cryptohunter's problem with the top 200 merit receivers

[cryptohunter]

LOL you refuse to back up your false claims???

Actually, I did a few posts back when I tried to nicely explain to you that I'm not some die-hard Dash supporter, nor did I support Lauda in that scam accusation against him/her.  I explained that I questioned the forked coins issue and also admitted that I don't fully understand what the whole transaction was about, who was involved, and what all the details are.  That was a very contentious thread with lots of people on both sides, and I decided to just stay out of it.  

Those are just two examples of untruths you've told, and I do believe other members have been pointing out other ones as this and the other threads you're involved with progress.  You're not going to agree with any of our reasoning, so it's futile.  

In addition, I've written maybe a handful of posts saying I liked Dash--but I've also said the same thing about doge, and for the same reasons, i.e., low fees and quick confirmations.  I never tried to pump either coin up for financial gain and have never had more than a few hundred bucks' worth of either in my lifetime.  You also criticized Lauda for ceasing to support Dash?  You implied that Lauda did this as a pump & dump scheme.  I don't recall this, and it's not something you've provided proof for either.

LOL so only you can make assumptions based on nothing where as I draw reasonable conclusions based on things you have said these are lies. Please get some assistance.

You had my great cake example of dash scam then said thanks for showing me I understand then went on to keep praising it several times
You said words to the effect on the lauda debacle anyone can search ...exactly what I said on the previous page. You were implying if there are no specific rules for not keeping the bch then there is nothing wrong. Why delve in and mention that if you are not supporting him just stay out of it. Unless you feel that investors who lost out on a project that failed should not get the compensation they can from someone gaining off holding their bitcoins and has already been paid enough. That is not support?  I said explain deeper or launch your own investigation if you are unsure or dont understand it.

Then you even say you just like being loyal to him (so not supporting him right) because bla bla bla reasons.
I've seen you crying on about him being removed from mod. So don;t deny you're a total asskisser to lauda simple as that. Even though you say you dont understand it all so cant know for sure if all the smoke about him with the bch is true. So how can you be loyal to someone you are not sure if was in the wrong in a potentially huge scam. So stop back peddling and producing more lies.

Lauda was an ardent dash supporter and I had many arguments where he swore and cursed and was fighting me before you hatched here and others over and over saying it was no way a scam for all the same excuses i hear here about merits being fairly shared out. Then later said okay yeah it was a scam actually.

Anyway I don't  care about lauda now he is just loving poking his nose in to stuff and knows he is in a glass house. If he stays out of my way with his nonsense I dont care to think about him at all.

So yeah bring on more lies and incorrect theories you know like accusations from other threads prior to this on meta you made. I want you to prove I am wrong about all the merit stuff and produce your evidence ... not some junk about yourself that you can excuse and backpeddle on.

[1713515905]

1713515905

[1713515905]

1713515905

[1713515905]

1713515905

[1713515905]

1713515905

[1713515905]

1713515905

[1713515905]

1713515905

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I want you to prove I am wrong about all the merit stuff and produce your evidence ... not some junk about yourself that you can excuse and backpeddle on.

See, this is where the "it will never end" part comes into play.  Now you want me to refute whatever it is you wrote about the merit system (which I haven't been following, since I don't really care if most of my merits come from just a few members).  That's another debate I just don't have any interest in.  I only care who I give merits to, and I'm trying to disperse them as far and wide as I can.   

And yeah, I do think it's a pity that Lauda was removed from DT.  But you claimed I supported Lauda in the scam accusation thread specifically and that is not true.  You're constantly shifting goal posts and are now saying I'm a liar about denying that I support Lauda in general.  This is the lunacy I'm referring to.

No point in continuing this for me, so I am d-o-n-e.

[cryptohunter]

I want you to prove I am wrong about all the merit stuff and produce your evidence ... not some junk about yourself that you can excuse and backpeddle on.

See, this is where the "it will never end" part comes into play.  Now you want me to refute whatever it is you wrote about the merit system (which I haven't been following, since I don't really care if most of my merits come from just a few members).  That's another debate I just don't have any interest in.  I only care who I give merits to, and I'm trying to disperse them as far and wide as I can.  

And yeah, I do think it's a pity that Lauda was removed from DT.  But you claimed I supported Lauda in the scam accusation thread specifically and that is not true.  You're constantly shifting goal posts and are now saying I'm a liar about denying that I support Lauda in general.  This is the lunacy I'm referring to.

No point in continuing this for me, so I am d-o-n-e.

