DT everyone? @TECSHARE

[Vod]

Perhaps you could also explain why you are including two inactive accounts whose only feedback left is a positive to yourself:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=179952
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=92735

Theymos has stated you can leave trust to offset other's trust, so you are well within your right to leave him negative trust until he stops manipulating his list.

[1714025623]

1714025623

[Quickseller]

erwin45hacked isn't a scammer per se, however he is so bad at protecting his account, if you are dealing with him, there is a decent chance you are actually dealing with a hacker.

[TECSHARE]

Perhaps you could also explain why you are including two inactive accounts whose only feedback left is a positive to yourself:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=179952
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=92735

Theymos has stated you can leave trust to offset other's trust, so you are well within your right to leave him negative trust until he stops manipulating his list.

You are itching to get into it again so bad you haven't even noticed this has already been resolved for hours. Why pass up an opportunity to reignite old conflicts though right?

[Vod]

Why pass up an opportunity to reignite old conflicts though right?

Keep DT moving!

It would be nice if you could keep your list free of manipulation though... (with the amount you complain about it too) don't make others point it out.  

[DireWolfM14]

edit - errr wolf boy?? are you still here wolf boy?? this debate is very one sided so far.

Some of us have jobs.  With real work that needs to get done.  Then there's that time spent driving between work and home.  Be patient, I'll give you a little attention before I shut you down. 

How about the FACT  the pharmacist is a greedy sneaky racist sig spamming sock puppet trying to milk the board for every drop of btc dust he can get ?  do you dispute this is a fact?

See?  There it is.  You've proven my point.  That's an opinion, not a fact.  It may be factual, but without any proof it's nothing but an opinion.  Furthermore it's an opinion that is shared by many.  Certainly not those who can think rationally.

Now, despite you attempting to insult me by referring to be as wolf boy, and referring to everyone with whom you disagree as a "sig spammer" I've tried to engage you in a debate. 

Do you dispute the fact that you've only presented opinions without supporting evidence?  Or are you still convinced that every thought that pops into your head is a fact?  Maybe you don't know the difference.  I'm here to help.

[cryptohunter]

edit - errr wolf boy?? are you still here wolf boy?? this debate is very one sided so far.

Some of us have jobs.  With real work that needs to get done.  Then there's that time spent driving between work and home.  Be patient, I'll give you a little attention before I shut you down.  

How about the FACT  the pharmacist is a greedy sneaky racist sig spamming sock puppet trying to milk the board for every drop of btc dust he can get ?  do you dispute this is a fact?

See?  There it is.  You've proven my point.  That's an opinion, not a fact.  It may be factual, but without any proof it's nothing but an opinion.  Furthermore it's an opinion that is shared by many.  Certainly not those who can think rationally.

Now, despite you attempting to insult me by referring to be as wolf boy, and referring to everyone with whom you disagree as a "sig spammer" I've tried to engage you in a debate.  

Do you dispute the fact that you've only presented opinions without supporting evidence?  Or are you still convinced that every thought that pops into your head is a fact?  Maybe you don't know the difference.  I'm here to help.

Sorry... ha I'd forgotten some people need to work for a living here.

Hang on one moment let me ask this hot girl to stop massaging my back. I need to sit up and type whilst now that you're done with flipping those burgers (for now).

So thanks for shutting me down so quickly - you sure did help

The pharmacist was never using a sock puppet to sig spam under Huge Black Woman his puppet account and got busted whilst being greedy and trying to hop from one sig to spam to a higher paid one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg17808231#msg17808231

keep reading down a little bit ....


No proof, nothing to see here. Wolf boy was right all along??

I mean the fact it is there in black and white is actually the OPPOSITE of a fact wolf boy says?? I see.

haha back to serving that next whammy burger and the long drive home on your 2bhp skate board. Don't forget to throw those left over cold whammy fries  to TP aka HBW on the way home. He needs it now his sock puppet spamming account got busted and shut down.  I wonder if HBW collected on those sig campaigns he was part way through or the one he just left? interesting...

