Massive abuse in the Russian section.

[suchmoon]

Xenon131 has escrow scammer(quacksy) in trust network and peloso has scammer |Admiral| who has default on loan and there is solid connection between Admiral and pinkman, chivasregal and some other accounts. I don't know who is owner of the account at the moment as account has probably changed hand. It can't be trusted.

hey! are you sick? i sure yes
i dont know/remember |Admiral| i dont know why i have positive feedback from him
aдso you can see nobogy get positive feedback from me

so i added you to my include list and by your stupid logic you are scammer ? because you connected to Admiral through me you are fucking genius

You included a known scammer into your trust list, which makes other users question your judgement. That has nothing to do with sending feedback but if you included that person because you received positive feedback from them - that's even worse.

[1715125620]

1715125620

[1715125620]

1715125620

[peloso]

You included a known scammer into your trust list, which makes other users question your judgement. That has nothing to do with sending feedback but if you included that person because you received positive feedback from them - that's even worse.

he is scammer by your Lauda and TMAN versions so i dont trust your vesion cos Lauda is proven scammer TMAN is proven asshole and you support they
i didnt make investigation about Admiral and dont know he as scammer

[marlboroza]

i dont know/remember |Admiral| i dont know why i have positive feedback from him

i didnt make investigation about Admiral and dont know he as scammer

Why do you have Admiral in your trust list then?

[peloso]

i dont know/remember |Admiral| i dont know why i have positive feedback from him

i didnt make investigation about Admiral and dont know he as scammer

Why do you have Admiral in your trust list then?

i not remember and still not started investigation

[actmyname]

@peloso do you have evidence of my scams, or is that just a lie?

@TheFuzzStone who are you? I have no idea who you even are.DT1 is susceptible to 51% attacks without third-party intervention so if there is a cj group, that's pretty bad.

[peloso]

@peloso do you have evidence of my scams, or is that just a lie?

@TheFuzzStone who are you? I have no idea who you even are.DT1 is susceptible to 51% attacks without third-party intervention so if there is a cj group, that's pretty bad.

as you know i never lie

you wanna evidence of your scams?

FIRST!
Lauda is proven scammer, you are Lauda's pet
so if you pet of scammer you also scammer
you not agree?
do you wanna SECOND?

[actmyname]

FIRST!
Lauda is proven scammer, you are Lauda's pet
so if you pet of scammer you also scammer
you not agree?
do you wanna SECOND?

Interesting syllogism.

P1) Lauda is a proven scammer
P2) I am Lauda's pet
P3) A pet of a proven scammer is also a scammer.
C) I am a scammer.

None of your premises can be considered sound without definitive evidence however I will make it easy for you.

Suppose that P1 is true. Prove that P2 and P3 are true, thus creating sound conclusion that follows from sound premises.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

as you know i never lie

That's probably a lie.  Even if it's the truth, it still is an admission that you're an idiot because this:

Lauda is proven scammer, you are Lauda's pet
so if you pet of scammer you also scammer

is utter nonsense.  80% of the people I see at my job daily have criminal records, and I support them in their efforts to get off drugs and get on with their lives.  Does that make me a criminal?  You're claiming someone is guilty by association, and you're stretching that out so far that by your pseudo-logical reasoning you could probably claim anyone here is a scammer if you wanted to, just to fit your own agenda.  Note: my statement here isn't implying that I think Lauda is a criminal.  Just pointing out the idiocy of this reasoning.

[peloso]

P1) Lauda is a proven scammer
P2) I am Lauda's pet
P3) A pet of a proven scammer is also a scammer.
C) I am a scammer.

None of your premises can be considered sound without definitive evidence however I will make it easy for you.

Suppose that P1 is true. Prove that P2 and P3 are true, thus creating sound conclusion that follows from sound premises.

who are you to ask proof ? you just fucking slave
and you think i must spend my expensive time for you?
proving who are you?
you must be enough accusation and shut up not write here

[marlboroza]

i dont know/remember |Admiral| i dont know why i have positive feedback from him

i didnt make investigation about Admiral and dont know he as scammer

Why do you have Admiral in your trust list then?

i not remember and still not started investigation

You don't know why you have Admiral in trust list?
You must remember the reason why you excluded these members and why you suggested people to exclude them:

~ Vod
~ SaltySpitoon
~ TMAN
~ Lauda
~ Blazed
~ suchmoon
~ owlcatz
~ yahoo62278
~ actmyname
~ Lutpin

?

[actmyname]

who are you to ask proof ? you just fucking slave
and you think i must spend my expensive time for you?

