overwhelming consensus excludes Lauda, remains in DT2, went in2 buz w sold act

[suchmoon]

You failed to account for the fact that you had not previously sent Amy of these people negative trust for being sold accounts, nor why you failed to leave negative trust to an account seller who sold one of those accounts.

These accounts having other people on their trust list doesn’t exonerate you.

Who is Amy?

There are probably hundreds of thousands of users on this forum who didn't neg those accounts. Are they all Lauda's alts?

[1714972012]

1714972012

[1714972012]

1714972012

[1714972012]

1714972012

[1714972012]

1714972012

[1714972012]

1714972012

[Quickseller]

You failed to account for the fact that you had not previously sent Amy of these people negative trust for being sold accounts, nor why you failed to leave negative trust to an account seller who sold one of those accounts.

These accounts having other people on their trust list doesn’t exonerate you.

Who is Amy?

There are probably hundreds of thousands of users on this forum who didn't neg those accounts. Are they all Lauda's alts?

Lauda has left negative trust for hundreds of sold accounts and claims to have left negative trust for thousands of “scammers”.

It is not unreasonable to be suspicious when the fact these accounts are sold can be confirmed with virtually zero investigative work *AND* they all justvso happen to have lauda on their trust list.

[alia]

There is no burden of proof in the court of public opinion. This is just a smear campaign although I do suspect there may be some small truths to some of it.

It is a principle well-known to both expert liars and expert lie-detectors that a big bald-faced lie, said with a straight face, will always leave behind this poisonous residue.

Most people are a tiny bit corrupt, in some small way; they themselves can comprehend, sometimes even identify with the telling of small lies.  Thus, they know that small lies happen.  Whereas no ordinary person can really believe deep in his heart that somebody could tell a huge lie.  The mind may know of such things, in the manner of book-learning; but emotions and conscience refuse to grasp the existence of such a monstrosity.

The understanding of big lies is a thing unto the opposing realms of philosophers, hardened criminals, and forensic psychologists.

Protip:  If you want to really smear someone, tell a lie so bold that nobody can believe you just made it up.  Repeat it over and again.  Then repeat the whole process tomorrow, with a new lie.  Quickseller explained in three sentences.

When I look around I see people making claims, blatantly lying about things but as long as you have enough sheep believing you it becomes the "truth", at least for a certain portion of the population. I did say "smear campaign" did I not? i.e. "a plan to discredit a public figure by making false or dubious accusations". Don't need any proof when that's your plan.

Bingo.

It should not be difficult to find evidence yourself though. Just pick one person who has added lauda to their trust list; there is a ~1 in 9 chance of it being a clearly purchased account, and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

No, not under the inquisitorial system.  The accusatorial system has an accuser.  The inquisitorial system has a _______.

You make a pretty shitty case if you can't provide such, and instead tell people to find it themselves.

In the quote of Quickseller to which you replied, he wasn’t even telling people to find proof.  He was telling people to start with what he alleges to be a randomized “~1 in 9 chance” of an account upon whom to throw suspicion.  This is followed by, “...and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.”  Otherwise stated:  “it should not be difficult to find what you are looking for.”  Neat psych-out of idiots who will happily stare at the clouds until they see faces in them.

This is how you present proof. /thread

Hmmm... are you sure you're not Lauda? 

[Quickseller]

There is no burden of proof in the court of public opinion. This is just a smear campaign although I do suspect there may be some small truths to some of it.

It is a principle well-known to both expert liars and expert lie-detectors that a big bald-faced lie, said with a straight face, will always leave behind this poisonous residue.

Most people are a tiny bit corrupt, in some small way; they themselves can comprehend, sometimes even identify with the telling of small lies.  Thus, they know that small lies happen.  Whereas no ordinary person can really believe deep in his heart that somebody could tell a huge lie.  The mind may know of such things, in the manner of book-learning; but emotions and conscience refuse to grasp the existence of such a monstrosity.

