So you have DTs who do not want you to talk openly?

[TECSHARE]

Publically posting PMs is a dick move, especially when you do so to force him into a conversation. It has nothing to do with virtue signalling since I honestly don't care what the "DT mob" thinks of me.

I am not going to exclude Suchmoon for something he/she did over 3 years ago. Unlike some people here I don't dig into peoples past, desperately hoping to find something I can bring up. I would exclude him/her if he/she posted it recently. It might sound strange but some people actually change their behaviour when they grow older, which is exactly why I am open to revising my trust ratings/exclusions after a while. You should try it.

 Whatever excuse you can work out to justify your retaliatory punitive behavior right? One standard for me and another standard for thee. Yes, I am sure you don't care, which just so happens to be why you have pretty much everyone who excludes me on your trust list. Complete coincidence I am sure, clearly no one cares what people on their trust list think. No, you don't go around digging up people's past, you just support those that do. What should I try? I don't go around policing Bitcointalk like some kind of rent a cop like you and most of your trust list do. All I am doing is pointing out your hypocrisy and selective punitive punishment for the well deserved criticism of your butt buddies. I am not forcing Hhampuz to do anything, just exposing how he privately shows one face and then publicly tries to pretend as if I was harassing him which is why he JUST HAD TO exclude and block me.

[1715322193]

1715322193

[1715322193]

1715322193

[1715322193]

1715322193

[1715322193]

1715322193

[1715322193]

1715322193

[TheNewAnon135246]

Publically posting PMs is a dick move, especially when you do so to force him into a conversation. It has nothing to do with virtue signalling since I honestly don't care what the "DT mob" thinks of me.

I am not going to exclude Suchmoon for something he/she did over 3 years ago. Unlike some people here I don't dig into peoples past, desperately hoping to find something I can bring up. I would exclude him/her if he/she posted it recently. It might sound strange but some people actually change their behaviour when they grow older, which is exactly why I am open to revising my trust ratings/exclusions after a while. You should try it.

 Whatever excuse you can work out to justify your retaliatory punitive behavior right? One standard for me and another standard for thee. Yes, I am sure you don't care, which just so happens to be why you have pretty much everyone who excludes me on your trust list. Complete coincidence I am sure, clearly no one cares what people on their trust list think. No, you don't go around digging up people's past, you just support those that do. What should I try? I don't go around policing Bitcointalk like some kind of rent a cop like you and most of your trust list do. All I am doing is pointing out your hypocrisy and selective punitive punishment for the well deserved criticism of your butt buddies. I am not forcing Hhampuz to do anything, just exposing how he privately shows one face and then publicly tries to pretend as if I was harassing him which is why he JUST HAD TO exclude and block me.

Distrusted by:
Vod
Foxpup
TMAN
Lauda
yogg
TheNewAnon135246
EcuaMobi
suchmoon
owlcatz
nutildah
LFC_Bitcoin
The Pharmacist
Hhampuz

Half =/= pretty much everyone. Stop making so many assumptions, you're starting to sound like QS.

[TECSHARE]

More excuses

So what part of this makes you less of a hypocrite in your applications of standards for exclusion? Quickseller is a confirmed con artist. Even the people who exclude me don't bother to argue I am a thief. Keep proving how unbiased you are by comparing me to known scammers to argue your extremely weak justification for punitive punishment.

[TheNewAnon135246]

More excuses

More assumptions

Exclusions have nothing to do with me considering people a scammer, that's what the feedback system is for. I do not consider you a scammer but the fact that you publically post PMs makes me think that you are not trustworthy. Simple as that.

[suchmoon]

you should exclude Suchmoon too

Thank you so much for digging that up. It was a person promoting a scam so there is that, but if anyone wants to exclude me for it - I'm a big fan of informed decisions so feel free, I certainly wouldn't have a meltdown over this. Some other things to look for in my post history:

• I may have said favorable things about a site or two that later turned out to be scams.
• I've said many many NSFW and plain mean things to pretty much everyone I came into contact with.
• I've been wrong quite a few times and - gasp - may have failed to admit it once or twice.
• I don't like lemons.

Not a comprehensive list of all wrongdoings but should get you started.

Even the people who exclude me don't bother to argue I am a thief. Keep proving how unbiased you are by comparing me to known scammers to argue your extremely weak justification for punitive punishment.

If you were a thief you would have red trust. As it stands, it's your judgement that is questionable. Your attempts to paint this as being called a scammer show that you either don't understand how the trust system works, or deliberately make yourself look like a victim, neither of which does you any favors as far as your trust inclusions are concerned.