If you do not prove that the premises are sound, then we are unable to draw a valid conclusion from the premises. The onus is on you to reject the null hypothesis.

proving who are you?
you must be enough accusation and shut up not write here

If your premises and conclusions cannot be refuted then your system of verification is flawed. Assuming that we all follow the same system, we can make arbitrary premises without evidence and derive conclusions thereof at will.

[peloso]

You don't know why you have Admiral in trust list?

see above

You must remember the reason why you excluded these members and why you suggested people to exclude them:

~ Vod
~ SaltySpitoon
~ TMAN
~ Lauda
~ Blazed
~ suchmoon
~ owlcatz
~ yahoo62278
~ actmyname
~ Lutpin

?

i remember most of them but not all
its important?

~Snip~

sorry Pharmacist i forget about you and even not exluded (apparently you are not very important)
you also Lauda's pet 
she has too much fucking pets as you as actmyname i cant remember all of you
my apologies

[marlboroza]

You don't know why you have Admiral in trust list?

see above

It was rhetorical question.

You must remember the reason why you excluded these members and why you suggested people to exclude them:

~ Vod
~ SaltySpitoon
~ TMAN
~ Lauda
~ Blazed
~ suchmoon
~ owlcatz
~ yahoo62278
~ actmyname
~ Lutpin

?

i remember most of them but not all

So tell us your reasons. Why have you excluded all these accounts and suggested everyone to exclude them?

its important?

Now, why this sounds so familiar...
Yes, it is important.

[peloso]

It was rhetorical question.

It was rhetorical answer

So tell us your reasons. Why have you excluded all these accounts and suggested everyone to exclude them?

its important?

Now, why this sounds so familiar...
Yes, it is important.

i will if you tell me why it iportant for you

also i can answer all of your questions  thus I have a litle bit of respect to you..still

but it temporarily

[actmyname]

Now, why this sounds so familiar...
Yes, it is important.

i will if you tell me why it iportant for you

also i can answer all of your questions  thus I have a litle bit of respect to you..still

but it temporarily

Similar to accepting premises as valid without evidence, if you have no foundation for the inclusion or exclusion of members then you are doing so without any reason.

If there is no foundation to one's actions -- if they act without a rationale, then clearly their actions matter less than someone who does have a solid backing for their decisions.

This is similar to the acceptance of pragmatism: if one doesn't believe in it, then their beliefs don't matter.

[peloso]

Now, why this sounds so familiar...
Yes, it is important.

i will if you tell me why it iportant for you

also i can answer all of your questions  thus I have a litle bit of respect to you..still

but it temporarily

Similar to accepting premises as valid without evidence, if you have no foundation for the inclusion or exclusion of members then you are doing so without any reason.

If there is no foundation to one's actions -- if they act without a rationale, then clearly their actions matter less than someone who does have a solid backing for their decisions.

This is similar to the acceptance of pragmatism: if one doesn't believe in it, then their beliefs don't matter.

hey slave i answered you
you have no authority to ask me cos you slave and Lauda's pet

i will answer to marlboroza if he will want

[marlboroza]

So tell us your reasons. Why have you excluded all these accounts and suggested everyone to exclude them?

its important?

Now, why this sounds so familiar...
Yes, it is important.

i will if you tell me why it iportant for you

I can't sleep because of it. Tell me so I can go to bed. Fair enough?

[actmyname]

hey slave i answered you
you have no authority to ask me cos you slave and Lauda's pet

i will answer to marlboroza if he will want

Your premises of the slave or Lauda's pet label are still invalid and have not yet rejected the null hypothesis.

If you would like, I can accept your method of syllogism which forces validity of the conclusion regardless of the soundness of its premises.

[peloso]

So tell us your reasons. Why have you excluded all these accounts and suggested everyone to exclude them?

its important?

Now, why this sounds so familiar...
Yes, it is important.

i will if you tell me why it iportant for you

I can't sleep because of it. Tell me so I can go to bed. Fair enough?

lets go to bed go to sleep
 ill tell you tomorow IF you tell me why it interestig for you

Your premises of the slave or Lauda's pet label are still invalid and have not yet rejected the null hypothesis.

its your opinion and its false

[marlboroza]

So tell us your reasons. Why have you excluded all these accounts and suggested everyone to exclude them?

its important?

Now, why this sounds so familiar...
Yes, it is important.

i will if you tell me why it iportant for you

I can't sleep because of it. Tell me so I can go to bed. Fair enough?

lets go to bed go to sleep
 ill tell you tomorow IF you tell me why it interestig for you

I have nightmares, dreaming ~ ~ ~ ~. Sometimes in colors.
Tell me and I won't have nightmares.