1. are you denying that you said that concerning the lauda bch debacle or ? are you trying to say you said it but not on the accusation thread (which is a pathetic cop out) yes or no?

2. are you denying you have posted in the merit threads opposing my views and making unsubstantiated statments and have been following those threads and meriting things there specifically comments that are trying to refute what I am saying? yes or no

3. are you claiming you want lauda back as dt even though you are unsure of his wrong doing because you dont understand it all yes or no?

There is every point in continuing. I sense fear of scrutiny of your actions which is usually because of wrong doing or being unsure about what you have previously posted.

Bring such moon back here because also he is not answering any questions and has ran off. I am still totally curious of why that specific line was highlighted in his strange video. Usually I can not shake him off.

I want him to run me through his entire though process during that exchange starting with me saying marlboroza is misquoting me. Since that video is strange and there is no reason to highlight that line at all. It has nothing to do with it any kind of misquoting at all.

You should obviously keep your nose out of things you do not understand or refrain from making comments that you can not substantiate when asked. Then there would be no reason for you to experience this scrutiny.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Please stop pretending you are just accidentally browsing random search engines and not stalking down my every thread. I would never invite you to spam your sig whilst pretending to make worthwhile comment.

You really go searching for your own username in search engines with the exact same mispelling as mine.... sounds like a usual excuses I hear in meta.

This was clearly sarcasm.

Are you seriously telling me he was aiming quoting something you didnt go near mentioning? ... get real. Nobody could accept that explanation because you never said anything like that.

The use of the quotation marks was clearly "scare quotes", and not as a direct quote of something anybody said.

This is diabolical and worse that 300lbs of DT abuse

This was clearly a joke.

So people can get red trust for saying lemon without it being an abuse of the trust system?

This was clearly a metaphor.


I think part of the problem here is that cryptohunter, being (I presume) a non-native English speaker, is literally taking everything, well, literally. When you re-read everything with this mindset, it is easier to see how this misunderstanding arose and escalated. Perhaps with this in mind, we can all come to an agreeable solution. Having said that cryptohunter, you are not helping yourself by continuing to rage at people who are trying to help you (e.g. suchmoon and The Pharmacist).

I want him to run me through his entire though process during that exchange starting with me saying marlboroza is misquoting me.

1 - marlboroza made a post here containing two direct quotes from you, as well as a couple of "scare quotes".

2 - You then stated he was:

pretending to quote me when I never said that at all.

3 - Everyone assumed you were talking about the actual quotes, and so suchmoon made a video showing that you click on the quotes and it will bring you directly to the posts where you said the quoted text.

4 - A couple of posts later, you elaborated that it was the "scare quotes" you were objecting to, which no one ever claimed were said by you (or anybody else for that matter).

5 - The confusion was cleared up.

[eddie13]

Ref


Really?

[Lauda]

-snip-
Really?

When you start chronically posting lies and attacking anyone that disagrees with you left and right, what exactly did you expect was going to happen? That this is going to be considered trustworthy behavior? I'm actually surprised how lenient certain members are depending on who is making these kinds of statements. Psycho bitch was being attacked for the tiniest mistakes during certain periods. Don't play dumb eddie.
I'm waiting for marlbozora's trust abuse thread. Welp, it's already here.

[cryptohunter]

Please stop pretending you are just accidentally browsing random search engines and not stalking down my every thread. I would never invite you to spam your sig whilst pretending to make worthwhile comment.

You really go searching for your own username in search engines with the exact same mispelling as mine.... sounds like a usual excuses I hear in meta.

This was clearly sarcasm.

Are you seriously telling me he was aiming quoting something you didnt go near mentioning? ... get real. Nobody could accept that explanation because you never said anything like that.

The use of the quotation marks was clearly "scare quotes", and not as a direct quote of something anybody said.

This is diabolical and worse that 300lbs of DT abuse

This was clearly a joke.

So people can get red trust for saying lemon without it being an abuse of the trust system?

This was clearly a metaphor.


I think part of the problem here is that cryptohunter, being (I presume) a non-native English speaker, is literally taking everything, well, literally. When you re-read everything with this mindset, it is easier to see how this misunderstanding arose and escalated. Perhaps with this in mind, we can all come to an agreeable solution. Having said that cryptohunter, you are not helping yourself by continuing to rage at people who are trying to help you (e.g. suchmoon and The Pharmacist).

I want him to run me through his entire though process during that exchange starting with me saying marlboroza is misquoting me.

