Two interesting emails I received today...

[Raoul Duke]

Well, that second email from TheMadhatter only shows that MyBitcoin was a scam from the very beginning.

Notice how he uses the words "we" and after say that "people he knows are in harms way" and he's even afraid that the real Police shows at his doorstep.

I would say that the #bitcoin-police made a fantastic job and TheMadHatter is really Tom Williams or knows who he is. NanaimoGold started this to protect his beloved son...

They are attacking Bruce because he was just the more vocal about the MyBitcoin scam and in the hopes that everybody will focus on the Bruce Wagner pedo-soap-opera and forget about MyBitcoin.

Good for Bruce that he accepts his sexuality and who he is.

I also find it funny that the goons from SA pay to register in a forum, post there(and here) everyday and can't recognize a quote in a forum post when they see it. I guess they are too busy trolling other forums that are free to register. LOL

Disclaimer: I don't like Bruce Wagner, in fact I find him terribly annoying.

[1715037916]

1715037916

[1715037916]

1715037916

[1715037916]

1715037916

[hugolp]

I want to point out that Nanaimagold and his multinicks did EXACTLY the same they are doing here with Bruce Wagner, but with Praxum. They cite forum posts attributing words that are not theirs to the people they are trying to slander, and when the deception is pointed out they change subject, trying to get people to ignore the fact that they are presenting false proof and trying to keep the pressure in the person they are attacking.

You can check how he did the same here with Praxum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=32604.0 (fun starts at page 3). At the end there are always lots of accusations and noise, but absolutely no proof. Same "modus operandis".

[makomk]

By the way, for a little more clarification...

In that excerpt from 2006, in that forum... which is being attributed to me...    The FACT is....   My post was the one at the top.     The message I was REPLYING TO was the one at the bottom...

In other words, my words were at the top --- before the word "QUOTE(tdperhs..." etc.

The words after  "QUOTE(tdperhs..."   ....is the other guy's post.....   the post to which I was replying.

Those words about a "virgins and newbies" and "a three pronged attack"....   were NOT my words.    

You can see clearly that I was quoting that other guy.

I'm quoting this here because it's a lie, and an easily disproved one. You can find Bruce's comment in its original context here. You'll notice three things. Firstly, while the display of quotes is somewhat broken, quotes are consistently terminated by a slightly wider vertical space than normal - which means the quote is actually a single paragraph and "a three pronged attack" is Bruce's words. Secondly, you can see the post he's quoting above his and confirm it is a single paragraph. Thirdly, in that page and all three preceding pages the only mention of a three-pronged attack I can find is Bruce's.

Edit: To be entirely clear, the "virgins and newbies" paragraph was a quote and not written by Bruce, but in my opinion that was already fairly obvious even from the formatting-stripped version originally posted on here.

[BlockHash]

Why not choose a city with an airport? Why not some other major financial hub in Thailand? Why a city specifically known for underage sex tourism?

Also, there is no city in Thailand known for underage tourism.   Thailand has very strict laws against it... which are strictly enforced with extremely harsh punishments.

Oh really? Maybe the State Department and the United Nations InterAgency Project on Human Trafficking  are just being silly. They characterize the entire country as being a haven for underage tourism.

http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/thailand


http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/08/un-rights-expert-urges-thailand-to-combat-human-trafficking.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Thailand

http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/learn/globalissues-stp

http://www.notforsalecampaign.org/about/slavery/

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/index.html


You are either willfully ignorant or just plainly spouting bullshit.

OH - and here are some Pattaya specific ones:
http://preventhumantrafficking.org/pattaya/
http://news.change.org/stories/why-is-thailand-a-hub-for-child-sex-tourism
http://www.hhnthailand.org/en/projects/child-protection-and-development-center/the-problem/
http://untilthen.org/the-missing-street-children-of-pattaya-thailand/

Try again, Bruce. We can go all day with this, there's an entire archive at the UN we can go through and plenty of other organizations who will be glad to share their knowledge of this issue on Pattaya.

