DT trust ABUSE by people here. Needs attention at once before goes out of hand

[Anduck]

Your actions contradict what you say. You've rated me this: "User does not honor their auctions, and self bids to get out of having to sell an item at a price they don't like."

This feedback is misleading and untrue. I've honored all my auctions perfectly. I've done a vendor bid (self-bid) once ~3 years ago in a reserve auction I held, which is probably what your fresh rating talks about.

It's a different thing to leave such poor feedback when it shows in "trusted" feedback compared to "untrusted" feedback. It's hard to ignore the "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!" red text and ?? score. You're just a power tripper, that's all. (Although you probably mean good, just blinded.)

When you put 1000 people to look into something, I am sure some of them will see dishonesty and injustice in whatever case. It's just so sad when they happen to be in a position of power. Some of the cases get highlighted and get randomers like you to present their incompetent opinion. Most of the cases go totally unseen by those 1000 people, maybe just 10 see them.

Not to drag this topic off topic, but your case is one of those 99 to 1 rare scenarios I was talking about where one guy says its not a problem, and 99 say it is. I'll agree with you the Warning! Trade with extreme caution! text isn't to my liking. I'd rather there be no text at all, and no numerical score, so people would just read all of someone's feedback before trading with them. But again, its not worth neglecting a rating that the majority of people will want to know about, just because of that.

I'm not going to respond to anymore directly relation questions to that in this thread, the only reason I addressed it here was because it does explain what I meant when talking about % of people viewing a situation.

You have a choice: do a neutral rating. Then it would fulfill what you want to achieve. Wrecking my trust score and making that "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!" red text by making it a red rating is unfair. I've traded here for years, I've never scammed anyone and have honored all my trades and auctions perfectly. Only way to look at your behavior is power tripping.
I can see your position -- we've talked about this. I completely understand that the auction standard here is different from my local (RL) standard, and that's fine -- I also expect majority of users here to be incompetent regarding auctions, but what I do not understand is the rating. It's unfair to red-rate me because I didn't know these forum standards which are unspecified and vague, and this was 3 years ago and I've held tons of auctions since without any complaints. And you feel it's justified to wreck my trust now? Totally unjustified and unfair.

[1714897876]

1714897876

[1714897876]

1714897876

[1714897876]

1714897876

[1714897876]

1714897876

[cryptohunter]

How is something subjectively accurate? I mean you seem an okay guy that is serious question not me taking the piss. How do you confirm it is accurate if it is subjective? I mean what criteria is there. I mean that leaves this open to anything really and reduces its value to zero if we all exercised it to the max without it being abuse.

I've been using the term subjectively accurate meaning that its a reasonable statement. One could follow the train of thought that lead someone to make their claim, even if they don't necessarily agree. Everyone is going to see a situation differently, but as long as a real good faith effort is put into leaving feedback, I don't see any problem with it.

If someone was harassing me for example, at what point is it harassment, and at what point is it just annoying, a joke, or all in good fun? If 99% of people think its all in good fun, and I'm taking it as harassment, its likely that I'm overreacting and negative feedback wouldn't be appropriate. Switch that to 99% think its harassment and 1% think its a joke, its probably justified for a negative as harassment. The times where its 99% one way and 1% the other way, there isn't a need for discussion, it is what it is. That is the exception though, you don't see a thread often about a confirmed scammer disputing their negative feedback, or someone who got negative feedback out of nowhere. When opinion may be split 50/50, I don't think its worth suppressing information that 50% may want to know before deciding to trade with someone.

My point is that if someone leaves feedback because they strongly believe that something is wrong, I don't think thats abuse. Thats what feedback is for. As long as the feedback is not misleading, its up for individuals to judge its validity. The 50% who disagree with the claim and the proof provided are free to ignore it.

I want every DT to review this and order him to take this off. It is a mockery of DT red trust is called only finally due to his incorrect assumption and not checking with me what I even meant. I will not call for his removal so long as he removed the red trust now.

*edit* And again, I haven't looked at the claim against you, I'm just speaking generally how I think feedback should be handled on subjective topics.

I can understand what you say but this in not applicable to my case.

I have had more time to consider and cant put the events as following.

I will not complicate with too much context which favours me i think anyway I will concentrate on the link to my offending post and assumed claim I am simply going to state events

some sexual explicit language coming unavoidable..