[TECSHARE]

you should exclude Suchmoon too

Thank you so much for digging that up. It was a person promoting a scam so there is that, but if anyone wants to exclude me for it - I'm a big fan of informed decisions so feel free, I certainly wouldn't have a meltdown over this. Some other things to look for in my post history:

• I may have said favorable things about a site or two that later turned out to be scams.
• I've said many many NSFW and plain mean things to pretty much everyone I came into contact with.
• I've been wrong quite a few times and - gasp - may have failed to admit it once or twice.
• I don't like lemons.

Not a comprehensive list of all wrongdoings but should get you started.

Even the people who exclude me don't bother to argue I am a thief. Keep proving how unbiased you are by comparing me to known scammers to argue your extremely weak justification for punitive punishment.

If you were a thief you would have red trust. As it stands, it's your judgement that is questionable. Your attempts to paint this as being called a scammer show that you either don't understand how the trust system works, or deliberately make yourself look like a victim, neither of which does you any favors as far as your trust inclusions are concerned.

You people sure do love inserting other topics so you can later convolute them. I made it pretty clear the punitive punishment was the exclusion. The "scammer" part was the pathetic attempt to ASSOCIATE me with scammers by comparing me to Quickseller. Learn to read then maybe impugn my words.

Quick question for you ball bags, do you think your exclusions are going to make me more or less of a "dick"?

[Quickseller]

Quickseller is a confirmed con artist.

Bullshit. I have never been credibly accused of trying to steal or misappropriate money.

[TECSHARE]

Quickseller is a confirmed con artist.

Bullshit. I have never been credibly accused of trying to steal or misappropriate money.

What a clown show. You pretended to be your own escrow and accepted payment for a nonexistent service. That is theft and fraud. Just because it was JUST A LITTLE bit a fraud doesn't make it ok. Go away now.

Another note for the rest of the clowns:



There is a literal warning not to expect privacy in your PMs with every message you send... but lets all pretend there isn't

[suchmoon]

You people sure do love inserting other topics so you can later convolute them. I made it pretty clear the punitive punishment was the exclusion. The "scammer" part was the pathetic attempt to ASSOCIATE me with scammers by comparing me to Quickseller. Learn to read then maybe impugn my words.

Quick question for you ball bags, do you think your exclusions are going to make me more or less of a "dick"?

Except you're the one inserting that "topic" and making the association with QS' scamming behavior, as opposed to his trolling behavior, which is where you two are like twins.

I don't think you need to blame the exclusions for making you a dick. You seem to be quite capable of that on your own but whatever makes you feel better.

[TECSHARE]

You people sure do love inserting other topics so you can later convolute them. I made it pretty clear the punitive punishment was the exclusion. The "scammer" part was the pathetic attempt to ASSOCIATE me with scammers by comparing me to Quickseller. Learn to read then maybe impugn my words.

Quick question for you ball bags, do you think your exclusions are going to make me more or less of a "dick"?

Except you're the one inserting that "topic" and making the association with QS' scamming behavior, as opposed to his trolling behavior, which is where you two are like twins.

I don't think you need to blame the exclusions for making you a dick. You seem to be quite capable of that on your own but whatever makes you feel better.

Well if the exclusions are for "being a dick", then do you think further isolating me will make me more or less cooperative with the little Stazi community you have going here? If less so, then is not the point only to cause punitive punishment rather than reform? If being a dick and trolling is grounds for exclusion then you might as well wipe 2/3 of the trust list out. BTW being critical of your butt buddies doesn't make it trolling. You are all creating an environment where no one is free to do or say anything unless the collective proscribes it. Sounds like freedom to me!

[suchmoon]

Well if the exclusions are for "being a dick", then do you think further isolating me will make me more or less cooperative with the little Stazi community you have going here? If less so, then is not the point only to cause punitive punishment rather than reform? If being a dick and trolling is grounds for exclusion then you might as well wipe 2/3 of the trust list out. BTW being critical of your butt buddies doesn't make it trolling. You are all creating an environment where no one is free to do or say anything unless the collective proscribes it. Sounds like freedom to me!

You're extrapolating bigly and wrongly. You got one exclusion for something you (the alleged dick) did that was considered untrustworthy by a DT1 member. There are still other exclusions likely for other reasons because most of them happened before the "dick move" episode. I doubt any of your excluders care about your "cooperation" since they already consider your judgement to be flawed. But you haven't lost any of the forum "freedoms" either. You can still say the things you want, you can even bring up scam accusations should you need DT action on them. Being so desperate to get into DT just makes you look even less suitable for it.

You're right on one thing. Being critical isn't trolling. That's not why I consider you a deranged troll (or QS, or CH, or Thule).

[TECSHARE]

Well if the exclusions are for "being a dick", then do you think further isolating me will make me more or less cooperative with the little Stazi community you have going here? If less so, then is not the point only to cause punitive punishment rather than reform? If being a dick and trolling is grounds for exclusion then you might as well wipe 2/3 of the trust list out. BTW being critical of your butt buddies doesn't make it trolling. You are all creating an environment where no one is free to do or say anything unless the collective proscribes it. Sounds like freedom to me!

