[POLL] The Official Dirty Turds Poll - Which DT needs flushing first ???????????

[The-One-Above-All]

Haha,

I think you missed this part

When I compared your writing of "suspected as same person":


It means that it is is far more likely than not that it was written by the same person.

So:

Is Cryptohunter an account that you or "we" ever had or have the password for ? Yes / No

Failing to answer the question shows you are morally corrupt and intent to deceive.

rekt.

Seems to me like he's trying to facilitate the scam of wasting our time.

Can someone help nutildah to the part where this was addressed and clearly demonstrated to be meaningless. I mean when someone intends to be seen clearly as cryptohunter and clearly says they intend to use his style then it would only come a surprise to you that that is what we do. Besides he probably means 0.29 or pasted the wrong emails. The entire thing is funny. I could claim I posted your recent posts and ones before the account sale and only got a 0.00 match hahaha, that bozo probably posted something of cryptohunters we quoted in one of our posts..lol next 1.0 match and calls that proof...haha who knows what he will pull on you guys next. Don't fall for it so easily nutildah, he is out to get you next I think haha. Wait until he starts making his excuses for you , then you will feel tmans pain..hahah... He likely has set that irony thread up just for you guys after realizing it is perfect to slap the ironic undeniable scammers come scamhunters on.

Besides even if true ( which it is not) wasting the time of a dangerous undeniable scammers or self confessed willing scam facilitator for pay WHOM tries to cover their tracks when caught, can certainly be viewed as helping the honest members of the community by distracting your evil attention in our direction. I would say that could certainly be considered net positive.

What if you had free time to give out trading tips ANTI MIDAS... imagine the damage to honest investors you could do??  NEM STAKE HOLDER To begging for 0.02 btc loans and having to move to a turd world shit hole to survive on his scampaign sig spamming  WHICH HE WAS NEVER INTERESTED IN... well that's what the original sales pitch claimed...haha

http://web.archive.org/web/20190704162438/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1622642.0

Come on xtraevl nuttildah is getting impatient, he wants his turn in the xtraelv meat grinder .............let's just get TMAN confirmed by you ( i mean it is undeniable anyway) but in your own words that Tman was scamming in his that auction we have been discussing. Then on to our  EVIL friend here nutildah.

I mean imagine being here years and years, and still having to beg for 0.02btc loans nutildah.... that really is sad (for you anyway). Imagine is you really were a NEM stake holder hahaha you must be crying being given 6 MILLION dollars or nearly 300 BTC and now begging for 0.02btc loans in public...the shame is too much. I can't even talk about it , I almost imagined that happening to me and I felt ...... well like you would when you wake up next to tmans wife in the morning having dreamed you pulled, well something female anyway,..... anyway you know exactly what I am talking about in both cases..hahahah

[1714956034]

1714956034

[1714956034]

1714956034

[1714956034]

1714956034

[1714956034]

1714956034

[1714956034]

1714956034

[xtraelv]

Haha,

I think you missed this part

When I compared your writing of "suspected as same person":


It means that it is is far more likely than not that it was written by the same person.

So:

Is Cryptohunter an account that you or "we" ever had or have the password for ? Yes / No

Failing to answer the question shows you are morally corrupt and intent to deceive.

rekt.

Seems to me like he's trying to facilitate the scam of wasting our time.

Can you confirm ( by asking your mother to confirm) that you are intending to be called xtraelv?  is your name trev? by any chance? or lex? hang on alex?? hmmm I thought this self debunking tactic was familiar..

Good try. Not even warm. Is this a pathetic attempt to DOX cause you got rekt ?

xtraelv is a gamer moniker - I think some of my rankings are still available.

[The-One-Above-All]

Haha,

I think you missed this part

When I compared your writing of "suspected as same person":


It means that it is is far more likely than not that it was written by the same person.

So:

Is Cryptohunter an account that you or "we" ever had or have the password for ? Yes / No

Failing to answer the question shows you are morally corrupt and intent to deceive.

rekt.

Seems to me like he's trying to facilitate the scam of wasting our time.