1.  malboroza appears in a thread opened by such moon about me ..in malborozas post there are 4 possible quotes of mine ... 2 in block quotes which I have obviously just made in the blocks he has pressed the quote button for which are there in black and white and I just typed them  and 2 other quotes in " something i said about tagging lauda"  and   " something similar to what I said ( i said TP was ass kissing lauda  this quote said that lauda was banging TP in the ass  "
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086297.msg48750243#msg48750243

2. So I rightly or possibly wrongly assume he is quoting all the things I have said with a mistake about lauda going heavy on TP which I did not actually say but I said something close but not quite so bad.

I mean nobody else mentioned anything like this about those guys at all so I assumed he just got that last quote wrong. I will never know if he really did think I said that or was using these special "" that suchmoon tells me means either malboroza is quote such moon or probably nobody. Obviously I never heard for such "" I mean in copy and paste threads you are hearing anyone getting quoted must be in "" now.  So that is weird if you quote 2 seperate things one after another then the second "" is saying nobody said it. Anyway let's say for this argument he was meaning nobody said that and it just happened to be within 3 other quotes i did make and was similar to the other things I said and involved the same 2 people.

3. So moving on let's imagine I am mistaken and I say to malboroza  stop misquoting me and talking about your own disturbing fantasies (okay so look at the 4 quotes) if any person had to say one was a disturbing fantasy it could only really be the anal sex he mentions between lauda and the pharmacist.

4. So this is the bit I do not believe but even if I do believe it cos these are meta individuals. Okay so apparently malboroza for some reason does not think I am refuting  1/ the only quote of the 4 i did not write 2/ the quote that fits the description when you are misquoting me stop with your disturbing fantasies so he does not make the logical and sensible conclusion that I am telling the truth that I never wrote that other quote.  Rather he chooses to believe I would 1/ seriously deny a block quote on the same page inside the same post I am refering too that I just posted in public and he just pressed the quote button and it is there on the post and 2/ a post that is not in anyway a disturbing fantasy of his

5, So now I am giving benefit of the doubt he was not trying to quote me and these really are special "" "" meaning nobody wrote it and it just happens to be in amongst 3 of my other quotes and this one is similar to what i said and contains the same 2 people.

I am also giving the benefit of the doubt that he does not choose the obvious an only logical one I can be referring to and rather assumes I am referring to anther post that does not fit the disturbing fantasy description.

6. so now I say he has miss quoted me and he does not ask which quote, he ignores the description i gave to indicate which quote and does not make any effort at all to make sure I am referring to the quote he thinks that I am he just assumes the totally illogical quote and gives me a red trust for that.

7. Soon after when looking at it all it become obvious when you re read it and the description i gave and its is the only one of the 3 quotes i did not make and the fact the others are block quoted there in my face on his thread then I even explain it with credible evidence. So it not only likely (going on description and the fact its the only one that was incorrect ) I am so confused that he has assumed i meant the other quote that it is obvious what happened.

8. Either way 4 quotes I say you are misquoting me there 1 i didnt make you dont just assume and leave red trust you discuss and get on the same page before charging me with false accusation because he thinks he has proof I have made one cos it is there in black and white.

9. Now it is all explained and he should have made sure which quote before giving neg trust because there is one quote i did not make infact the only quote that fits my description.... so he should have not assumed and wrongly said this is a false accusation. He should have made sure by discussing it first before leaping to a conclusion finally before red trust got pulled on me.


I mean it is trust abuse to say someone is lying before you find out what they are apparently referring to in their lie when there are multiple options. But to still keep it on after it is demonstrated that his final wrong assumption led to the red trust then this is flagrant stubborn abuse.

You have to realise I could be asking for benefit of the doubt in both cases I gave to him anyway but I am not even though really I think I should have it due to logic and just common sense. But still either way the red trust needs to go.

I mean a simple analogy if you give him benefit of the doubt in both junctures...

4 dogs walking down the street

3 Chihuahua - dogs 1 2 3
1 doberman -  dog 4

I say thats not my big dog (referring to dog 4 I only have Chihuahuas)

The guy looks at the 4 dogs and says I have proof that dog 1 is yours now sorry I have proof that dog 1 is yours and you get red negative trust for lying to me.