1 - marlboroza made a post here containing two direct quotes from you, as well as a couple of "scare quotes".

2 - You then stated he was:

pretending to quote me when I never said that at all.

3 - Everyone assumed you were talking about the actual quotes, and so suchmoon made a video showing that you click on the quotes and it will bring you directly to the posts where you said the quoted text.

4 - A couple of posts later, you elaborated that it was the "scare quotes" you were objecting to, which no one ever claimed were said by you (or anybody else for that matter).

5 - The confusion was cleared up.

I want everyone to examine this carefully and closely .... this is now what i see happened here and it is clear.....


I appreciate your actually trying to help get a sensible conclusion.. also you can ask salty himself but i think he is serious when he says if people choose to give you neg trust for liking a lemon that is not abuse. This is not a metaphor he straight up means that. Ask him and see what he says about this lemon example he gave. He straight up means that is not abuse of DT trust or the trust system.

Anyway to explore this nonsense deeper step by step....

Walk through the observable events step by step starting with malboroza showing up...and what exactly he quotes of mine and what he replies to those quotes specifically and end with the video and the highlighted text.

Step 1

malboroza comes after reading the thread where i said

a. lauda should get more red tags
b. tp is asskissing up to lauda.
C. Can't wait for suchmoon and malborozo to have theirs done too....weeeee down the snakes and ladders..


malboroza now sees all of this together... and says this

Quote from: cryptohunter on 17-12-2018, 22:51:37

I accidentally mistype my forum nick on one strange unknown search engine which I can't remember which one it was and I was pointed to this post:
Quote from: cryptohunter on 18-12-2018, 17:14:42
Can't wait for suchmoon and malborozo to have theirs done too....
...so thank you for inviting me to this valuable and sensible discussion which moved from "cryptohunter's problem with the top 200 merit receivers" to "tag Lauda!" and "Lauda stuck it in TP's ass "


--------------------------------------------------

So that is all he said.... now think about that he is replying specifically to where i say i can't wait for suchmoon and malboroza have theirs done too weee snakes and ladders ....  so why is he responding to exactly that comment with ass sex comments??? I mean why to that specific sentence. He is assuming I am saying i can;t wait for them to be done with ass sex too with laudas snake or whatever he is obviously like fox pup always going on about homo erotica they like to talk about I mean I am not against what they want to talk about or do but don't quote me as saying this stuff i never said. I mean there is no other explanation for this at all to reply to that exact sentence of mine with that reply he made. that actually was in reference to them getting their merits put through the minus top 10 filter like the others had just gone through. So that comment was nothing to do ass or lauda snakes in anyway as i clearly intended it.

He has made some false connection about it all based on Tp ass"something" lauda and can't wait for suchmoon and malboroza to get theirs done too snakes and .....  There is no other viable reason why he would reply to that specific sentence out of hundred i made with that specific remark about The Pharmacist getting it from lauda in his ass. Marborozas WORDS not mine. I never even mentioned anything sexually explicit at all.


NEXT...

Now so when I reply....

with this

@suchmoon
nothing of substance

@malborozo

Describing disturbing fantasies of his own and pretending to quote me when I never said that at all.

I mean there is nothing else that malboroza said that I can be referring to as disturbing fantasies in his post.

NEXT

such moon quotes exactly this

Quote from: cryptohunter on Today at 00:32:39
Describing disturbing fantasies of his own and pretending to quote me when I never said that at all.

You do realize that one can click on the quote and go to the post where you actually said that?

He is making the same assumption. He knows I can only be refering to malborozas ass sex reference there is nothing else disturbing fantasies could relate to in his post. What else in that post is a disturbing fantasy?? nothing there at all that is obviously what I meant and he knows this. Else tell me what else is a disturbing fantasy in that post?? does he have a disturbing fantasy at red tagging lauda? no besides I already clearly did say that so not that. There is nothing else that could qualify for a disturbing fantasy in that post malboroza made at all.

NEXT

I tell such moon to bring evidence I had orginally said that ... obviously about lauda banging Tp in the ass since that is all I could mean by a disturbing fantasy


NEXT

The video such moon creates?

Now this is so weird.