Can you confirm ( by asking your mother to confirm) that you are intending to be called xtraelv?  is your name trev? by any chance? or lex? hang on alex?? hmmm I thought this self debunking tactic was familiar..

Good try. Not even warm. Is this a pathetic attempt to DOX cause you got rekt ?

xtraelv is a gamer moniker - I think some of my rankings are still available.

Yep, asking if someone jumbled their username letters and clearly demonstrating they don't know what your name is a failed attempt to doxxx them haha
Then xldiv says: when you have forced me to clearly demonstrate that I xtraelv :

1. am undeniably a supporter of undeniable scammers
2. I reward undeniable scammers
3. I will present hilarious excuses to protect my undeniable scamming pals and place at high financial risk the rest of the forum
4. I am therefore undeniably financially high risk myself.
5. I will seek to derial, divert and side track to off topic garbage to attempt to discredit observable instance that can not be discredited
6. I will make ludicrous statements regarding other members that are perhaps among the observably most net positive in terms of fighting scams, giving tips that made more millionaires, and fighting for transparent rules/standards that ensure the fair treatment of all members, who have zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their entire history.

7.will claim that my speculations on non financially high risk issues are facts but then claim others undeniable observable instances demonstrating undeniable scamming are ......well I will just make excuses and in public refuse to answer yes or no. Looking extremely shady in light of the scammers themselves do not even deny it.

8. Will claim that identifying something you have already said you clearly intend to do is clear evidence you really did intend to do it.

then this means you are REKT.


This may seem by the scammers themselves as if you are trying to assist us in punishing them via dragging them and causing us to examine their undeniable scamming actions over and over. The hilarious excuses and crazy accusations are an attempt to demonstrate the scamming is impossible to defend and even attempting to do so is humiliating to the excuse provider and insulting to the reader.

We suspected the same. However it may be that we need to examine dsylexia and see how that could throw some light on the matter.

We decided to try and understand you and though thought process a little more.

https://www.understood.org/en/learning-thinking-differences/child-learning-disabilities/dyslexia/skills-that-can-be-affected-by-dyslexia

Dyslexia doesn’t only affect reading. It can make a lot of things hard for kids and adults. Here are some of the other skills and behaviors dyslexia can affect—some of which may surprise you.

Understand and follow directions

Repeat something in the right order

Remember words, phrases, names, and directions

Find the right word to say

Pronounce words the right way

Tell the difference between words that sound similar

Learn and use new words

Spell and use grammar the right way

Rhyme

Stay on topic

Understand jokes, puns, and sarcasm

Speak or read out loud with confidence

“Sound out” and pronounce words while reading

Get and stay interested in stories and books

Understand what’s read

Understand word problems in math

Write letters, numbers, and symbols in the right order

Express ideas in an organized way

Listen and take notes

Interpret body language and other social cues

Make and keep friends

Express feelings appropriately

Tell left from right

Build self-esteem

I mean these ( the red ones) certainly could be having a serious effect on your ability to hold a sensible and credible debate.

This is not something that we should really be capitalizing on even if it is punishing the scammers you are seeking  to defend and reward or perhaps you are not intending on doing that at all( i mean you may  not be deliberately high risk you may just be very befuddled and being used unfairly as a useful idiot by both sides)

You need to think it all over again, and perhaps even ask someone else to go through it all with you to make sure you are presenting yourself as you really wish to be seen.

No need to rush. We are not going to abandon you at this stage, don't worry.

You need to seriously consider this is all being documented and will remain here in history perhaps for quite a while.  

It is never too late to repent and do the right thing.  If you quit defending scammers at this point I see no further need for us to be working against each other. I do see you have put some work into finding other REAL scammers. I do not say you are entirely rotten like some members here. HOWEVER you can not support UNDENIABLE SCAMMERS.  Please do not reply and DO NOT RUSH into keeping this going unless you really believe that defending undeniable scammers is the correct thing to do.

We are ready to be civil and fair (well we have always been fair) with you BUT you need to be sensible and accept that this is auction scamming and that anyone else would have red and not be on DT, especially when you couple this will ALL the other evidence of supporting other undeniable scammers and trust abuse.