So we have established that your mind works the opposite way around. If you had told me this previously I would just have agreed with you on everything. It is like the yes means no and the  no means yes game. hahaha

It's great to be on the same page.

So you are holding to this it never happened and the sensible people think it is all just a big lie and the opposite of a fact??

I can't wait for the next part of this shutting me down process..... please get back  to me as soon as possible.

EDIT - wolf boy?? i thought you were helping me or shutting me down?  where have you run off too now??

[TECSHARE]

Why pass up an opportunity to reignite old conflicts though right?

Keep DT moving!

It would be nice if you could keep your list free of manipulation though... (with the amount you complain about it too) don't make others point it out.  

What manipulation? You feel free to craft any fairy tales you like and point out the speck in my eye while ignoring the plank in your own.

[marlboroza]

@TECSHARE why do you have banned and possible hacked account in your trust list? This one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=79546 - http://loyce.club/trust/2019-09-07_Sat_06.07h/79546.html

@TECHARE why do you have hacked account in your trust list? This one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18021 - http://loyce.club/trust/2019-09-07_Sat_06.07h/18021.html

@TECHARE why do you have account inactive since 2015. in your trust list? This one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=104644 - http://loyce.club/trust/2019-09-07_Sat_06.07h/104644.html

@TECHARE why do you have account inactive since 2017., I mean since 2014. in your trust list? This one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=92735;sa=showPosts http://loyce.club/trust/2019-09-07_Sat_06.07h/92735.html

ETC.

DT should hold some responsibility. It worries me to see bunch of scammers and hacked accounts getting into DT because someone has very poor judgement and doesn't care who they include to their trust network - it already happened, and it will happen again.

[TECSHARE]

Why is this even in meta? Please direct your obviously coordinated attack to reputation where it belongs. If you really gave a fuck about who I included you would message me about it instead of making a 3 ring circus about it clearly demonstrating this is about targeting me personally, not who is on my trust list.

[marlboroza]

Please direct your obviously coordinated attack to reputation where it belongs.

Please address obviously hacked accounts/scammers/inactive accounts/banned users in your trust list.

If you really gave a fuck about who I included you would message me

Why would I do that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52405611#msg52405611 ?

Trick me once...

this is about targeting me personally, not who is on my trust list.

Oh, victim card.

[TECSHARE]

Please direct your obviously coordinated attack to reputation where it belongs.

Please address obviously hacked accounts/scammers/inactive accounts/banned users in your trust list.

If you really gave a fuck about who I included you would message me

Why would I do that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52405611#msg52405611 ?

Trick me once...

this is about targeting me personally, not who is on my trust list.

Oh, victim card.

Some one who was legitimately concerned about my inclusions would contact me. Some one who is hoping to craft an attack narrative would pitch a tent, invite all his clown friends, and set up a 3 ring circus. You refuse to even name the "obviously hacked/scammers/inactive/banned users".

I don't know if you have noticed, but I have been in this community for almost a decade. Things change in such a period of time. If no one bothers to lodge a complaint with me, exactly how am I supposed to know anyone has a problem? Oh right, I forgot I am supposed to uphold a higher standard than practically everyone else on your own trust list. I forgot, its rules for me and not for thee.

[marlboroza]

If you really gave a fuck about who I included you would message me

Why would I do that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52405611#msg52405611 ?

Trick me once...

Some one who was legitimately concerned about my inclusions would contact me.

Why would I do that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52405611#msg52405611 ?

Trick me once...

If no one bothers to lodge a complaint with me, exactly how am I supposed to know anyone has a problem? Oh right, I forgot I am supposed to uphold a higher standard than practically everyone else on your own trust list. I forgot, its rules for me and not for thee.

Ok, so you asked question and you answered it, you don't need anyone's reply then.

Anyway:

Please address obviously hacked accounts/scammers/inactive accounts/banned users in your trust list.

[TECSHARE]

If you really gave a fuck about who I included you would message me

Why would I do that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52405611#msg52405611 ?