[SaltySpitoon]

I mean it is trust abuse to say someone is lying before you find out what they are apparently referring to in their lie when there are multiple options. But to still keep it on after it is demonstrated that his final wrong assumption led to the red trust then this is flagrant stubborn abuse.

You have to realise I could be asking for benefit of the doubt in both cases I gave to him anyway but I am not even though really I think I should have it due to logic and just common sense. But still either way the red trust needs to go.

I'd agree with you, if someone made a mistake and misunderstood you, left feedback based on that misunderstanding, and then refused to fix it when they came to the realization that they were wrong, thats a problem. The question is, you said you demonstrated their wrong assumption, did they acknowledge that? I'm sure theres pages of argument somewhere, but like I said I'm just giving you my general opinion on what is and isn't acceptable use of feedback.

If I claim I'm the Queen of England, and someone calls me a liar. I then say, Nah man, I'm the Queen of England. That isn't clearing up the issue. Until that other person rightfully agrees that I'm the Queen of England, the issue isn't resolved. That or they just leave it as I'm a liar and don't listen to my decrees which sucks for me. If I have some good proof that I'm the Queen of England, but they still wont listen, the next step is talking to whoever added them to DT and asking them to review the case. If someone on their trust list is doing it wrong, its reasonable to believe they will be removed.

[cryptohunter]

I mean it is trust abuse to say someone is lying before you find out what they are apparently referring to in their lie when there are multiple options. But to still keep it on after it is demonstrated that his final wrong assumption led to the red trust then this is flagrant stubborn abuse.

You have to realise I could be asking for benefit of the doubt in both cases I gave to him anyway but I am not even though really I think I should have it due to logic and just common sense. But still either way the red trust needs to go.

I'd agree with you, if someone made a mistake and misunderstood you, left feedback based on that misunderstanding, and then refused to fix it when they came to the realization that they were wrong, thats a problem. The question is, you said you demonstrated their wrong assumption, did they acknowledge that? I'm sure theres pages of argument somewhere, but like I said I'm just giving you my general opinion on what is and isn't acceptable use of feedback.

If I claim I'm the Queen of England, and someone calls me a liar. I then say, Nah man, I'm the Queen of England. That isn't clearing up the issue. Until that other person rightfully agrees that I'm the Queen of England, the issue isn't resolved. That or they just leave it as I'm a liar and don't listen to my decrees which sucks for me. If I have some good proof that I'm the Queen of England, but they still wont listen, the next step is talking to whoever added them to DT and asking them to review the case. If someone on their trust list is doing it wrong, its reasonable to believe they will be removed.

I mean a simple analogy if you give him benefit of the doubt in both junctures...

4 dogs walking down the street with a guy he found them in his garden or whatever

3 Chihuahua - dogs 1 2 3
1 doberman -  dog 4

I say thats not my big dog (referring to dog 4 because  I only have Chihuahuas)

The guy looks at the 4 dogs and says I have proof that dog 1 is yours now sorry I have proof that dog 1 is yours and you get red negative trust for lying to me.

[Anduck]

the next step is talking to whoever added them to DT and asking them to review the case. If someone on their trust list is doing it wrong, its reasonable to believe they will be removed.

That's not going to be effective ever, especially if the case is slightly more complex, events timeline is unclear, or multiple DT1's have added person to DT2, or if the bad DT member is DT1. In any case, such would require a huge effort and waste loads of everyone's time. It's very unreasonable expectation that such DT member would be removed.

For example, you can see that Vod is on DT2, added by three DT1s. They're quite inactive and unresponsive, so practically Vod can't be dropped out of DT2 no matter what he did. He threatened to red-rate me unless I removed my rating towards him. I did not remove my rating, so he proceeded in red-rating me. Is that abuse or not? Somehow vocal people here in bitcointalk seem to acknowledge that as fair and not abuse, which is insane and tells about the cliques and DT system badness more than about anything else. Well we all know what happens if you don't bend to DT'ers will.

[suchmoon]

So I rightly or possibly wrongly assume he is quoting all the things I have said

Nobody except you - not even actmyname who countered your neg - interpreted it that way. So that should be a pretty good hint that you were wrong. It's was your own choice to fill up pages upon pages with new lies trying to twist what could have been a simple misunderstanding into a major issue.