He is meant to be substantiating this dont forget since he precisely quotes it

that i had been Describing disturbing fantasies of his own and pretending to quote me when I never said that at all ,,,,this is what he quotes specifically. so he knows I am refuting i said about tp and lauda ass sex


You do realize that one can click on the quote and go to the post where you actually said that (he thinks he will prove by showing i said i want it to happen to suchmoon and malboroza and thinking about TP and ass "something was it kissing or ass banging" he is confused? says such moon.... then brings his proof. Well he thinks it is proof but proof of what in this specific context??

the thing he highlights in the video is  again I cant wait for suchmoon and malboroza to get theirs done ....weeeee snakes and ladders

why is he quoting that line to prove I did say what malboroza misquoted about tp and that disturbing fantasy of tp/laudas ass banging

Follow it is quite clear if if you read their precise quotes and precise replies "they got the wrong end of the stick so to speak " lol

They remembered me saying tp ass "something" lauda... they see me saying cant wait to such moon and malboroza get theirs done too weeee snakes and ladders ...and make a false connection simple as that. Then try to turn this on me when I said i never even said this and I was being misquoted. I would not go so explicit as full assfucking The pharmacist at all from lauda. I feel jokes are okay but kids can read this board so not too explicit but i mean they said it all now so kids dont read this thread... He specifically mentions lauda fucking the pharmacist in his ass and quotes it right next to my other quote. Now they try to say they were not quoting me but perhaps suchmoon or nobody.

Can;t wait for such moon and malboroza to get theirs done too.....weeeee snakes and ladders as proof i did say something like that.

Anyone deeply analysing it can see no other reason for suchmoons video highlighting of that line? what else does it show relating to malborozas disturbing fantasies with lauda and the pharmacist.




Suchmoon come here and explain this at once. I want to hear your entire thought process and every reply to every single thing you quoted and specifically replied to those quotes.. and you malboroza.

This invented bullshit story they thought I mean something else bring it and explain the video and the replies to specific quotes you posted. What else is there that I could have realistically meant? the entire thing is more time travel and i googled my name spelled wrong on a search engine i cant remember. This kind of nonsense is good for banter but this is not for red trust when you are DT.

Any person working through this slowly and picking what they are quoting of mine precisely and what they are replying to those quotes is quite straight forward.

I mean of course this is all nonsense from them. But even imagine (it is not real) that I did by mistake say to malboroza I did not say something i really did. He should just quote this and prove me wrong not give me red trust. I mean that is if there was a mistake and it was my fault for making it by some error then you do not get red trust for saying you did not say something you did by a mistake???


I want my trust restored to normal Or an alternative and sensible explanation with details on every single aspect.




@Lauda present evidence for these lies or stfu i see neg trust mania on yours from old members who can see through your devious  ways.

Bring these lies to light right now. Bring these attacks that are un called for on people that were just minding their own business and I dont mean people attacking me first.

another one with nothing to bring forth. Now bring the lies, and bring the attacks that were not deserving having attacked me first.



Hurry up.

I am having some very interesting conversations with ppl who gave you negative trust already. Don't keep bugging me with your unsubstantiated nonsense because I will divert a lot of time to a new thread on you. Perhaps you have been tarnished beyond what you deserve but I will help you get redemption if you deserve it .... then again if it is worse than we though....oh dear. I suspect the latter but I am not essentially interested in you right now since you have already fallen from grace. So don't make me become more interested.

That is not a threat at all that is simply an offer of publicaly reaching a fair assessment of yourself If you have no big skeletons then nothing to worry about. Maybe you will benefit. perhaps  not.

Or vanish and I may just forget about wasting my time on you for now.

Am I attacking you or are you coming to comment on my threads and attacking me with unsubstantiated claims when I could not give a shit where you are or what you doing. So please vanish back to the swamp.



@ eddie13 - thanks

the entire thing is insane and needs to reach all parts of this board to let people know what is happening with this DT trust nonsense being given out on a whim for provable errors on the DT part..  This is 2 times now I have seen it recently .... provably given on the basis of mistake of the DT.

If this thread is deleted more proof of them hiding the fact they are setting me up with

1. an unbelievable story
2. even if anyone could believe their crazy story from start to finish. You do not get red trust for saying you are misquoting me on the thread they are meant to be doing it. They simply prove they are not.
3. They have motive because I mentioned that trust is subjective and is cycled amongst a few at the top it just so happens Malboroza was shown by locye to be the most narrowly cycled of all. Not my fault this is data and I never even requested top 50. Also i never pointed it out before now although I was at times itching to point it out when he kept sniping at me in my threads and then not substantiating of qualifying his snipes. I still did not mention he was number 1 of all the intensely cycled merits so far.