Trick me once...

Some one who was legitimately concerned about my inclusions would contact me.

Why would I do that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52405611#msg52405611 ?

Trick me once...

If no one bothers to lodge a complaint with me, exactly how am I supposed to know anyone has a problem? Oh right, I forgot I am supposed to uphold a higher standard than practically everyone else on your own trust list. I forgot, its rules for me and not for thee.

Ok, so you asked question and you answered it, you don't need anyone's reply then.

Anyway:

Please address obviously hacked accounts/scammers/inactive accounts/banned users in your trust list.

Cute avoidance of making any reply. I also like the part where you demand I answer accusations about unnamed people over and over again. You are literally demanding I hold accountability for people you refuse to even name. Now why would I interpret that as personally targeting behavior?

[marlboroza]

I also like the part where you demand I answer accusations about unnamed people over and over again. You are literally demanding I hold accountability for people you refuse to even name. Now why would I interpret that as personally targeting behavior?

Here you go:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118173.msg52406482#msg52406482 etc

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118173.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.0

Please address obviously hacked accounts/scammers/inactive accounts/banned users in your trust list.

[TECSHARE]

I also like the part where you demand I answer accusations about unnamed people over and over again. You are literally demanding I hold accountability for people you refuse to even name. Now why would I interpret that as personally targeting behavior?

Here you go:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118173.msg52406482#msg52406482 etc

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118173.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.0

Please address obviously hacked accounts/scammers/inactive accounts/banned users in your trust list.

Just because you manufacture suspicion about a user doesn't make him "obviously hacked". Users can be banned for breaking forum rules but still have valid trust, the same goes for inactive users. None of this explains why you never simply addressed me personally about these concerns instead of directly using it to formulate an attack on me personally.

[marlboroza]

Users can be banned for breaking forum rules but still have valid trust

Lets see, banned user:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=79546
Nothing since 2014. in trust. Of course, most trust is without reference.

Just because you manufacture suspicion about a user doesn't make him "obviously hacked".

So why don't you counter negative feedback then? Or you don't trust user which you have in your trust list?

[The-One-Above-All]

Users can be banned for breaking forum rules but still have valid trust

Lets see, banned user:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=79546
Nothing since 2014. in trust. Of course, most trust is without reference.

Just because you manufacture suspicion about a user doesn't make him "obviously hacked".

So why don't you counter negative feedback then? Or you don't trust user which you have in your trust list?

The fair and sensible solution is if ALL DT1 members agree to have to publicly state yes or no to whether each member on their trust list has financially motivated wrong doing in their past. Since this is the primary concern of default trust - to protect people financially. Not to shelter them from other peoples opinions on the strength and fighting capability  of homosexuals. Or any other non direct examples of clear financially motivated wrong doing.

If you are demanding he publicly explain yes or no in relation to his trust list includes. THEN YOU ALL SHOULD ALSO.

DO YOU AGREE TO DO SO? YES OR NO

Or he has to explain publicly but you do not?

Bring a big comparison thread so we the readers can see if his includes list looks more financially high risk to the board or whether REALLY his list looks to clearly be less RISKY and provide more protection than the rest of DT1.

These double standards that OTHERS must explain their actions but WE refuse to explain our own actions must be stamped out.

[TECSHARE]

Users can be banned for breaking forum rules but still have valid trust

Lets see, banned user:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=79546
Nothing since 2014. in trust. Of course, most trust is without reference.

Just because you manufacture suspicion about a user doesn't make him "obviously hacked".

So why don't you counter negative feedback then? Or you don't trust user which you have in your trust list?

And? If I remember right he is some one I traded with a long time ago. I don't like using countering trust ratings. What exactly is your issue other than your obsession with digging through my shit looking for peanuts?

[unibitcoinist]

DT should hold some responsibility.

You are very correct.
That's why this, this users are into DT.

[xolxol]

DT should hold some responsibility.

Thats ironic coming from abuser like you,get lost like Lauda you're too scared because the gang is losing control in this forum.