Retracted [re:lauda]

[suchmoon]

Well there is my word...

If it's your word against Lauda's, I think that anyone without ulterior motives would be against you.

Here is where you are wrong my friend. Lauda has not disputed what I am saying. In fact he made it clear he will not answer without more evidence.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Are you sure that was Quickseller and not someone else

Either Quickseller or one of his 9 billion alts, same difference.

Regardless, if QS doesn't answer this to my satisfaction - he's a wife-beater. If he does answer, he's still a wife-beater. Win-win.

[1701163372]

1701163372

[1701163372]

1701163372

[1701163372]

1701163372

[1701163372]

1701163372

[1701163372]

1701163372

[nullius]

When did you stop beating your wife?

Question-begging was predicted by me; but evidently, I overestimated Quickseller.  It seems he has not reached past the introductory chapters of the Book of Smear Tactics:

(Next standard twist:  Classic “begging the question”.  “Lauda, when did you stop leaving negative trust tags while in drug-fuelled rages?”)

It has been clearly, repeatedly explained that in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, placing somebody in a position to deny a scandalous charge is a classic smear tactic and nothing more.

Being new here, I ask you to help me out:

I do not understand why some people are discussing baseless rumours about Lauda, instead of focusing on all the misdeeds and persistent rumours which Quickseller has never denied:

Surely this should be very easy for QS to dispel he is a pedophile by simply denying that he is one. However he has failed to do this.

Why do you think QS would not quickly deny that he is a pedophile?

Instead, QS is ignoring the question, trying to know how much evidence there is against him, and wanting to see the evidence that he is a pervert.  :/

How rumours start, e.g.:

Those of you who have been here for some years may remember the time that Quickseller posted in a politics thread with an explicit defence of adult-child sexual relations.  I know, he deleted that quickly—I presume as soon as he realized what he’d done, and what the social and business consequences might be.  Perhaps he was drunk at the time.  But I know that some of you forum old-timers must have seen it.  I saw it.  XYZ saw it.  A friend-of-a-friend saw it...

(And he has never denied this!  Very interesting.)

Beware!  I heard from a friend of a friend that Quickseller is HIV-positive from his time turning tricks on the street near a bathhouse; and Quickseller has not denied this!

Shush.  Mr. Quickseller is busy “looking for the real killers”.  That, and/or scamming somebody.  He will make more cheap, transparent excuses present evidence for his accusations when he has a spare moment in his jam-packed VIP schedule of swindling, molesting children, and selling his butt for crack money (as he has not denied).

Regardless, if QS doesn't answer this to my satisfaction - he's a wife-beater. If he does answer, he's still a wife-beater. Win-win.

He has had plenty of opportunity to deny these things, but never made a statement about them.

Let the record reflect that Quickseller does not deny being an HIV-positive, crack-addicted paedophile and homosexual prostitute who beats his wife.

[suchmoon]

nullius, you gotta start adding some kind of a warning to your posts. The nice folks at gate B23 are all weirded out now by my LOLing IRL.

[nullius]

nullius, you gotta start adding some kind of a warning to your posts. The nice folks at gate B23 are all weirded out now by my LOLing IRL.

I apologize.  Being new here, I am still a bit clumsy with forum protocol for what some people call “C&C warnings”.

By the way, on a more positive note (and speaking of “C”):  A friend of a friend reliable source told me that somebody close to Lauda told him that she is Satoshi Nakamoto disguised as a cat.  Lauda has never denied this.


Edit, after further thought to realize the sobering magnitude of this question:  Why has Lauda not denied this?  Lauda, why have you never denied that you are Satoshi Nakamoto disguised as a cat?  Oh dear me, I have discovered the real Satoshi!

[suchmoon]

Oh dear me, I have discovered the real Satoshi!

See if you can get some hush-money to keep his identity secret. He's got plenty of those sweet sweet early-edition bitcoins. <sup>1


1</sup> The sound you're hearing is 9 billion alt-heads exploding upon discovering this super-secret meta-extortion plot.

[nullius]

Oh dear me, I have discovered the real Satoshi!

See if you can get some hush-money to keep his identity secret. He's got plenty of those sweet sweet early-edition bitcoins. <sup>1


1</sup> The sound you're hearing is 9 billion alt-heads exploding upon discovering this super-secret meta-extortion plot.

Lauda-Satoshi-meow-san, you’d better pay up fast if you don’t want for me to publicly reveal that you have never denied your meta-secret meta-identity!  The price is ONE MILLION BITCOINS!!


