Edit: Apologies for the apparent double-post. (There
was another post here, by OgNasty, which seems to have disappeared.)
and why can't Lauda just deny it?
Forcing somebody into a position to deny baseless accusations is a
classic smear tactic. Quickseller’s seeks to destroy Lauda’s reputation with rumours; and his rapidfire promulgation of such smears creates a
witchcraft trial atmosphere. For Lauda to answer to him
in the face of no evidence whatsoever would be an error which plays right into his hands. By way of a subtle analogy, consider that to be like trying to use the “unsubscribe” link in a spam e-mail.
...and why can't Lauda just deny it? ...
When there is no evidence, why would I? To please the very sick obsession that OP has with me? My explicit denial of anything is not enough for OP anyways, thus it's pointless unless there is evidence for any accusation (in that case, I'd need to regardless who brought the
tampered evidence up).
Exactly.
True. However, when the busted baboons jump on the bandwagon along with OP's shills, then it might seem *unusually convincing* for the reader who doesn't know him and/or the others. Classic smear tactic. Spread a bad rumor here, spread another bad rumor there and hope something spreads into the likes of "a friend of a friend of a friend reliable unidentified source" told me Lauda does [insertWhateverLie].
This is a not insignificant problem, as a practical matter. Newbies and casual readers can be easily misled. Few people are savvy enough to recognize smear tactics on the face of things; and fewer still will take the time to dig a bit through forum archives (as I did) before passing judgment, and worse, repeating rumours as hearsay.
By the way, this thread is chock-full of cheap smear tactics. For an instructive example of a smear directed not at Lauda, but rather
at an uninvolved person just because of her being (more than) friendly with me, namely Alia:
About every week she opens a new thread. Either she wants to sell something (herself (no reproach!)) or she wants to buy drugs, or she wants to borrow money (in my opinion, for the strangest reasons
) and so on. Honestly she seems very suspicious to me.
Listing “she wants to buy drugs” between online transactions is a gross misrepresentation: It insinuates that she wanted to buy drugs online. A link to the pertinent thread is conveniently omitted, such that readers can’t easily assess for themselves.
In
the thread where she asked about drugs,
the second sentence of Alia’s OP starts, “Never tried them” (drugs). She said that she
intends to travel somewhere that the drugs in question are legal, so as to try them
for the first time (and planning to try only once) for the “experience”. There is explicit discussion between her and others of “tourist destinations”; Amsterdam is mentioned.
So, on the face of the matter, we’re talking about a 19-year-old
who has never tried drugs and is curious about them. That’s it. (How many 19-year-olds have never tried drugs, including marijuana?)
I myself am
strictly against drugs. I’d never have anything to do with an addict or regular user. I popped into her thread, and explained in brief why
I think it’s a bad idea—even if
the intention is to try only once. She seems open-minded and thoughtful about the matter. I guess she’ll think it over and decide what she wants.
Strictly speaking, this is off-topic; I therefore will not bother to dissect several other material misrepresentations in the same post. But it is necessary that a really horrible smear be debunked: How many people read that, and inferred that Alia was buying drugs online? I would have, if I had not already known what that thread actually said. This also serves as a neatly illustrative example of how smears can work; and smears are not only on-topic, but the
whole topic of this thread.
[blah, blah]
Thus spake the
Master Ethical Mature Expert who believes that a signature containing a sarcasm tag, a forum rules link, and a scam notice can be
somehow paid in a roundabout way. You have no credibility for intellect, let alone for integrity; you don’t even get three “blahs” from me. Shoo.
Popcorn stocks raised by 15% because of this thread
I admit, I am being paid under the table by the popcorn cartel—and so must be Quickseller. Wait a minute. Does that mean I may be a Quickseller alt? Please excuse me whilst I bathe in bleach.