The understanding of big lies is a thing unto the opposing realms of philosophers, hardened criminals, and forensic psychologists.

Protip:  If you want to really smear someone, tell a lie so bold that nobody can believe you just made it up.  Repeat it over and again.  Then repeat the whole process tomorrow, with a new lie.  Quickseller explained in three sentences.

When I look around I see people making claims, blatantly lying about things but as long as you have enough sheep believing you it becomes the "truth", at least for a certain portion of the population. I did say "smear campaign" did I not? i.e. "a plan to discredit a public figure by making false or dubious accusations". Don't need any proof when that's your plan.

Bingo.

It should not be difficult to find evidence yourself though. Just pick one person who has added lauda to their trust list; there is a ~1 in 9 chance of it being a clearly purchased account, and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

No, not under the inquisitorial system.  The accusatorial system has an accuser.  The inquisitorial system has a _______.

You make a pretty shitty case if you can't provide such, and instead tell people to find it themselves.

In the quote of Quickseller to which you replied, he wasn’t even telling people to find proof.  He was telling people to start with what he alleges to be a randomized “~1 in 9 chance” of an account upon whom to throw suspicion.  This is followed by, “...and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.”  Otherwise stated:  “it should not be difficult to find what you are looking for.”  Neat psych-out of idiots who will happily stare at the clouds until they see faces in them.

This is how you present proof. /thread

Hmmm... are you sure you're not Lauda? 

He is not. However he does have a vested interest in seeing that lauda maintains a positive reputation.

Instead of seeing that lauda acts with integrity, he tries to get others to overlook laudas unethical actions.

[suchmoon]

You failed to account for the fact that you had not previously sent Amy of these people negative trust for being sold accounts, nor why you failed to leave negative trust to an account seller who sold one of those accounts.

These accounts having other people on their trust list doesn’t exonerate you.

Who is Amy?

There are probably hundreds of thousands of users on this forum who didn't neg those accounts. Are they all Lauda's alts?

Lauda has left negative trust for hundreds of sold accounts and claims to have left negative trust for thousands of “scammers”.

It is not unreasonable to be suspicious when the fact these accounts are sold can be confirmed with virtually zero investigative work *AND* they all justvso happen to have lauda on their trust list.

Bullshit. If you didn't have fallacies you wouldn't have any logic at all.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

[Lauda]

You failed to account for the fact that you had not previously sent any of these people negative trust for being sold accounts, nor why you failed to leave negative trust to an account seller who sold one of those accounts.

You failed to account for the fact that I have no idea who these users are. Who was the account seller?

These accounts having other people on their trust list doesn’t exonerate you.

Correct. It doesn't, because I am not guilty of anything.

[suchmoon]

You failed to account for the fact that you had not previously sent any of these people negative trust for being sold accounts, nor why you failed to leave negative trust to an account seller who sold one of those accounts.

You failed to account for the fact that I have no idea who these users are. Who was the account seller?

Quickseller <-- conclusive proof.

[unyil]

A few days ago I saw Lauda was removed from Default Trust but I think Lauda has returned to DT again, is that true?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Do you want to bet on that?

If your proposed bet here is you being able to provide enough evidence to convince a reasonable bitcointalk member that I'm Lauda, I'll take it. 

You won't be able to.  You're just blowing smoke, as usual.  Saying you have evidence but never providing it is like something a grade school kid would do, before he learns how to really argue. 

Knowledge dump or STFU.

[Quickseller]

Do you want to bet on that?

If your proposed bet here is you being able to provide enough evidence to convince a reasonable bitcointalk member that I'm Lauda, I'll take it. 

You won't be able to.  You're just blowing smoke, as usual.  Saying you have evidence but never providing it is like something a grade school kid would do, before he learns how to really argue. 

Knowledge dump or STFU.

How much are you willing to bet? Terms? Escrow?

[nullius]

Do you want to bet on that?

If your proposed bet here is you being able to provide enough evidence to convince a reasonable bitcointalk member that I'm Lauda, I'll take it.  