You're extrapolating bigly and wrongly. You got one exclusion for something you (the alleged dick) did that was considered untrustworthy by a DT1 member. There are still other exclusions likely for other reasons because most of them happened before the "dick move" episode. I doubt any of your excluders care about your "cooperation" since they already consider your judgement to be flawed. But you haven't lost any of the forum "freedoms" either. You can still say the things you want, you can even bring up scam accusations should you need DT action on them. Being so desperate to get into DT just makes you look even less suitable for it.

You're right on one thing. Being critical isn't trolling. That's not why I consider you a deranged troll (or QS, or CH, or Thule).

The freedom I am referring to is being able to be critical of the default trust priest class without the punitive punishment of exclusion as punishment for doing so. No one is free to speak or be critical of the Default Trust Stazi here any more, your continual slander of me for doing nothing more than speaking critically is just further evidence of it. All of those retards are just convenient tools for you to dismiss legitimate criticisms and pretend it is all the same. The primary difference between myself and them is you don't have the convenient option of just labeling me as a scammer so you have to try to lump me in with "trolls".

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Exclusions have nothing to do with me considering people a scammer, that's what the feedback system is for. I do not consider you a scammer but the fact that you publically post PMs makes me think that you are not trustworthy. Simple as that.

I don't think TECSHARE is a thief at all.  In fact, if he wasn't such a cocksucker and didn't think the same of me, I would have no problem doing a bitcoin deal with him in which I sent bitcoin first.  I don't think he'd run away with my money.

The reasons he's excluded from my trust list are that he's shown poor judgement in his feedback-leaving history, which is the whole reason why he got booted off DT a few years ago, and that he's way too emotional (to the point of being unstable) when I've had disagreements with him.  I had to block his PMs because be wanted to continue an argument in a thread that I didn't wish to continue, and he kept sending aggressive-toned PMs to me.  And look at the neutral feedback he left me, and tell me it isn't aggressive:

Just because you can't argue your points without personally attacking me is not my fault. You tell yourself whatever you like and block my messages. It doesn't change the fact that you are just a child throwing a fit because I hurt your frail little feelings by pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Of course if you simply just debated the subject none of this would be an issue now would it?

P.S. if I was threatening you, you would know it.

That was in 2016, and here he is, still arguing with people the exact same way.  Meanwhile, I think I've mellowed a lot since then (occasional outbursts aside).  In any case, this is probably why a lot of other DT members have excluded TECSHARE from their trust lists.

[suchmoon]

The freedom I am referring to is being able to be critical of the default trust priest class without the punitive punishment of exclusion as punishment for doing so. No one is free to speak or be critical of the Default Trust Stazi here any more, your continual slander of me for doing nothing more than speaking critically is just further evidence of it. All of those retards are just convenient tools for you to dismiss legitimate criticisms and pretend it is all the same. The primary difference between myself and them is you don't have the convenient option of just labeling me as a scammer so you have to try to lump me in with "trolls".

That is simply not true. I don't need to label you in any way or even justify my exclusion of you. It's just that you don't like being excluded and you're trying to come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories to make it seem like the reason is not your own behavior.

If anything, being constructively critical of the trust system would be a good reason for me to include someone, and I've done so on a couple of occasions. I would consider including you if you weren't such an unstable hypocritical knucklehead.

[Theb]

~snip~

Is that so? Maybe some one should tell that to the 13 cult members excluding me because they don't like my criticism of their pals. I am sure the long list of people on the list no one has ever heard of are far more trustworthy. My crimes are too numerous to count after all.

Have you at least considered the possibility that all exclusions in their trust list are all from individual encounters and from different reasons? Like from what @TheNewAnon135246 is telling us he has a different reason why you have been removed from his trust list he didn't plan with anybody else to exclude you he has his own reason why he did it and not one of it is to gang up on you.

[mightyDTs]

Post-CH and The-Idiot-Below-All, new account used to harass other users

https://i.imgur.com/eFExlrv.png
LOL TheUltraElite, really!

I have no control over what Lauda does, but obviously Lauda doesn't trust you and has given you a neg accordingly.

But she is in your trust list and you trust her judgment.
http://archive.is/N1PSw#selection-539.0-541.1
 
I wish I could disclose my real account. See this is the exact reason very few people have balls to speak up from the real account. And I told you before that you stands in between. I completely understand the reason.

(even though I get the "gang" label)

Not yet but it's clear that you are trying it hard.
You are better than this mate. You are proving that Lauda is your master and you gonna listen whatever she says. Have your own identity.

I believe from the heart that the accusation Quickseller bought against you is possibly wrong but an acknowledgement from you can make everything very clear. The community trusts you but you are acting so naive that you do not give a damn to anyone else (community) except the words from Lauda.