Now remove my red trust or modify suchmoons events because they are not beleivable and he made a mistake and so did you.
Stop hiding behind you DT trust and present yourself with your side.

Also very worth noting

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086816.msg48751290#msg48751290

suchmoon claims malboroza is not red trusting for any merit nonsense.

look at the bottom of the post before I get red trust.... he is still clearly very annoyed about this entire trust thing with him getting number 1 score on the top 50 removal

he tells me to tell theymos he must remove his 50 point score. I actually would have never spoken to malboroza if he had not come for me about merit on the threads.... .also even though previously i noted to myself he was the one who was reduced the most from the top 50 removal I did not mention it to him at all even after he kept sniping me in every thread and tracking me down. Even here tracking me and saying it was some search engine incorrect name crap. Even then. Now after getting red trust I finally have to demonstrate why the trust thing is annoying him so much. Although on several occasions i have praised him for things he never tries ever to say one nice thing back.
Merit to some people is a very touchy subject it seems. Don;t dare pull stats they don;t like pulling over and over themselves because it it does not prove how popular or recognised or how good of a poster they are they don;t like those things being questioned and even logically denied.

Sorry but it is true. Just don't worry about it. If you want to believe 2500 merits make you the best poster you can. The fact it is probably not true (i mean it could be) should not stand in your way if you dont want it to.

[LoyceMobile]

Cryptohunter, how come you're asking several people to back up their claims with evidence, while you don't do that for the claims you make?

I'm tempted to list the Top200 Merit Receivers minus their Top10 Merit Fans. I'm curious to see what comes out, especially considering theymos' recommendation to use up all source Merits on good posts.

[cryptohunter]

Cryptohunter, how come you're asking several people to back up their claims with evidence, while you don't do that for the claims you make?

I'm tempted to list the Top200 Merit Receivers minus their Top10 Merit Fans. I'm curious to see what comes out, especially considering theymos' recommendation to use up all source Merits on good posts.

Not this confused sole. I thought I am on ignore... off ignore ....on again.

Don't be just tempted there are merits waiting for this new idea that you had after reading my threads again.

I mean don't say thanks for those last 20 you got from doing as I told you and that I had already presented many times (not my own work r1s2g3

Bring the claim that I have left unsubstantiated or without corroborating events OR ADMIT YOU ARE LYING THAT I DO SUCH THINGS THERE ARE ONLY 2 OPTIONS PICK 1

Don't be coy

Well we know some lose a huge amount so that's nothing new. I know lauda for one will drop down a several 100 merits LOL

Why the temptation now though? is it so malboroza will not be number 1 reduced of the entire board on the smallests analysed subset??

Sorry his claim to fame will remain we can have a new winner after he has deleted his negs on my account. Because he is going to never ever hear the end of it until he does. He is hiding now concocting some more unbelievable tales I expect. I kind wait to see him again for his complete explanation of how DT gives out neg trust . I will walk with him through his entire thought process to fully understand the DT neg trust he gave.... in public for full public analysis. Then we can see what type of person he really is. Remove this trust after you see you made the mistake not me and I will let it slide. This needs to happen in 24hours or else I will not stop insisting he is removed from DT trust on the basis of being dishonest and him and suchmoon making up some elaborate story to blame me.

If he has a good reason that stands up to sensible scrutiny. No more time travel no more bookmarked my friends ran out of merit so saved them up for one big spree. Not seeking you out but that strange mispelling I made on that search engine i forgot which one.  I like the banter, I like the jokes but when you are giving RED TRUST for no sensible or fair reason. There is need for sensible disclosure and full explanation in detail else this is an abuse and grossly unfair. No more saying unbelievable and crazy nonsense and expecting no comeback or questioning to find out a sensible truthful answer.

He made the mistake , such moon misunderstood the entire thing so called me out incorrectly  ...... they need to realise this and do the right thing. They never tried to correct me (because i was not wrong it was a quite reasonable conclusion i reached in this context) simply went straight to RED TRUST ..... No way that is sliding. If these events do not do the trick when presented now or tomorrow or another time or another time. His judgement will be questioned and measured against this abuse due to his own strange interpretations in this thread and trying to blame me for his strange thoughts. I will always bring it up with him and I mean always at every opinion he give I will correctly and honestly warn people that they must realised they are dealing with a dishonest abuser of the trust system. Those opinions need to be viewed with that in mind. It is fair disclosure. I will not be stalking him I will just search on some search engine for some words he may have used in a row... i forget which one now and boom there he is for me to start commenting on like he does with me.