[cryptohunter]

So I rightly or possibly wrongly assume he is quoting all the things I have said

Nobody except you - not even actmyname who countered your neg - interpreted it that way. So that should be a pretty good hint that you were wrong. It's was your own choice to fill up pages upon pages with new lies trying to twist what could have been a simple misunderstanding into a major issue.

I appreciate whatactmyname has said so I will accept there are these special """ that mean nobody said it. I will accept I could have originally assumed incorrectly it is possible. However in the context of 3 of my actual quotes and one quote containing a very similar statement with the same 2 people in ...and inside these new "" when you are saying anyone who quotes some else has to put that now. I can quite easily see how I could have interpreted it this way. I mean I am sure some people who are not at actmynames level of english rules could easily make the same error. If even we can read malborozas mind to tell what he thought he was quoting. All irrelevant now anyway. It is clear he should have not have made the final assumption before giving red trust. It should be removed.

Still refusing to do it now Is flagrant and stubborn abuse and I will not give up on getting him removed from DT for this kind of vindictive behaviour even though now he sees how it all got out of shape from a crosswire and not discussing to get on the same page.

Should have removed it by now

[suchmoon]

I appreciate whatactmyname has said so I will accept there are these special """ that mean nobody said it. I will accept I could have originally assumed incorrectly it is possible. However in the context of 3 of my actual quotes and one quote containing a very similar statement with the same 2 people in ...and inside these new "" when you are saying anyone who quotes some else has to put that now. I can quite easily see how I could have interpreted it this way. I mean I am sure some people who are not at actmynames level of english rules could easily make the same error. If even we can read malborozas mind to tell what he thought he was quoting. All irrelevant now anyway. It is clear he should have not have made the final assumption before giving red trust. It should be removed.

Still refusing to do it now Is flagrant and stubborn abuse and I will not give up on getting him removed from DT for this kind of vindictive behaviour even though now he sees how it all got out of shape from a crosswire and not discussing to get on the same page.

Should have removed it by now

"You're wrong".
"Yeah I could be wrong, however I'm not and it's the other guy's fault".

I'll let you figure out whose quotes are those.

[cryptohunter]

I appreciate whatactmyname has said so I will accept there are these special """ that mean nobody said it. I will accept I could have originally assumed incorrectly it is possible. However in the context of 3 of my actual quotes and one quote containing a very similar statement with the same 2 people in ...and inside these new "" when you are saying anyone who quotes some else has to put that now. I can quite easily see how I could have interpreted it this way. I mean I am sure some people who are not at actmynames level of english rules could easily make the same error. If even we can read malborozas mind to tell what he thought he was quoting. All irrelevant now anyway. It is clear he should have not have made the final assumption before giving red trust. It should be removed.

Still refusing to do it now Is flagrant and stubborn abuse and I will not give up on getting him removed from DT for this kind of vindictive behaviour even though now he sees how it all got out of shape from a crosswire and not discussing to get on the same page.

Should have removed it by now

"You're wrong".
"Yeah I could be wrong, however I'm not and it's the other guy's fault".

I'll let you figure out whose quotes are those.

oh yeah i remember now ...you were saying something about it last night from outside my locked door through the bullet proof glass.

Wasn't it those 3 removal guys who you said were trying to decide on the sex  and species of your blow up doll after accidentally stepping on it and it exploded .....and you were thinking of giving up on life before I came to meta and cheered you up and gave you a new buddy to chat to when ever you stalked me down?

[Relnewmember]

I will change it to neutral when i am home. I wont change my opinion of you being nothing but anoying troll who is making baseless assumptions and lying that people are stalking you and other things you mentioned during your last few weeks in meta and reputation which i see as trolling. I don't want to read and go trough your posts again and i won't discuss this any further.

Now, if DT could do me a favour and tag this not secured account with weak password which i won't use in future.

M

[kingpin4321]

Neither of your negative feedbacks say anything about doing a trade with you, it just says that you are annoying. Its not really abuse.

But just underneath his trust rating there is a written in red "trade with extreme caution" warning which is caused by negative trust brandished on him to me this is a dent on his profile.

I think there should be other means of handling misunderstanding amongst members with out the use of forum power by any of the two members.

The effect that a negative trust or a positive trust has on a profile is quite a heavy one that before it is giving should be something that Is quite tangible.