You won't be able to.  You're just blowing smoke, as usual.  Saying you have evidence but never providing it is like something a grade school kid would do, before he learns how to really argue.  

Knowledge dump or STFU.

How much are you willing to bet? Terms? Escrow?

I’ve already taken that bet.  My ante is my good name—all the time and effort I have invested posting day and night with a forum account which has earned 490+ merits in less than a month since the start of the merit system—and all my future expectations of intellectual discussion, business, and pleasure on this forum.

For if you have this evidence, then you can instantly destroy not only Lauda’s reputation, but the reputations of all publicly committed Lauda-supporters—including me.

I picked sides here.  I did so after reading through old threads, and carefully considering what I found there.  And in picking sides, I made my wager.  At this point, I myself am so publicly committed to supporting Lauda that if you were to drop some shocking evidence which proves serious wrongdoing, I would probably need to leave this forum forever.  For unlike you, I have things called dignity and a sense of shame which would prevent me from hanging around in disgrace just to troll people.  Do you think I would want to stay here as a laughingstock like you?

So, ante up, Quicksy.  Show your evidence.  You can force me to leave—humiliate me (yes, I know how you thirst for that)—wreck my hopes, dreams, and plans.  I’ve got a budding Github repo which people respect, a plum domain name (nym.zone) I plan to use for such business as for which I’d need sterling credibility, and high status as the current #4 all-time most-merited Bitcoin Forum user.  Also, attentions of a hot girl.  If you’ve been speaking the truth, then you can take all that away from me.  Just drop the evidence on Lauda.

For your part, you already lost all your reputational wagers to the degree that you have pretty girls laughing at you and your comedic total lack of credibility:

[...]

This is how you present proof. /thread

Hmmm... are you sure you're not Lauda?  

I think I already won any possible bet.

Oh, and by the way:  Thanks so much for this particular object demonstration of how easily you make bold accusations, then turn around and flatly contradict yourself a few days later after everybody is laughing at you:

[...]

Hmmm... are you sure you're not Lauda?  

He is not. However he does have a vested interest in seeing that lauda maintains a positive reputation.

Instead of seeing that lauda acts with integrity, he tries to get others to overlook laudas unethical actions.

nullius is lauda. That is very clear. Anyone who does not see this is simply closing their eyes.

Or at least, thanks for closing your eyes so you no longer see that I am very clearly Lauda.

[Lauda]

Do you want to bet on that?

If your proposed bet here is you being able to provide enough evidence to convince a reasonable bitcointalk member that I'm Lauda, I'll take it.  

You won't be able to.  You're just blowing smoke, as usual.  Saying you have evidence but never providing it is like something a grade school kid would do, before he learns how to really argue.  

Knowledge dump or STFU.

How much are you willing to bet? Terms? Escrow?

I don't like betting, but I'll take this on, sure. You can propose some terms as I certainly don't plan on wasting time proposing things you'd instantly reject. Escrow Mitchell. Anywhere upwards from 5 BTC is fine.
I just need to check with The Pharmacist (or should I say, myself?). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Or at least, thanks for closing your eyes so you no longer see that I am very clearly Lauda.

I think you are Lauda though, or maybe I just want you to be Lauda. I am not really sure anymore. 

[Viper1]

Betting would be fun. One side seems to think the bet is for one thing, and the other for something else. Yeah, not going to happen.

[Quickseller]

He is not. However he does have a vested interest in seeing that lauda maintains a positive reputation.

Instead of seeing that lauda acts with integrity, he tries to get others to overlook laudas unethical actions.

nullius is lauda. That is very clear. Anyone who does not see this is simply closing their eyes.

Or at least, thanks for closing your eyes so you no longer see that I am very clearly Lauda.

I don't think you are lauda anymore, which should be clear by the post you quoted. I do still think you are a very dishonest person who has a long history of dishonesty. This is not something new to you, considering how long people have been calling you dishonest around here....I am pretty sure there are threads from 2011 in which people were calling you dishonest.