(suchmoon, now you’re the one who has me LOLling.  I relish the thought that people who dislike me may link to this post as evidence of how evil I am.  Also, I’m filing this away for the next “LAUDA == XYZ!!!11” thread.  Question:  If Lauda = aTriz = actmyname = ..., does this mean that all these people are not denied to be Satoshi?  I inquire for the purpose of my dissertation on QS logic, whereby “PHD” means “Piled Higher & Deeper”.)

[suchmoon]

The price is TWENTY ONE MILLION BITCOINS!! (each)

TFTFY - I want my cut too. At 10k per pizza this should keep me well fed for a while.

[Vod]

The price is ONE MILLION BITCOINS!!

I don't have time to add the words, so please use your imagination. 

[Viper1]

I used to frequent a business forum that was very liberal in what it allowed, just like this toxic place. Then one day the people running it decided they'd had enough of the chaos and to get things under control and they implemented a 3 strikes and you're out rule/rating along with more stringent rules like, making accusations without proof would result in a permanent ban (might have been a strike, can't remember now but the thread was purged as well). Cleaned that place up pretty quick. Course in this place, a whole lot of people including those currently in position of trust would get banned. But sometimes you need to seriously clean house.

[nullius]

I used to frequent a business forum that was very liberal in what it allowed, just like this toxic place. Then one day the people running it decided they'd had enough of the chaos and to get things under control and they implemented a 3 strikes and you're out rule/rating along with more stringent rules like, making accusations without proof would result in a permanent ban (might have been a strike, can't remember now but the thread was purged as well). Cleaned that place up pretty quick. Course in this place, a whole lot of people including those currently in position of trust would get banned. But sometimes you need to seriously clean house.

Being new here, I’m not sure exactly how the forum’s policies developed; but I gather that the policy is against banning scammers for reason that that would place mods in the position of judging accusations.  Here, I suppose that this principle works in reverse, insofar as Quickseller is trying to scam people with false accusations.

That being said:  I do think that it would be appropriate to ban people for making accusations with not even a shred of colourable evidence, amounting to what lawyers call a “palpable sham”.

For an example of what meets that criterion, with bold/underline supplied:

My source tells me that he was told by people close to Lauda that Lauda has a serious pill addiction.

Oh, I saw that coming a mile away!  I’m psychic, or Quickseller is amusingly transparent—or both:

Beware!  I heard from a friend of a friend that Quickseller is HIV-positive from his time turning tricks on the street near a bathhouse; and Quickseller has not denied this!

Anyway:  In most any jurisdiction on Earth, if you try to file a lawsuit on the basis of “friend of a friend” double-hearsay, then you will be tossed out of court in a microsecond and get hit with sanctions for frivolous/vexatious litigation.  (Your lawyer, too—which is why most lawyers will refuse to file such lawsuits.)  Though this isn’t a court and shouldn’t pretend to be one, that provides a fair bit of perspective when contemplating Quickseller’s attempt to seriously damage Lauda’s reputation based on “my source tells me that he was told by people” malarkey.


C&C warning:  +2 for a good idea.  -1 for calling this forum “toxic”.  You ignorant fool, you assail the basic human rights of all the people who are munching popcorn whilst watching this.  As a resident evil clown, Quickseller provides a valuable service:  Without such threads as this, people would not eat popcorn, and would therefore become hungry.  Do you want to make forum users starve, you cruel sadist!?

Given how he gets whipped bloody in these threads without anything to show for it, Quickseller’s obscene antics could be motivated only by pure popcorn-consumption-inducing altruism.  Yea, Quickseller comes to sacrifice himself with bald-faced lies drenched in the milk of human kindness!  Please, have some empathy for all the poor, hungry forum users who would die without an inducement to eat popcorn.


Edit, P.S.—

The price is TWENTY ONE MILLION BITCOINS!! (each)

TFTFY - I want my cut too. At 10k per pizza this should keep me well fed for a while.

Thanks for the idea of how to spend my newfound wealth.  Hundred-million-dollar-value pizzas are delicious, and so much more filling than mere popcorn.

[Lauda]

Let the record reflect that Quickseller does not deny being an HIV-positive, crack-addicted paedophile and homosexual prostitute who beats his wife.

It seems that Quickseller is not interested in denying that. Very interesting indeed...
He is not disputing this claim, so it appears that based on the preponderance of the evidence presented, he is indeed an HIV-positive, crack-addicted paedophile and homosexual prostitute who beats his wife....
If it works, then it works both ways I guess.