[LoyceV]

special ""

Chihuahua
doberman

bullet proof glass.
your blow up doll

Don't you see it's virtually impossible by now for anyone to form an opinion on this matter? You have dozens if not hundreds of long posts on the same subject, and yet you keep dragging in completely irrelevant things.
After reading many posts, I still don't know exactly what the "" is about, and I still don't know what marlboroza's initial tag said.

[cryptohunter]

special ""

Chihuahua
doberman

bullet proof glass.
your blow up doll

Don't you see it's virtually impossible by now for anyone to form an opinion on this matter? You have dozens if not hundreds of long posts on the same subject, and yet you keep dragging in completely irrelevant things.
After reading many posts, I still don't know exactly what the "" is about, and I still don't know what marlboroza's initial tag said.

Don't you see actually you being here may help... Nothing is irrelevant you just can't make the connection until I write the patch for you. Now stop trying to contribute to the demise of your gang or they may cut your power source off.

1. the same bunch always seem to form the same opinion here and club together

2. If one is called out for being unreasonable the others will follow to say it is not unreasonable and give completely unreasonable verging on crazy reasons why it was reasonable and that you the outsider is the unreasonable one (even when all observable evidence is backing you)

3. It is called an analogy I mean I know right... what is this Chihuahua shit doing here ..loyce investigate hmmm...small... cute.. loyce stroke pet enjoy..excite. ... dobermans ... scary.. bite ...run fast... ouch ...cry...malboroza cool...good...friend..red trust...Cryptohunter... bad..evil..wrong..greedy..jealous..wrong..loyce ...merits. ...precious....danger...danger....3 dogs ..story does not compute....warning warning temp critical 80% and rising. Your hardware is due an upgrade soon  it will become clearer. LoyceV11 will breeze through those don't worry.

4. I don't even want to risk your systems with the concept of joke.... this is something for perhaps LoyceXXX (no foxy - - down -- boy paws off)



the fact that you, malboroza, suchmoon, TP (foxy not as bad he may be the only person i brought him up actually before he appeared however he used to just lurk adding support by bestowing merits on people who were disagreeing with me) are always bunching together on my threads and probably other peoples is enough for me to suggest to the community to keep an eye on you all.

 It is almost a gang mentality forming. Stop it  now and get your own opinions do not support any notion that is unreasonable just to feel you are secure within this gang because I will crush it now I have my eye on it. I will point out at any point when you are grouping up to bully people around as was what was exactly happening when I first discovered you all bullying that noob for incorrectly referencing the guides he had collated .

suchmoon in particular has a very caustic and sharp manner (although perhaps a thicker skin than some here) ...high horseman like dismissive tone ....which yes fair enough you are on a public forum and you need to have some thick skin, man up and all of that. He is hardworking and is net positive and does good I am not going to lie about him and he does not run to leave red trust if we have a bit of a disagreement which he can turn petty and grouchy.


However anyway suchmoon (and loyce to a degree and some of the gang  ) ... when you constantly get this kind of person swoop down only trying to pick a hole in something to look smart and cool.. with that manner it puts people off posting anything. Also the atmosphere where you get a bunch of new member ass kissers brown nosing up to those in perceived power agreeing and bleating their simpering sniveling groveling word salad posts (clearly not even understanding the topic being debated) in support of anything they say even when clearly ludicrous to get some favour and perhaps merit crumbs. If people are wrong they are wrong I don't care who it is never suck up to people if they are wrong. You know what one of the best posters on here and best critical thinkers i have encountered  said" I Hate asskissers the most -- they are the first to stab you in the back" -



It is only correct to get sharp and use that tone in 2 cases

1. scammers
2. people who start that tone with you first and persistently use it with you.
3. gang members who snipe at you with seemingly less aggression but are just too much of pussy and don't have the critical thinking capacity to just clearly voice their own argument in opposition because they know it constantly just gets torn apart and demonstrated to be nothing other than a bunch of nonsense that is cobbled together to bolster an opinion they want to be true but is obviously absurd.




Every post and ever debate should stand on its own merit. You should not approach any debate with the intention of trying to agree with people of your gang or people you have agreed with thing in the past. There is no right and wrong answer there is just the answer or the optimal answer based upon the information available.