Finally, you remind me of this guy Bruce with your flat denial of Child Sex Slavery being an issue in Thailand and Pattaya specifically:

[The_Duke]

I will take a survey of the ACTUAL REAL adults who attended this past Conference.... ( not the endless personas here belonging to 13-year-old bitcoin and libertarian haters )  and I will ask them if they would prefer Pattaya, or some other destination.   It makes little difference to me.

So, if I get it right, it all makes little difference to you. If it makes so little difference, then the only reason you are so stubbornly sticking to Pattaya is to spite the people on these forums and/or to rub it in their face that they could not attend your meeting in NY?

Come on Bruce. We know it DOES make a difference to you. We know you have some hidden agenda to stick to Pattaya, and that agenda is actually not so hidden anymore. And you know what, I bet that if you had just said it out straight at the first questions you got, 90% of all people would have understood it. They would still disagree with the location, but at least they'd have understood.

"Why Pattaya? Because I think it is a very nice place, I have been there before and had some holiday trips and I would love to go there again."

I even bet that you could have added: "I had some great times there in the gay sex scene, so I will combine my conference there with some more of that". There's probably like 5% homophobes who would drop the understanding-rate to 85%, but at least it would have been honest.
No one believed your whole "Fancy hotel / financial center / well established conference location crap" from the first time you came up with it.

Also, most of the people here who are arguing that Pattaya is *bad* for bitcoins do not do it to annoy you, or anything like that. They do it because... they think Pattaya is bad for bitcoin. Calling them 13-year olds and whatever names you want to come up with is a very childish way of trying to get your way.

[JeffK]

By the way, for a little more clarification...

In that excerpt from 2006, in that forum... which is being attributed to me...    The FACT is....   My post was the one at the top.     The message I was REPLYING TO was the one at the bottom...

In other words, my words were at the top --- before the word "QUOTE(tdperhs..." etc.

The words after  "QUOTE(tdperhs..."   ....is the other guy's post.....   the post to which I was replying.

Those words about a "virgins and newbies" and "a three pronged attack"....   were NOT my words.    

You can see clearly that I was quoting that other guy.

In my reply, I was defending the guys who work there in that business....  Saying that it's great that people tip them well, but the problem is one of economics.   They are so poor, they cannot refuse even the scumbags who mistreat them.... and then underpay them.    It's a very sad thing.    THAT is what I was saying.

If you re-read it in that light, it will make sense to you.

I have never been to any place called "Atom Bomb" and none of those words are in character for me.

Also, Pattaya is very well know for its Four Seasons and Ritz Carleton and Marriott Resort Hotels on the beaches.... and which are used for conventions, as well as it's Pattaya Exhibition and Convention Hall.     Just look at some of these pictures:   http://www.peachthailand.com/exhibition-convention/

Millions of people, and families, go there from all over the world for conventions and expos every year.   But if you don't like Pattaya or Thailand, please just don't go.     It's just that simple.

By the way, in case anyone is curious....   PUNLman stands for what I believe in.   PUNL.    Pure Unconditional Non-judgmental Love.   .....which is what I am all about.   .....and which always wins in the end.   

Bullshit: you were quoting this post




Also, the second creepy post looks like your classic, elipsis and period filled diatribes

[JeffK]

Who gives a shit if Bruce is a fagot or whatever. I still want my coins back from mybitcoin. Suppose to get 49% back but got only 33% back. Karma will get him. One day someone is going to sneak behind the mybitcoin fagot thief and stab him in the back multiple times and I would love to see that shit so I can point and laugh at his ass just like Nelson in the Simpson. "haha!"

No one cares if he's gay, they care if he is/might be hurting children

[JeffK]

Where do we draw the lines? Poor child molestors molesting people younger than 18 and being labeled a child molestor forever! A bloo bloo bloo

[rainingbitcoins]

Also, the second creepy post looks like your classic, elipsis and period filled diatribes

Not to mention the random WORDS in caps here AND there.