[TMAN]

Let the record reflect that Quickseller does not deny being an HIV-positive, crack-addicted paedophile and homosexual prostitute who beats his wife.

It seems that Quickseller is not interested in denying that. Very interesting indeed...
He is not disputing this claim, so it appears that based on the preponderance of the evidence presented, he is indeed an HIV-positive, crack-addicted paedophile and homosexual prostitute who beats his wife....
If it works, then it works both ways I guess.

few points though

1) he is over 400lb's with a micro peen, so he isn't married
2) if he isn't married - he doesnt have a wife
3) as he is over 400lb's and lives in his mums basement he is a virgin of the penis

so he got HIV from sharing either needles or his bottom, one or the other

[JayJuanGee]

Let the record reflect that Quickseller does not deny being an HIV-positive, crack-addicted paedophile and homosexual prostitute who beats his wife.

It seems that Quickseller is not interested in denying that. Very interesting indeed...
He is not disputing this claim, so it appears that based on the preponderance of the evidence presented, he is indeed an HIV-positive, crack-addicted paedophile and homosexual prostitute who beats his wife....
If it works, then it works both ways I guess.

few points though

1) he is over 400lb's with a micro peen, so he isn't married
2) if he isn't married - he doesnt have a wife
3) as he is over 400lb's and lives in his mums basement he is a virgin of the penis

so he got HIV from sharing either needles or his bottom, one or the other

Surely, it is "best practice" to get some of the details cleared up when asserting any facts that are found to be 100% completely and totally true through admission by failure to timely deny. b  b

[Lauda]

Surely, it is "best practice" to get some of the details straight when asserting any facts that are found to be completely and totally true through admission by failure to timely deny.

According to OP, anything someone some random says about you that you don't explicitly deny on request is true. Watch out.

[JayJuanGee]

Surely, it is "best practice" to get some of the details straight when asserting any facts that are found to be completely and totally true through admission by failure to timely deny.

According to OP, anything someone some random says about you that you don't explicitly deny on request is true. Watch out.

I have already seen a pretty long pattern of the non-substantiated nonsensical posts coming out of the author of OP, so it remains difficult to have sympathy for folks who take those kinds of lacking in evidence, lacking of logic and attempts to place the burdens in the wrong places.  Trolls and sabatuers do that, too.

[o_e_l_e_o]

According to OP, anything someone some random says about you that you don't explicitly deny on request is true. Watch out.

Can someone tell Coinbase that a random stranger online once said I owned ten thousand bitcoins. Despite having no evidence, this is now irrefutably true, so they are legally bound to update my account balance. 

[suchmoon]

I used to frequent a business forum that was very liberal in what it allowed, just like this toxic place. Then one day the people running it decided they'd had enough of the chaos and to get things under control and they implemented a 3 strikes and you're out rule/rating along with more stringent rules like, making accusations without proof would result in a permanent ban (might have been a strike, can't remember now but the thread was purged as well). Cleaned that place up pretty quick. Course in this place, a whole lot of people including those currently in position of trust would get banned. But sometimes you need to seriously clean house.

Wouldn't work here. QS has an army of alts and isn't shy to use them so he'll just keep trolling in slightly different ways to evade the bans. And there is no feasible way to prevent that without seriously compromising privacy for everyone.

[nullius]

I used to frequent a business forum that was very liberal in what it allowed, just like this toxic place. Then one day the people running it decided they'd had enough of the chaos and to get things under control and they implemented a 3 strikes and you're out rule/rating along with more stringent rules like, making accusations without proof would result in a permanent ban (might have been a strike, can't remember now but the thread was purged as well). Cleaned that place up pretty quick. Course in this place, a whole lot of people including those currently in position of trust would get banned. But sometimes you need to seriously clean house.

Wouldn't work here. QS has an army of alts and isn't shy to use them so he'll just keep trolling in slightly different ways to evade the bans. And there is no feasible way to prevent that without seriously compromising privacy for everyone.

Strictly true—and I appreciate your respect for privacy.  However, that’s not a reason for not banning.  I’ve recently noticed some apparent troll control on one of the forums here; reading between the lines, based on admittedly limited information, I think it’s highly probable that a single individual was persistently wrecking threads with sockpuppets until enough of them got banned that he backed off.  (Or maybe he’s still trying, but mods figured him out and are now acting too fast for me to catch the action.)  If Tor/proxies were involved (and I don’t see it happening otherwise), the “evil IP” fee must also make trolling a real drag at some point.