So anyway if you are found to have based your opinion or made an error because you were lacking some information or if you just have poor logical reasoning capabilities and somebody else assists you and constructs a mental path you can now leads to reality ....don't dig heels in and become even more irrational to retain your views or opinions ... simply view it as an upgrade to the poor information or opinions you held before. It may suit you less currently but long term it will benefit you more because once you start building other concepts on top of bullshit that only you or a illogical group believe is reality it can all come crashing down at once which is very painful. Better to have minor reconstruction and refurbs running regularly.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I hate to say it, but you are sounding more and more like digaran with each post. Just because the (vast) majority disagree with your opinion, it doesn't mean they are part of some gang, inner circle, cartel, mafia, or any of the other ridiculous accusations that get bandied about. It usually just means you are wrong.


Here are the facts:

You initially claimed marlboroza was

pretending to quote me when I never said that at all

It has been pointed out to you multiple times, by multiple members, in multiple threads, that he was not quoting you directly, but using "scare quotes", which are a widely recognised and commonly used part of the English Language.

You refused to accept these explanations, and instead doubled down and claimed that marlboroza is

misquoting me and trying to silence me

marlboroza leaves you red trust for lying about him, at which point you continue to refuse to accept that you were in the wrong, start insulting the people who are trying to help you, and claim they are all part of some "gang".


While I don't think you deserve red trust for this, you are 100% in the wrong in here. As has been the case for others, the flat out refusal to accept that you just might have been mistaken, coupled with walls of insults at other members, is far more dishonest and concerning behaviour than the initial issue.


Your red trust has been removed, so thankfully this issue is now resolved. This thread can be locked.

[cryptohunter]

I hate to say it, but you are sounding more and more like digaran with each post. Just because the (vast) majority disagree with your opinion, it doesn't mean they are part of some gang, inner circle, cartel, mafia, or any of the other ridiculous accusations that get bandied about. It usually just means you are wrong.


Here are the facts:

You initially claimed marlboroza was

pretending to quote me when I never said that at all

It has been pointed out to you multiple times, by multiple members, in multiple threads, that he was not quoting you directly, but using "scare quotes", which are a widely recognised and commonly used part of the English Language.

You refused to accept these explanations, and instead doubled down and claimed that marlboroza is

misquoting me and trying to silence me

marlboroza leaves you red trust for lying about him, at which point you continue to refuse to accept that you were in the wrong, start insulting the people who are trying to help you, and claim they are all part of some "gang".


While I don't think you deserve red trust for this, you are 100% in the wrong in here. As has been the case for others, the flat out refusal to accept that you just might have been mistaken, coupled with walls of insults at other members, is far more dishonest and concerning behaviour than the initial issue.


Your red trust has been removed, so thankfully this issue is now resolved. This thread can be locked.

Ohh look another member of the gang of course I forgot this one.... don't feel left out. Rolling in with more lies.


So now you roll out observable LIES against me to illogically prove your case. You should get RED TRUST NOW I SUPPOSE FOR THIS PROVEN LIE which I can easily demonstrated this is not one you could back out of. BUT I AM NOT THE SORT OF TURD TO LEAVE YOU RED TRUST UNLESS YOU ARE A FUCKING SCAMMER BECAUSE I AM NOT A WHINING GIMP LIKE YOU GUYS.

Your time line does NOT match with your PROVEN LIE.

You are quoting something I said just after I saw the red trust and BEFORE IT HAD been explained to me about such a thing as scare quotes at this point in time so I did not choose to ignore actmynames ruling that I am mistaken at all and if you even took the time to read this thread instead of jumping in to fight for your gang you would notice I have said I accept I could have been wrong we will never know unless you read malborozas mind.

People including actmyname and other started to explain this AFTER the quote you are using and falsely claiming came before my statement again that he was misquoting me ............you are claiming I knew about all of this scare quotes and then said he is misquoting me. THAT IS A LIE THAT YOU HAVE SELF PROVEN ON YOUR OWN TO TRY AND MAKE ME LOOK WORSE THAN IS THE REAL CASE. OH WHERE IS MY RED TRUST I MUST TELL EVERYONE YOU ARE A SCAMMER FOR THIS. EVEN THOUGH IN YOUR CASE I KNOW IT IS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT TIME LINES DUE TO EXTENSIVE TIME TRAVEL WITH FOXY SO I WILL JUST REPLY TO YOU INSTEAD LIKE A NORMAL HUMAN BEING. and not run off crying and give red trust.

