Bitcoin Forum
September 15, 2019, 11:01:11 PM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 »
  Print  
Author Topic: overwhelming consensus excludes Lauda, remains in DT2, went in2 buz w sold act  (Read 11562 times)
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1745



View Profile WWW
February 23, 2018, 03:05:34 PM
Last edit: February 23, 2018, 03:16:32 PM by Quickseller
 #501

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.

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

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1568588471
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568588471

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568588471
Reply with quote  #2

1568588471
Report to moderator
1568588471
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568588471

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568588471
Reply with quote  #2

1568588471
Report to moderator
1568588471
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568588471

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568588471
Reply with quote  #2

1568588471
Report to moderator
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 3913


Pedal-powered plaguebot


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 03:08:02 PM
 #502

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?


Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1745



View Profile WWW
February 23, 2018, 03:15:38 PM
 #503

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.

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
alia
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 113

Lowest EVER interest lending! (Use escrow always)


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 03:18:34 PM
 #504

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?  Huh Shocked

Lowest interest lending in bitcointalk history. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2846750.0
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1745



View Profile WWW
February 23, 2018, 03:29:20 PM
 #505

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?  Huh Shocked
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.

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 3913


Pedal-powered plaguebot


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 03:34:05 PM
 #506

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
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 2118


Modern Liberalism is a Mental Disorder


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 05:04:57 PM
 #507

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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 3913


Pedal-powered plaguebot


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 07:05:53 PM
 #508

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
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 349
Merit: 103


sigs design service➜https://goo.gl/jhz4f8


View Profile WWW
February 24, 2018, 04:15:07 AM
 #509

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 Pharmacist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 3085



View Profile
February 24, 2018, 04:20:52 AM
 #510

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
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1745



View Profile WWW
February 24, 2018, 05:07:15 AM
 #511

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?

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 781


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
February 24, 2018, 05:59:34 AM
Merited by TMAN (1)
 #512

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?  Huh Shocked

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?  Huh Shocked
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
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 2118


Modern Liberalism is a Mental Disorder


View Profile
February 24, 2018, 07:05:51 AM
Merited by nullius (1)
 #513

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. Lips sealed

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
Viper1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 257


View Profile
February 24, 2018, 07:27:05 AM
 #514

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.

BTC: 1F8yJqgjeFyX1SX6KJmqYtHiHXJA89ENNT
LTC: LYAEPQeDDM7Y4jbUH2AwhBmkzThAGecNBV
DOGE: DSUsCCdt98PcNgUkFHLDFdQXmPrQBEqXu9
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1745



View Profile WWW
February 24, 2018, 07:35:25 AM
 #515


Quote from: 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.

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1745



View Profile WWW
February 24, 2018, 07:39:39 AM
 #516

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. Lips sealed
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.


Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 781


Help! I’ve got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
February 24, 2018, 08:47:00 AM
Last edit: February 24, 2018, 08:58:03 AM by nullius
 #517


Quote from: 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.

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
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 2118


Modern Liberalism is a Mental Disorder


View Profile
February 24, 2018, 03:28:32 PM
 #518

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.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
The Pharmacist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 3085



View Profile
February 24, 2018, 05:14:53 PM
 #519

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1553

www.gunbot.uk/tman/ - LEGENDARY SELF MADE BITCHES


View Profile
February 24, 2018, 05:40:38 PM
 #520

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?

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀


The Avatar:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!