[TECSHARE]

Exclusions have nothing to do with me considering people a scammer, that's what the feedback system is for. I do not consider you a scammer but the fact that you publically post PMs makes me think that you are not trustworthy. Simple as that.

I don't think TECSHARE is a thief at all.  In fact, if he wasn't such a cocksucker and didn't think the same of me, I would have no problem doing a bitcoin deal with him in which I sent bitcoin first.  I don't think he'd run away with my money.

The reasons he's excluded from my trust list are that he's shown poor judgement in his feedback-leaving history, which is the whole reason why he got booted off DT a few years ago, and that he's way too emotional (to the point of being unstable) when I've had disagreements with him.  I had to block his PMs because be wanted to continue an argument in a thread that I didn't wish to continue, and he kept sending aggressive-toned PMs to me.  And look at the neutral feedback he left me, and tell me it isn't aggressive:

Just because you can't argue your points without personally attacking me is not my fault. You tell yourself whatever you like and block my messages. It doesn't change the fact that you are just a child throwing a fit because I hurt your frail little feelings by pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Of course if you simply just debated the subject none of this would be an issue now would it?

P.S. if I was threatening you, you would know it.

That was in 2016, and here he is, still arguing with people the exact same way.  Meanwhile, I think I've mellowed a lot since then (occasional outbursts aside).  In any case, this is probably why a lot of other DT members have excluded TECSHARE from their trust lists.

Oh I left you a neutral! HOW ABUSIVE! Please stop pretending this is about my judgment and not just your personal panties in a bunch over your inability to have a debate about a subject concerning the entire forum, and you being butt hurt I left you a neutral rating over it. I don't think you are a cocksucker, and even if I did frankly you probably suck the least cock of all the cocksuckers I consider cocksuckers. IMO your behavior has improved and you are starting to see the big picture here, but you are still a little confused as to who the real enemies are. Currently I think you have good intentions but are simply misguided. You are right, that was in 2016, and you still have your panties in a bunch over it? Who is unstable here?

The freedom I am referring to is being able to be critical of the default trust priest class without the punitive punishment of exclusion as punishment for doing so. No one is free to speak or be critical of the Default Trust Stazi here any more, your continual slander of me for doing nothing more than speaking critically is just further evidence of it. All of those retards are just convenient tools for you to dismiss legitimate criticisms and pretend it is all the same. The primary difference between myself and them is you don't have the convenient option of just labeling me as a scammer so you have to try to lump me in with "trolls".

That is simply not true. I don't need to label you in any way or even justify my exclusion of you. It's just that you don't like being excluded and you're trying to come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories to make it seem like the reason is not your own behavior.

If anything, being constructively critical of the trust system would be a good reason for me to include someone, and I've done so on a couple of occasions. I would consider including you if you weren't such an unstable hypocritical knucklehead.

You throw lots of labels at me, funny no one ever is able to point at any specific circumstances where I went too far. If they do it always seems to be a standard that they are willing to apply to me but not their special pals. It is always some nebulous label, they wave their hands, say abracadabra and call it justified.

~snip~

Is that so? Maybe some one should tell that to the 13 cult members excluding me because they don't like my criticism of their pals. I am sure the long list of people on the list no one has ever heard of are far more trustworthy. My crimes are too numerous to count after all.

Have you at least considered the possibility that all exclusions in their trust list are all from individual encounters and from different reasons? Like from what @TheNewAnon135246 is telling us he has a different reason why you have been removed from his trust list he didn't plan with anybody else to exclude you he has his own reason why he did it and not one of it is to gang up on you.

Have you ever considered that these people are simply taking signals from The Default Trust Stazi Squad, consciously or otherwise, and are influenced to do things like this over minor issues because they have collectively crafted a false narrative? They do it all the time. Watch any time one of the chosen gets into trouble, the whole team rolls in to defend them from criticism attempting to burn anyone down that points the issue out at any cost.

[Flying Hellfish]

The Default Trust Stazi Squad,

PFFFT more like the Clinton Pedo Ring cover up Squad!  

You are a special kind of stupid!

[Vod]

Be careful what you send in PM, everyone.  If you ignore people, they feel justified in posting your PMs.  Well, a certain asshole, anyway.  :/

[TECSHARE]

Be careful what you send in PM, everyone.  If you ignore people, they feel justified in posting your PMs.  Well, a certain asshole, anyway.  :/

Don't you have calls to make to government bureaucracies to try to get your opponents wrapped up in legal trouble as revenge or something? I didn't post his PM because he ignored me. I posted his PM because he acted friendly after I offered to help him, a day later he removes, blocks, and excludes me without explanation (for calling you out BTW), and then insinuates he had to do it because I was harassing him. Truly my crimes know no limits. Next time I will just report him to the IRS instead and everything will be cool