Get on the correct side of this because this is all public and on record. You can not present any credible case to explain his deliberate deception for clear and direct financial gain in any other terms other than scamming. That is exactly what scamming is.

Let's just agree it observably meets the universally accepted definition of scamming and is clear scamming for financial gain. Even alone this is NOT the acceptable behavior of a default trust member.

[xtraelv]

We suspected the same. However it may be that we need to examine dsylexia and see how that could throw some light on the matter.

https://i.imgur.com/eEaujom.png


Perhaps a good one for the irony thread.

[The-One-Above-All]

We suspected the same. However it may be that we need to examine dsylexia and see how that could throw some light on the matter.

https://i.imgur.com/eEaujom.png


Perhaps a good one for the irony thread.

Shit ..REKT yet again... this is too easy for you guys to prove undeniable instances of scamming are simply to be ignored or even perhaps rewarded if they are your pals?

I think if you also included all of the other 20 spelling/grammatical errors in that post and most other huge posts we make, and coupled with the fact we copied and pasted the correct spelling right underneath it would add to the super irony of it all. Or you could refer to the explanation given already here on this thread that we thrash them out and don't correct the highlighted errors because it would be very time consuming and besides the effort reward ratio would be very low.]

There really was no need to take a little pic, we were not going to do a nutildah on it ffs. lol

Anyway, just to get back on to slightly more important issues. Are you going to investigate the initial post and the observable instances of undeniable scamming and do as you would with any other member, give red trust and exclude them from DT?

Let's be sensible, you know these observable behaviors step WAY OVER the threshold of what most people would consider financially high risk and scamming.

Let's forget the bitchy hair pulling and tit for tat comments. Let's just be sensible and agree that deliberate deception for direct financial gain is scamming , requires red trust and exclusion from DT.

Would you not agree that deliberately defending undeniable scamming even where the scammer does not deny his scamming could certainly be seen as financially high risk behavior? 

Get on the right side of this, why put all this effort hunting minor scammers who will likely just pop up again when you can be clearly observed here to be defending scammers in positions of TRUST (due in part to your enabling them) that can leverage that to do a lot more damage.

Be sensible and start acting like a person that members can trust to be doing all they can to stop financially high risk people endangering the rest of the honest members here.

[xtraelv]

Let's be sensible, you know these observable behaviors step WAY OVER the threshold of what most people would consider financially high risk and scamming.

Let's forget the bitchy hair pulling and tit for tat comments. Let's just be sensible and agree that deliberate deception for direct financial gain is scamming , requires red trust and exclusion from DT.

Would you not agree that deliberately defending undeniable scamming even where the scammer does not deny his scamming could certainly be seen as financially high risk behavior?  

Get on the right side of this, why put all this effort hunting minor scammers who will likely just pop up again when you can be clearly observed here to be defending scammers in positions of TRUST (due in part to your enabling them) that can leverage that to do a lot more damage.

Be sensible and start acting like a person that members can trust to be doing all they can to stop financially high risk people endangering the rest of the honest members here.

Lets be sensible here and observe that you have been lecturing and trolling to no effect on here.

Each DT has their own criteria.  People did not ask to be on DT.  I will not tag everyone that you demand I should tag. End of story.

<snip>

My friends from school can't believe i'm an internet celebrity at such a young age..

when do i get my own coin?

As far as celebrity = global retard, yes, you are.

<snip>

Perhaps let those soft baby hairs on your face grow a little bit longer before telling the adults what to do.

Better still go and play some minecraft. Drop the angry young man attitude and contribute positively to the forum rather than long vile abuse laden threads.

https://raisingchildren.net.au/pre-teens/development/understanding-your-pre-teen/brain-development-teens

[The-One-Above-All]

Let's be sensible, you know these observable behaviors step WAY OVER the threshold of what most people would consider financially high risk and scamming.

Let's forget the bitchy hair pulling and tit for tat comments. Let's just be sensible and agree that deliberate deception for direct financial gain is scamming , requires red trust and exclusion from DT.

Would you not agree that deliberately defending undeniable scamming even where the scammer does not deny his scamming could certainly be seen as financially high risk behavior?  