See that's how it goes you debate there is a winner if there is misunderstanding it gets revealed and you get on the same page you do not run away giving red trust.

To me personally though regardless of english language or legal rules AND I ACCEPT IT IS POSSIBLE I WAS WRONG to assume that in a thread directed at me about me and then quotes 3 things i said and a 4th in quotation marks I could fucking assume he was misquoting the forth one.  

And i have stated I may well have been wrong AFTER they explained scare quotes too me which i still think can lead to confusion if muddled in with real quotes all that i have made.

TRY THIS ONE  to help you understand more .....

So the thread title of new thread....

oieieo loves suchmoon and malboroza more than pharmacist and foxy

you oieoie defending that statment to prevent jealousy.......post  in that thread somewhere... contained in amongst other stuff about them i cant publish without working myself up.

4 things. you have posted in the thread....

1.I oieoi think foxy is lovely,

2. I ioioie think suchmoon is hot.

3 I ioeie think pharmacist needs to work on his tan

4. I ioieo wonder if malboroza and suchmoon have showers or baths at home.


nobody else mentions in that thread malboroza or suchmoon together at all nor showers or baths.


Now cryptohunter bust on to the scene and say...

this thread started to build nicely  but has now descended too quickly into homo erotica which I want to save reading until I get home.

This rate of excitement should build up more slowly. I mean it starts with....

" thinking foxy is lovely" and " thinking suchmoon is hot" and " thinking pharmacist needs to work on his tan " then just goes straight to " I want to get in the shower with some baby oil and malborozo and suchmoon yum yum yum yum"


Then you oieo read this post I have just made and say.

Stop misquoting me cryptohunter with your shower fantasies  I never said that


Then I cryptohunter just leaves you RED TRUST. Because I can prove  you did say "I  think pharmacist needs to work on his tan"


This is completely apparently out of character for me cryptohunter and seems harsh to everyone.  Earlier that day you oieoeo may have been kicking up a bit of fuss that ended up in some AI calculating i was the number beneficiary of a tight circle of merit hoarders.

So your mind starts to reason perhaps this is what caused the very harsh and actually out of order red trust to be left.


THERE SO FIRST STOP WITH YOU GANG TACTICS AND STOP CRYING TO RED TRUST ABOUT THINGS.

You ioieieo are observably lying here and actually doing so to prove a point not lie or mistake made with no motive.
Still i will not even think of using red trust for this kind of pathetic shit. Grow up.

I will lock this thread down now and not go on about it.....but any time I ever get red trust again for something I can demonstrate was unfair and abuse i will make another one and it will never ever go away EVER until it is removed.

[cryptohunter]

I said I would lock this but now these coward scum bags have made a 1 day old puppet account to hide behind and try and get me banned for copy and paste. They were all over this with loyce the moron meriting a report  for plagiarism where the links to sources of all information are in the same post at the end of the post. LOL they are so dumb they try to present a case where I am clearly fighting a scam and the link to the information is there in the 2nd link at the bottom as an action of someone trying to claim the work as his own .... I mean they create a 1 day old puppet because they are too cowardly to do it themselves. Right after 1 day ago trying to give me red trust and abusing the system.

They know 1 day after red trusting me through abuse of the trust system this will look bad for them to try and snag me with this crap and it has now backfired on them, because they are too fucking stupid to notice I supplied the links.

These zero accomplishment losers hoarding merit and cowardly trying to silence people demonstrating they are a bunch of power hungry moronic fools that are disrespectful to older pre merit legends that have really made a difference here. Along the way making stupid statements and forming illogical comments that fold under scrutiny.

This gang of scoundrels need to be banned themselves for trying such sneak methods to silence people who don't fall in with their agenda.

I had been warned this bunch of dumb fools were currently pouring over my post history trying to find some way to silence me sticking up for some legends getting taken down by this black and white copy and paste tool they think they can use to their advatage.

I have had warnings to go through my post history and check for any tiny thing to stop them before they get me. FUCK THAT I KNOW I AM NET POSITIVE HERE AND HAVE DONE 1000X THE GOOD THESE SIG SPAMMING MERIT HOARDING DUMD FUCKS HAVE.