[Quickseller]

Do you want to bet on that?

If your proposed bet here is you being able to provide enough evidence to convince a reasonable bitcointalk member that I'm Lauda, I'll take it. 

You won't be able to.  You're just blowing smoke, as usual.  Saying you have evidence but never providing it is like something a grade school kid would do, before he learns how to really argue. 

Knowledge dump or STFU.

How much are you willing to bet? Terms? Escrow?

I don't like betting, but I'll take this on, sure. You can propose some terms as I certainly don't plan on wasting time proposing things you'd instantly reject. Escrow Mitchell. Anywhere upwards from 5 BTC is fine.
I just need to check with The Pharmacist (or should I say, myself?). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Or at least, thanks for closing your eyes so you no longer see that I am very clearly Lauda.

I think you are Lauda though, or maybe I just want you to be Lauda. I am not really sure anymore.

Ummm, you literally already "figured out" who the purchased accounts that have you on their trust list are.....if you are wanting to bet if I can prove that 6 purchased accounts who are all owned by the same person have you on their trust list, you can go ahead and send 5 BTC to the address in my profile; I win the bet.

[nullius]

He is not. However he does have a vested interest in seeing that lauda maintains a positive reputation.

Instead of seeing that lauda acts with integrity, he tries to get others to overlook laudas unethical actions.

nullius is lauda. That is very clear. Anyone who does not see this is simply closing their eyes.

Or at least, thanks for closing your eyes so you no longer see that I am very clearly Lauda.

I don't think you are lauda anymore, which should be clear by the post you quoted. I do still think you are a very dishonest person who has a long history of dishonesty. This is not something new to you, considering how long people have been calling you dishonest around here....I am pretty sure there are threads from 2011 in which people were calling you dishonest.

Links, please.  I myself should like to see those threads of which you speak!  Or did you only hear from a reliable source close to the forum friend of a friend about such threads?

Or at least, thanks for closing your eyes so you no longer see that I am very clearly Lauda.

I think you are Lauda though, or maybe I just want you to be Lauda. I am not really sure anymore. :-X

I will take you at your word, because you have something called “credibility” which is much missing from some parts of this thread.

But wait:  Does this mean that I may now take pride in my achievements as one of this forum’s most famous members, cheered by decent folks and hated by scammers and spammers?  Or does it mean that I must be jealous of myself?  I am so confused.

At least, now I know that I can actually trust you as I trust myself.

[Lauda]

Ummm, you literally already "figured out" who the purchased accounts that have you on their trust list are.....if you are wanting to bet if I can prove that 6 purchased accounts who are all owned by the same person have you on their trust list, you can go ahead and send 5 BTC to the address in my profile; I win the bet.

I am not talking about some random accounts. I'm talking about the "evidence" that The Pharmacist and I are the same (hence my mentioning him in the previous post).

Betting would be fun. One side seems to think the bet is for one thing, and the other for something else. Yeah, not going to happen.

Seems you were right.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I will let Lauda take this bet for the both of us. 

I would be curious to know who you have to convince, though.  It should be someone fairly neutral on the matter, and the escrow should be anyone other than someone QS would suggest.  Mitchell sounds aboutright.

[TMAN]

I will let Lauda take this bet for the both of us. 

I would be curious to know who you have to convince, though.  It should be someone fairly neutral on the matter, and the escrow should be anyone other than someone QS would suggest.  Mitchell sounds aboutright.

Are you taking other bets on top QS? And can we discuss what equates to proof?

[FFrankie]

I will let Lauda take this bet for the both of us. 

I would be curious to know who you have to convince, though.  It should be someone fairly neutral on the matter, and the escrow should be anyone other than someone QS would suggest.  Mitchell sounds aboutright.

Are you taking other bets on top QS? And can we discuss what equates to proof?

I would like to bet whatever is equal to TMAN's monthly pay, which is his 2017 taxable income divided by 12.

However, I couldnt afford that

so I will bet 0.01 BTC that the pharmiest is not lauda