[actmyname]

What is going on? I thought this was supposed to be about the top 200 merit receivers, not a cesspool of character attacks.

[cryptohunter]

What is going on? I thought this was supposed to be about the top 200 merit receivers, not a cesspool of character attacks.

well the salient and important part is

marboroza is clearly misquoting me as saying " lauda ass banged the pharmacist"

Then when I complain and said I merely provided evidence that he was ass kissing up to him and never said anything like his distrubing fantasies he gave me red trust for saying I am lying  and such moon tried to provide evidence of such. but just showed a statement from me talking about seeing their stats analysed in the same way the others had.

It is now observable I never even said what malboroza quoted  and they got the wrong end of the stick but they still want to red trust me and such moon says it is nothing to do with any merit nonsense of analysing stats but clearly by his post you can see at the end he is still upset at me when i never asked for the top 50 to be removed loyce did it on his own steam.

If you were hoping for anything new about top 200 merits there is Nothing new here apart from some new calculations that show some people lose over 50% hundred of merits if 10 persons only are prevented from giving theirs.

The rest is lauda telling me that I am a liar and lying compulsively and not providing evidence to substantiate his claims.
Me telling lauda he is a scam enabler and looks like a scammer
TP telling me he is not sure if lauder has done wrong but supports him anyway cos he is loyal.

thats about it really but I am trying to force a reason for my red trust that i can see is not a plan to crush me from talking

WOW thanks for that trust to help balance this I very much appreciate this.

[actmyname]

marboroza is clearly misquoting me as saying " lauda ass banged the pharmacist"

I believe what you're on about is contained in the following:

...so thank you for inviting me to this valuable and sensible discussion which moved from "cryptohunter's problem with the top 200 merit receivers" to "tag Lauda!" and "Lauda stuck it in TP's ass "

To believe that this is an intentionally-contrived misquote is wrong. This is a synopsis of the flow of conversation in the thread dialogue. I see no attack here.

[suchmoon]

you are pushing for this red trust to stick.

Actually it's quite the opposite - I was trying to figure out if the misunderstanding about the quotes can be reconciled. However your incessant lying is getting in the way. It's between you and marlboroza. Good luck.

Bring the lying proof. NOW. Where are these lies?

It's literally in the post you quoted. You said I'm pushing for the red trust to stick despite my efforts to do the opposite. That's just the latest example (at the time of me reading this post; it's quite likely you did some more lying in the posts I haven't read yet).


Edit:

Suchmoon come here and explain this at once. I want to hear your entire thought process and every reply to every single thing you quoted and specifically replied to those quotes..

I know this is futile but since you asked so nicely...

In your post here you didn't specify which text you consider misquoted:

Describing disturbing fantasies of his own and pretending to quote me when I never said that at all.

So I assumed you meant the actual quotes created with the quote button, the ones in neat little boxes with author's name and date like I used just above. Not the stuff between double quotation marks. It looks like I was not the only one to interpret it that way, in fact I haven't seen anyone else yet supporting your assertion that marlboroza was attempting to attribute the text between double quotation marks to you.

That's why I replied:

You do realize that one can click on the quote and go to the post where you actually said that?

This would not make sense in any other context. Clicking on the text between double quotation marks wouldn't lead you anywhere. Clicking on the title of the boxed quote opens the original post.

Marlboroza's reference link leads to the same post so I can only assume that he also thinks you're talking about the boxed quotes.

But when you posted this:

He miss quoted me in "" also on purpose and you said you could present where I said it ... bring your evidence of accusation or delete your lie  also.

I realized you are referring to the double quotation marks and suggested this:

You seem to be confused about the double quotes. If that's the case, retract your statement and let marlboroza know. The text in double quotes is not attributed to you in any plausible way that I can see.

Instead you chose to engage in a massive attack on everything and everybody that doesn't align with your conspiracy theory.

[cryptohunter]

marboroza is clearly misquoting me as saying " lauda ass banged the pharmacist"

I believe what you're on about is contained in the following:

...so thank you for inviting me to this valuable and sensible discussion which moved from "cryptohunter's problem with the top 200 merit receivers" to "tag Lauda!" and "Lauda stuck it in TP's ass "

To believe that this is an intentionally-contrived misquote is wrong. This is a synopsis of the flow of conversation in the thread dialogue. I see no attack here.

So do you mean to say he is not quoting me there? or he is? who is he quoting and why is it right next to my first quote that is from me?
and why is it related to PT ass kissing lauda?