I asked them all to name their greatest achievements since being here. The others could not think of anything of note except trying to play whack a mole  and the pharmacist spineless moronic dip shit failure said that being able to join a high paid "exclusive " sig campaign was his finest achievement. Come on you been here years and still have to sig spam for pennies you stupid valueless opinions over and over on everything for a few dimes. That dumb ass managed to lose on PIVX.... I mean what a dumb ass.

REMOVE YOUR SIGS GANGE MEMBERS - I will remove mine for as long as you remove yours. Let's prove you are nothing like the noobs you are so critical of from trying to make some sig money here. You are a fucking joke.

Disgraceful.

[suchmoon]

I had been warned this bunch of dumb fools were currently pouring over my post history trying to find some way to silence me sticking up for some legends getting taken down by this black and white copy and paste tool they think they can use to their advatage.

I for one don't want to silence you. I think you have a pretty good combination of narcissism and stupidity that can be entertaining for quite a while.

REMOVE YOUR SIGS GANGE MEMBERS - I will remove mine for as long as you remove yours. Let's prove you are nothing like the noobs you are so critical of from trying to make some sig money here. You are a fucking joke.

I'll take you up on that. I have removed my signature. Don't be a liar and remove yours.

[cryptohunter]

I had been warned this bunch of dumb fools were currently pouring over my post history trying to find some way to silence me sticking up for some legends getting taken down by this black and white copy and paste tool they think they can use to their advatage.

I for one don't want to silence you. I think you have a pretty good combination of narcissism and stupidity that can be entertaining for quite a while.

REMOVE YOUR SIGS GANGE MEMBERS - I will remove mine for as long as you remove yours. Let's prove you are nothing like the noobs you are so critical of from trying to make some sig money here. You are a fucking joke.

I'll take you up on that. I have removed my signature. Don't be a liar and remove yours.

THIS IS GREAT NEWS  .... I AM GLAD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DO THIS TOGETHER TO PROVE WE ARE ENTHUSIASTS.  LET'S GET EVERYONE TO WITNESS IT.

BRING THEM ALL HERE SO WE CAN GET IT DONE RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW. I AM 100% READY TO DO IT IF WE ALL DO. I WILL RAISE IT TO 2 YEARS IF YOU ARE QUICK TO BRING THEM HERE IN THE NEXT HOUR TICK TOCK.

THE PHARMACIST
LOYCEV
MARLBOROZA
o_e_l_e_o
LAUDA

WE ALL DO IT RIGHT NOW FOR 2 YEARS AND WE HAVE THE DATE PUBLISHED SOMEWHERE SO NONE OF US CAN GO BACK ON IT. IF WE GO BACK ON IT PERM BAN. BRING THE ENTIRE GANG HERE. I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THIS

BRING THEM NOW. I want to hear we are all doing it together.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Your time line does NOT match with your PROVEN LIE.

You are quoting something I said just after I saw the red trust and BEFORE IT HAD been explained to me about such a thing as scare quotes at this point in time

Here is the post in which I explain to you what scare quotes are (please note the timestamp):

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

Here are just a selection of posts from you, after my aforementioned post, that continue to perpetuate your lie that marlboroza misquoted you:

It is now observable I never even said what malboroza quoted  and they got the wrong end of the stick

If you read the last thread malboroza clearly quotes me

rather than be referring  to  another quote beside it that i DID NOT SAY??

However in the context of 3 of my actual quotes and one quote containing a very similar statement with the same 2 people in ...and inside these new "" when you are saying anyone who quotes some else has to put that now.

My timeline matches just fine. Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it not true.

[suchmoon]

I had been warned this bunch of dumb fools were currently pouring over my post history trying to find some way to silence me sticking up for some legends getting taken down by this black and white copy and paste tool they think they can use to their advatage.

I for one don't want to silence you. I think you have a pretty good combination of narcissism and stupidity that can be entertaining for quite a while.

REMOVE YOUR SIGS GANGE MEMBERS - I will remove mine for as long as you remove yours. Let's prove you are nothing like the noobs you are so critical of from trying to make some sig money here. You are a fucking joke.

I'll take you up on that. I have removed my signature. Don't be a liar and remove yours.

~ weaseling

So you lied. You haven't removed your signature even though I did. It makes no sense for 6 other users remove their signatures in exchange for your one signature. Do it now.