And with the post he's quoting right there for all to see, that's some real bush league dishonesty, Bruce. You must not think much of people around here to try and pull something that transparent.

[Jalum]

Bruce claims...that only the...first paragraph is his content...despite the THREE PRONGED attack text...sharing his prolific use of...ellipses.

Remember, if you're a man then you're a rape machine that cannot control your urges, and that the blame for your actions lie on those around you.  Now, if you were hypothetically engaged in some rather abhorrent behavior, wouldn't it be convenient if you ascribed to a belief that absolved you of what you've done?  Like, it wasn't your fault because they deserved it by wearing those [hot pants/candy bracelets/Huggies].

[BlockHash]

Why not choose a city with an airport? Why not some other major financial hub in Thailand? Why a city specifically known for underage sex tourism?

Also, there is no city in Thailand known for underage tourism.   Thailand has very strict laws against it... which are strictly enforced with extremely harsh punishments.

Oh really? Maybe the State Department and the United Nations InterAgency Project on Human Trafficking  are just being silly. They characterize the entire country as being a haven for underage tourism.

http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/thailand


http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/08/un-rights-expert-urges-thailand-to-combat-human-trafficking.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Thailand

http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/learn/globalissues-stp

http://www.notforsalecampaign.org/about/slavery/

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/index.html


You are either willfully ignorant or just plainly spouting bullshit.

OH - and here are some Pattaya specific ones:
http://preventhumantrafficking.org/pattaya/
http://news.change.org/stories/why-is-thailand-a-hub-for-child-sex-tourism
http://www.hhnthailand.org/en/projects/child-protection-and-development-center/the-problem/
http://untilthen.org/the-missing-street-children-of-pattaya-thailand/

Try again, Bruce. We can go all day with this, there's an entire archive at the UN we can go through and plenty of other organizations who will be glad to share their knowledge of this issue on Pattaya.

Finally, you remind me of this guy Bruce with your flat denial of Child Sex Slavery being an issue in Thailand and Pattaya specifically:

I plainly don't care about what he posted on some forum at this point, as it's still in the area of reasonable doubt.

But I do want an answer to what he posted about there not being a child sex problem in Thailand (Pattaya specifically) and how it's strictly enforced. Why post that Bruce? It's very obvious that it's not true - at all! Don't give me -"they are cleaning it up!" excuse, as it is clear from UN documents that they were banging this drum over Thailands head as recently as two weeks ago.

[hugolp]

Where do we draw the lines? Poor child molestors molesting people younger than 18 and being labeled a child molestor forever! A bloo bloo bloo

Watch out with that. There is a lot of people that disagree with the USA laws regarding minors and sex. In my country, Spain, the law states that its legal for a 14 year old person to have sex with and adult (consensual obviously). Most of the world except the USA has more lax laws regarding under-18 years old and sex. So you are going to find lots of people in the world, a big majority, that thinks that USA laws are stupid, including me. There is nothing exceptional on what Bruce is saying.

When I was 17 I started dating a 16 year old girl. When I was 18 and she was 17 we were still dating and having sex. It was my first important relation and one that me (and I believe her as well) will remember forever. Under USA law I would have been a criminal. Its stupid to ruin first relationships and put pressure on teens because of stupid laws.

[edd]

When I was 17 I started dating a 16 year old girl. When I was 18 and she was 17 we were still dating and having sex. It was my first important relation and one that me (and I believe her as well) will remember forever. Under USA law I would have been a criminal. Its stupid to ruin first relationships and put pressure on teens because of stupid laws.

I believe there is an exception if the age difference is less than two years.

[Jalum]

Watch out with that. There is a lot of people that disagree with the USA laws regarding minors and sex. In my country, Spain, the law states that its legal for a 14 year old person to have sex with and adult (consensual obviously).

