of events that have transpired on this thread which may alter my perceptions. I've got various concerns if the claims are not true, and various concerns if the claims were true... neither really relating to the pill use itself.

If you are looking for a signed message from lauda ordering pills over long periods of time, or a video of someone I claim to be lauda taking pills, I will tell you this evidence does not exist, and does not exist for almost every other drug addict out there.

If you had that, it would probably be all over the OP, I'm not looking for anything this detailed... at the moment I'm looking for any form of sufficient evidence to support the claim, and no, a txt-based chat log which could be getting typed up by you right now, with no references as to its validity, will not be sufficient. We are currently on page 5 of this thread with just your word to back it up.  

When someone in the media publishes something, they will say how they know said fact, and will ask the subject of an article for a comment/response. Sometimes the subject will not respond to the request for comment, and when this happens some readers might wait for a response before deciding if they believe the article. Sometimes the subject will respond, and when they do not explicitly deny the allegations, most readers will accept what is published as fact, even if they personally do not know enough information themselves to come to this same conclusion, or even if there is not enough public information to prove this in court. Sometimes the subject will outright deny the allegation, at which point readers will have to use the available facts to evaluate if they believe what is being said or not, and sometimes the writer may publish additional evidence if sufficient number of readers do not believe them.

Most usually present the source of information, and if the source is "anonymous" and that "anonymous" person is stating information they heard from another "anonymous" person, I believe readers would behave differently than the way you describe.
Regardless, this is not the mainstream media and I would expect most readers here would not behave like this.

IMO, based on Lauda's responses to this thread, one can reasonably assume Lauda is denying that they take pills:

I'd like to know what pills I'm taking as well.

I believe this says "I don't take pills" and is an explicit denial...

I think you are wrong. I don't agree this is a denial, however if you were to give (probably too much of) a benefit of the doubt, this is another of Lauda's non-denial denials, similar to his response to allegations that Lauda sold accounts in the past, when he said "I have not...purchased any accounts to my knowledge" -- he is giving himself an out in case someone presents additional evidence against him.

So what is the "out" with this thread?

A pill addiction comes with repetition and based on Lauda's comments so far in this thread I don't think there is anyway to defend that Lauda has stated, at the very least, that s/he does not have any knowledge of taking pills. If this all turned out to be true and had sufficient supporting evidence, I don't see any viable out, at least not one that most would believe, so your source should be satisfied with this denial.

Better yet, maybe I have a source who told me Lauda denied the pill addiction explicitly in a PM.

Using the word "maybe" is very different from outright saying that you have this information. I would also point out that denying this via a 3rd party, in private is yet another way (actually multiple ways) for lauda to get "out" of being exposed as lying to discredit allegations against him if additional evidence is presented against him.

Are you not essentially doing the same thing here?  
Posting an allegation from a "source" whom, to your knowledge, is providing accurate information but you cannot really confirm nor deny it is accurate.
Are you not leaving yourself an "out" to be able to say "my source was wrong, information was not correct, but it wasn't me who misled you, it was my unnamed source - sorry everyone" ?

[OgNasty]

This explains it.  

No complaints about Blazed's feedback for QS?  

-snip-
Being new here, hereto I’d only seen evidence that OgNasty is a slippery jerk.  Now, I may know him by the company he keeps.  Transitive trust is a double-edged sword, after all.  Thank you.

You should watch out for a negative rating though. aTriz got one for using FTFY on one of his statements (but it was later changed to neutral).

Another lie from disgraced former Staff Member Lauda, say it ain't so...  aTriz got a negative for alleging I was using an alt that was obviously maliciously created in an attempt to make me look bad.  That is why he admitted to being wrong and apologized publicly for such a stupid allegation, which I accepted then reduced the rating.  Once again, you continue spreading lies to try and make me look bad, ironically in a thread where you are claiming this is being done to you.

[Lauda]

No complaints about Blazed's feedback for QS?  

Complained several times already in the past.

Another lie from disgraced former Staff Member Lauda, say it ain't so...  aTriz got a negative for alleging I was using an alt that was obviously maliciously created in an attempt to make me look bad.  That is why he admitted to being wrong and apologized publicly for such a stupid allegation, which I accepted then reduced the rating.  Once again, you continue spreading lies to try and make me look bad, ironically in a thread where you are claiming this is being done to you.

Wrong. Your reference rating literally links to this image: https://imgur.com/8pVSvWS, ergo the 'FTFY' that he got the negative for. Rather than playing the victim, try being more original.
You complain about lies being spread, yet ironically leave positive trust to the, arguably, biggest spreader of lies in this forum.

[owlcatz]

This is pretty fucking funny... THe bully lying and claiming to be a victim? What's new?! ... Poor sod hasn't even realized yet that his trust ratings are bullshit and nobody here takes him or them seriously anymore...

[OgNasty]

Another lie from disgraced former Staff Member Lauda, say it ain't so...  aTriz got a negative for alleging I was using an alt that was obviously maliciously created in an attempt to make me look bad.  That is why he admitted to being wrong and apologized publicly for such a stupid allegation, which I accepted then reduced the rating.  Once again, you continue spreading lies to try and make me look bad, ironically in a thread where you are claiming this is being done to you.

Wrong. Your reference rating literally links to this image: https://imgur.com/8pVSvWS, ergo the 'FTFY' that he got the negative for. Rather than playing the victim, try being more original.
You complain about lies being spread, yet ironically leave positive trust to the, arguably, biggest spreader of lies in this forum.

That is an image containing a quote from an alt account setup to try and frame me, with the quote maliciously changed to be from me in an attempt to make a baseless accusation that I was behind the alt account.  

Yes, you are lying in a post where you are claiming someone else is a liar.  Are you a liar, or are you really that dumb?

This is pretty fucking funny... THe bully lying and claiming to be a victim? What's new?! ... Poor sod hasn't even realized yet that his trust ratings are bullshit and nobody here takes him or them seriously anymore...

Hey look, another disgraced user standing up for the fraudsters of the forum.  What a shock!

[owlcatz]

This is pretty fucking funny... THe bully lying and claiming to be a victim? What's new?! ... Poor sod hasn't even realized yet that his trust ratings are bullshit and nobody here takes him or them seriously anymore...

Hey look, another disgraced user standing up for the fraudsters of the forum.  What a shock!

Hahahah... I'm so disgraced, my life is ruined, I can't do anything ... .HELP ME!!!!

You are  fucking fool and a tool, and I wear your neg with honor you slimy cheap sausage grilling ponzi scammer.

[Lauda]

That is an image containing a quote from an alt account setup to try and frame me, with the quote maliciously changed to be from me in an attempt to make a baseless accusation that I was behind the alt account.  

I don't even..


The american stereotypes tend to be at least sometimes right.

Hahahah... I'm so disgraced, my life is ruined, I can't do anything ... .HELP ME!!!!

Since he is sure that you are disgraced, you should start a poll (not the forum built in one though): "owlcatz or OgNasty?". I wonder who would win that one.

[owlcatz]

I don't even care anymore, I just find the guy to be a bullying asshole jerk to basically everyone but himself and his little nasty-minions like QS....

The guy is clearly a malignant narcissist, just like Trump. You can't even argue with a Trump supporter, much less someone who has the same personality disorder...