Also relevant here:  A “Legendary” whom everybody seems to know is impressive to newbies, casual readers, and people who don’t even have an account.  (I myself spent much time reading the archives of this forum before finally registering an account—and then abandoning it for eight months due to the spam.  It took me longer than it should have to figure Quickseller for what he is, due to his account rank and apparent old-timer status.)  Although Quickseller has a known history of obtaining high-ranked accounts, those must cost far more than the “evil IP” fee—and there is perforce a limited supply of them.  Those can get banned, too.  That ultimately leaves a potential army of “Newbie” and “Jr. Member” accounts—much less impressive for rumour-mongering purposes.

N.b. that I’m trying to weigh both sides of the proposition here.  I don’t (yet) have any firm opinion of this particular issue, though I would lean toward banning mudslingers for accusations amounting to a palpable sham.  No community or society of any kind can long abide the depredations of gossips and rumour-mongers.  That is social poison.

(I will reply to others later.  Busy now.)

[suchmoon]

Strictly true—and I appreciate your respect for privacy.  However, that’s not a reason for not banning.  I’ve recently noticed some apparent troll control on one of the forums here; reading between the lines, based on admittedly limited information, I think it’s highly probable that a single individual was persistently wrecking threads with sockpuppets until enough of them got banned that he backed off.  (Or maybe he’s still trying, but mods figured him out and are now acting too fast for me to catch the action.)  If Tor/proxies were involved (and I don’t see it happening otherwise), the “evil IP” fee must also make trolling a real drag at some point.

Also relevant here:  A “Legendary” whom everybody seems to know is impressive to newbies, casual readers, and people who don’t even have an account.  (I myself spent much time reading the archives of this forum before finally registering an account—and then abandoning it for eight months due to the spam.  It took me longer than it should have to figure Quickseller for what he is, due to his account rank and apparent old-timer status.)  Although Quickseller has a known history of obtaining high-ranked accounts, those must cost far more than the “evil IP” fee—and there is perforce a limited supply of them.  Those can get banned, too.  That ultimately leaves a potential army of “Newbie” and “Jr. Member” accounts—much less impressive for rumour-mongering purposes.

N.b. that I’m trying to weigh both sides of the proposition here.  I don’t (yet) have any firm opinion of this particular issue, though I would lean toward banning mudslingers for accusations amounting to a palpable sham.  No community or society of any kind can long abide the depredations of gossips and rumour-mongers.  That is social poison.

(I will reply to others later.  Busy now.)

Sure, raising the cost of trolling could be done. I doubt it would deter QS and some other determined assholes though. QS is enough of a sleazeball that after a few bans he would probably adjust his innuendo to glide just under the new rules. He already has a bunch of accounts so the evil fee might not even be a problem. He's known to have acquired DT accounts so might be able to get his hands on a merit source too (if he doesn't have one yet) and rank up his alt army. We are not talking about a regular shitposter here. This is something else.

I remember being somewhat perplexed by vitriol towards QS a while ago but not anymore. I've seen cockroaches that could be more valuable members of this forum than QS.

[nullius]

I remember being somewhat perplexed by vitriol towards QS a while ago but not anymore. I've seen cockroaches that could be more valuable members of this forum than QS.

Being new here, I know exactly what you mean.  Quickseller knows how to put on a faux reasonableness when inserting himself into a thread which does not concern his own interests; and he’s deft at twisting words and playing the victim.  Those are marks of a confidence scammer, and many marks are taken in by it.  I myself may have been, had I jumped to conclusions rather than taking the time to grab my shovel and read through a few old, long threads.

Wherefore, I appreciate that you avoided the calumny against cockroaches of comparing them unfavourably to Quickseller.  I imagine that if a cockroach could use a computer, it would post an unending spam spew of mindless one-liners and copypastes whilst laying its alt eggs in every thread.  The poor roaches deserve our empathy.

In contrast to the poor roaches, Quickseller is a somewhat less intelligent version of Iago:  Treacherous, manipulative, seething with jealousy, skilled at insinuating himself into others’ trust and cultivating a false reputation for honesty, poisonous to the relations of all around him—why, yes, methinks “the Bitcoin Forum’s Iago” is my new nickname for Quickseller.

“He hath a daily beauty in his life / That makes me ugly... he must die.”
— A more eloquent Quickseller