I need to walk through this entire thing step by step because i accept what you say if you know how to analyse this from some english language rules.

but let me accept that for a moment if we are going by the rules of English language only and not employing any other context or other plausible explanations that I think have considerable reason to lead me to believe he was refering to my first comment and my second comment.


2. so then I say it is a misquote and I do not  mange to convey to him enough clues to dictate clearly what I am refering too..... and even specify the quote I am refering to is : Describing disturbing fantasies of his own... this is clear indication of what I am refering to even if he was not quoting me as i believed he was I mean you can't get DT trust for not making it clear to him what I was taking about even after a good effort where any reasonable person would assume in light of the content of what i said it would apply to that quotation... i mean even then if they are unable to understand and make an incorrect assumption you can not get NEG DT for it can you?

I mean if I am getting a red trust for apparently lying or false accuasation ...then surely to say I am lying or accusing you must first understand and make clear to yourself what it is I am saying is the focus of my lie or accusation. I give clear indication of what that must be. How can anyone assume from my statement I could be refering to any other statement he made there in his paragraph I mean by common sense he only said a couple of things so for me to refer to the one i mean as... Describing disturbing fantasies of his own? logic dictates i am refering to the ass banging commment.

3. So we are in a position now that even if I accept (which honestly I believe he was but for this debate but accept i could be wrong) he is not clear about what I am refering to even though I make it very clear i believe by saying Describing disturbing fantasies of his own. So for him to charge me with lying or false accusation he needs to be very clear on what I mean and so since he is not clearly.. then he can not as yet say I am lying or making false accusation? he needs to make sure of what i am saying as much as i should have (and did make an effort to understand what he was refering too)

I am clearly not saying what he thinks i am saying ....he does not seek to make get clarity and rather decides to believe in the face of common sense and all logic that I am actually objecting to him pressing the quote button and presenting that which i just typed 5 seconds before which i can see infront of me right then that i just wrote? does he believe I am saying I never said that? I mean that seems completely crazy. I can see it there an so can everyone else and why on earth 1/ would i refute it it is there in black and white and 2/ it is not a Describing disturbing fantasies of his own? i mean that should be totally illogical to think i am refering to that quote. I am to blame for someone quite illogically for 2 clear reasons jumping to an incorrect assumption.

So of course to give red trust without even establishing my objection and going for the totally illogical option instead of clarifying with me is deserving of me getting red trust in his books?

People believe this is true.

I mean my plausible step by step (not that it actually matters at the crux as much as establishing what someone is referring to before accusing them of lying) is countered by suchmoon saying he believed all along I was saying  I did not write what everyone just saw me write and was there in black and white in the box in malborozas post? in front of me in black and white... this is the one he really believes??

Are you being serious such moon did you believe this ??

So because you do not clarify to which quote i am referring to even after my disturbing fantasies clear indication you decide to assume I am lying or making false accusation? based on your incorrect assumption ? and therefore I get RED TRUST??

Get real.

Even if (which seems crazy) I am making an incorrect assumption( lets say i did )

I immediately refute this incorrect statement and will get to the bottom of this nonsense and clear up exactly why he said this. This is the sensible route to establish ...why he is saying i said that, and also to get him to argue his point and change it if it is incorrect . I mean I know i did not say that but perhaps he is confused perhaps he thinks i said it but got it wrong, perhaps anything. So now starts the lets establish what you mean why you said it and get to the truth.

He does nothing wrong assumption red trust? on minor thing... why???

Simply because even though in the meta thread suchmoon claims it is not related to merits.

The corroborating evidence below the final post  on this thread by malboroza just before red trust is clearly still anger over this merit business.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086297.msg48750243#msg48750243

I mean he appears from that mispelling in his secret search engine regarding his name just after I say I cant wait for malboroza and such moon to have their scores adjusted for the top 10

Either malboroza gives out red trust usually without clarifying or discussing what someone means first??? or he just wanted excuse to give me red trust for the merit thing he is annoyed over.

There is very strong evidence here it is the latter. Unless anyone can provide examples of red trust for something like this from him before.


I mean to such moon my conspiracy theory which has logical steps and if he can break those steps with hard evidence that is not the case or a probable explanation at any step I will be interested. I mean this link thing yes one small detail but totally out gunned by many other unreasonable illogical assumptions one must make to believe I was

1. denying something that everyone can see i just typed on that very same page that he just put in that exact post and he expects me to believe i was refuting i had just written that and staring me in the face?