And your views on someone having sex with a 13 year old?  

[BlockHash]

Where do we draw the lines? Poor child molestors molesting people younger than 18 and being labeled a child molestor forever! A bloo bloo bloo

Watch out with that. There is a lot of people that disagree with the USA laws regarding minors and sex. In my country, Spain, the law states that its legal for a 14 year old person to have sex with and adult (consensual obviously). Most of the world except the USA has more lax laws regarding under-18 years old and sex. So you are going to find lots of people in the world, a big majority, that thinks that USA laws are stupid, including me. There is nothing exceptional on what Bruce is saying.

When I was 17 I started dating a 16 year old girl. When I was 18 and she was 17 we were still dating and having sex. It was my first important relation and one that me (and I believe her as well) will remember forever. Under USA law I would have been a criminal. Its stupid to ruin first rIelationships and put pressure on teens because of stupid laws.

I agree to a point. Someone getting bagged on a statutory charge at 18 when their partner is 16/17 is ridiculous. I'm even willing to expand those numbers a bit either direction because of the absurdity of the broad interpretation of the law.

I do think it's another thing entirely when there is a great deal of age or other factors (such as coercion from a person in relative power) involved.

[Piper67]

Watch out with that. There is a lot of people that disagree with the USA laws regarding minors and sex. In my country, Spain, the law states that its legal for a 14 year old person to have sex with and adult (consensual obviously).

And your views on someone having sex with a 13 year old?  

The point is that Bruce isn't advocating having sex with a 13 year old. He's complaining about the hypocrisy of age of consent laws in the US, which is a position many of us will actually agree with.

[JeffK]

Watch out with that. There is a lot of people that disagree with the USA laws regarding minors and sex. In my country, Spain, the law states that its legal for a 14 year old person to have sex with and adult (consensual obviously).

And your views on someone having sex with a 13 year old?  

The point is that Bruce isn't advocating having sex with a 13 year old. He's complaining about the hypocrisy of age of consent laws in the US, which is a position many of us will actually agree with.

Unfortunately, added in with all the rest of his commentary on sex with young people, it looks pretty bad.

[Piper67]

Watch out with that. There is a lot of people that disagree with the USA laws regarding minors and sex. In my country, Spain, the law states that its legal for a 14 year old person to have sex with and adult (consensual obviously).

And your views on someone having sex with a 13 year old?  

The point is that Bruce isn't advocating having sex with a 13 year old. He's complaining about the hypocrisy of age of consent laws in the US, which is a position many of us will actually agree with.

Unfortunately, added in with all the rest of his commentary on sex with young people, it looks pretty bad.

Nope, not really. The two are separate and the only thing linking them is innuendo and rumour. Still a witch hunt. Still unbecoming of a mature and sophisticated online community... which this clearly appears not to be 

[JeffK]

Watch out with that. There is a lot of people that disagree with the USA laws regarding minors and sex. In my country, Spain, the law states that its legal for a 14 year old person to have sex with and adult (consensual obviously).

And your views on someone having sex with a 13 year old?  

The point is that Bruce isn't advocating having sex with a 13 year old. He's complaining about the hypocrisy of age of consent laws in the US, which is a position many of us will actually agree with.

Unfortunately, added in with all the rest of his commentary on sex with young people, it looks pretty bad.

Nope, not really. The two are separate and the only thing linking them is innuendo and rumour. Still a witch hunt. Still unbecoming of a mature and sophisticated online community... which this clearly appears not to be 

Sorry, but if I have a clue abuse could be happening and I don't at least clue people into it, I am a bad person

[Jalum]

The point is that Bruce isn't advocating having sex with a 13 year old. He's complaining about the hypocrisy of age of consent laws in the US, which is a position many of us will actually agree with.

Bruce was raging against the fact that having sex with someone under the age of consent in his country is illegal.

I wanted the Spanish person's opinion of people who have sex with someone under the age of consent in their country.