2. saying that those quotes in box quotes were his "disturbing fantasies"

this is again like the time travel and other ludicrous and highly unlikely and improbable stuff he always comes out with.

I am certainly not accepting you could possibly believe this you knew full well I was referring as a disturbing fantasy ...to lauda ass banging the pharmacist. Not some boxed quotes that had nothing to do with that.

[suchmoon]

Are you being serious such moon did you believe this ??

Yes.

So because you do not clarify to which quote i am referring to even after my disturbing fantasies clear indication you decide to assume I am lying or making false accusation? based on your incorrect assumption ? and therefore I get RED TRUST??

That's why I suggested immediately after I realized the issue with double quotation marks that you retract your ambiguous statement.

The corroborating evidence below the final post just before red trust is clearly still anger over this merit business.

Either malboroza gives out red trust usually without clarifying or discussing what someone means??? or he just wanted excuse to give me red trust for this.

It's very difficult to clarify anything with you since you go on multi-page rants where one sentence would suffice. You mistakenly assumed the text between double quotation marks is attributed to you. Can we agree on that?

[cryptohunter]

Are you being serious such moon did you believe this ??

Yes.

So because you do not clarify to which quote i am referring to even after my disturbing fantasies clear indication you decide to assume I am lying or making false accusation? based on your incorrect assumption ? and therefore I get RED TRUST??

That's why I suggested immediately after I realized the issue with double quotation marks that you retract your ambiguous statement.

The corroborating evidence below the final post just before red trust is clearly still anger over this merit business.

Either malboroza gives out red trust usually without clarifying or discussing what someone means??? or he just wanted excuse to give me red trust for this.

It's very difficult to clarify anything with you since you go on multi-page rants where one sentence would suffice. You mistakenly assumed the text between double quotation marks is attributed to you. Can we agree on that?

Why would i retract an ambiguous statement I would simply clarify my statement even more clearly than I though it needed for any sensible person to understand what it is I am refering to.

Anyway you want to give red trust for lies you must be clear what the person is referring too the onus is on you to get all details in line to make the optimal decision. That is why people are DT. The optimal decision was based on a ludicrous assumption.

I made clear effort to point you to the quote I was referring too I am not sure why you would assume at all it related to any other quoted statement. If you were not clear because any human would doubt someone would 1. deny what they just typed in public that is still there staring at them having just been quoted in public.  2. that the thing i describe as distrubing fantasy does not seem to fit with this these quotes.

[suchmoon]

Why would i retract an ambiguous statement I would simply clarify my statement even more clearly than I though it needed for any sensible person to understand what it is I am refering to.

Because the statement is incorrect if marlboroza wasn't pretending to quote you.

Describing disturbing fantasies of his own and pretending to quote me when I never said that at all.

[cryptohunter]

Why would i retract an ambiguous statement I would simply clarify my statement even more clearly than I though it needed for any sensible person to understand what it is I am refering to.

Because the statement is incorrect if marlboroza wasn't pretending to quote you.

Describing disturbing fantasies of his own and pretending to quote me when I never said that at all.

I would clarify my statement... it is irrelevant if I am incorrect in my assumption ...he just needs to then explain later he was not intending to quote me at all these were special super "" which means nobody said it. That is what debate and discussion is for you get on the same page the more you discuss.

You dont assume run off and give red trust.

Then even when you know full well it was his later false assumption that finally led to the red trust then he should reverse it.

The guy is asking to be removed from default trust and wants his merits reduced from the top 200 ... he is losing it.

Just tell him to remove the the red trust at once else have to answer for his actions will full explanation.

He is hiding and did not even offer an explanation to match the link he left and the description.

where is he hiding up and why are you here testing out arguments on his behalf instruct him here at once please It is disgraceful his incorrect assumptions finally led to my incorrect red trust and he just avoids and dodges me and will not even come and talk to me himself.

He is only adding to the obvious conclusion he has made a  mistake and will not fix it even though he should if he is not seen to be abusing  the trust system.

[suchmoon]

Which one of you miscreants did this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg48790244#msg48790244

Hopefully cryptohunter will stop by to explain what's going on here.

[LoyceV]

Which one of you miscreants did this

Wasn't me I didn't even see that post, even though I merited the post right below it.
I guess that explains why he opened this topic:    
Let us devise a Sensible solution to Copy and Paste situation. just 6 hours after ScumBuster busted him!

I was wondering why cryptohunter would be attacking DT and quality posters, while at the same time trying to get copy/pasters unbanned.