Get on the right side of this, why put all this effort hunting minor scammers who will likely just pop up again when you can be clearly observed here to be defending scammers in positions of TRUST (due in part to your enabling them) that can leverage that to do a lot more damage.

Be sensible and start acting like a person that members can trust to be doing all they can to stop financially high risk people endangering the rest of the honest members here.

Lets be sensible here and observe that you have been lecturing and trolling to no effect on here.

Each DT has their own criteria.  People did not ask to be on DT.  I will not tag everyone that you demand I should tag. End of story.

<snip>

My friends from school can't believe i'm an internet celebrity at such a young age..

when do i get my own coin?

As far as celebrity = global retard, yes, you are.

<snip>

Perhaps let those soft baby hairs on your face grow a little bit longer before telling the adults what to do.

Better still go and play some minecraft. Drop the angry young man attitude and contribute positively to the forum rather than long vile abuse laden threads.

https://raisingchildren.net.au/pre-teens/development/understanding-your-pre-teen/brain-development-teens

Which part of

You are deliberately defending and attempting to excuse an UNDENIABLE scammer (which you will not even deny because it is impossible), You are supporting and EVEN CLAIMING he is one of the most trust worthy members on this forum.

Which part of that do you not understand is

Undeniably financially high risk behavior??

Even more amusing you are QUOTING THE WORDS OF ANOTHER SCAM SUPPORTER who was crying because A REAL SCAM HUNTER forced their dev to acknowledge their scamming and offer the entire board a share of a  2 000 000 000 USD compensation offer.

Haha so supporting scammers and scammer supporters is becoming a bit of a theme for you I see?

Thanks for not running away and rather launching into MORE ad hominem speculation of the age of a member you on top of the speculation that you believe we are the same member.

Thanks for undeniably confirming in the post that you are a scammer supporter and excuser. Given the observable evidence you have willingly provided there is no way to refute/deny this.

Keep dredging back to 2014 in the history of REAL LEGENDS with REAL ACHIEVEMENTS and you may find what suchmoon and all the other goons has missed. That evidence of some financial wrong doing ( that does not exist)

Imagine if you dug into the past histories of those scammers you are supporting....spend your time more wisely fool.

When people succeed at things in their teen years that others can not achieve in their lives ..... they are not going to look up to them especially when those demanding respect are undeniable scammer supporters .

You have no credible or reasonable explanation to rewarding and excusing undeniable scammers. If these " own standards" you have allow that then you should have red trust and not be on DT.  Undeniable.

[JaredKaragen]

I can't believe TOAA is still trying to maintain some sort of defense.....   All I have to do is read your replies to his... not even his (which are blocked) and it paints a CLEAR picture.


TOAA:  GFY.

[The-One-Above-All]

I can't believe TOAA is still trying to maintain some sort of defense.....   All I have to do is read your replies to his... not even his (which are blocked) and it paints a CLEAR picture.


TOAA:  GFY.

More words with zero substance behind them. Mr ar15 tough guy haha

I think it's more of a sustained and continuous attack on undeniable scammers and their supporters. One of which is your very low functioning self.  

The only thing clear here is that you are too much of a pussy to come and debate with us, so have to pretend we are on ignore.

Come. why don't you take your turn at  being humiliated in public whilst trying to debate with us the observable instances listed in the initial post?  Perhaps you will provide more entertainment by explaining how deliberate deception for direct financial gain is not scamming and should not be punished but rather rewarded with default trust positions?

Oh wait you won't. You can see (just from reading the replies) the most silly excuses have been presented and ripped to pieces.

Come here jared and let's get down to specifics. You scammer supporting dreg.

Ready to entertain us further Jesterkaragon?? yes or no.??

[TMAN]

Just popped in to say I heard the word observable in a movie just now and it triggers me so hard. Even though TAS is on ignore I’d wager the fuckwitt wanker has used the word observable at least once in the trolling shitpost above.

Also.. 2nd in the poll... come on fucko you can spin up more alts than that surely

[TheNewAnon135246]

Observable instances

@TMAN, I'm going to spare you the rest of his incoherent nonsense but you were right.

[The-One-Above-All]

Observable instances

@TMAN, I'm going to spare you the rest of his incoherent nonsense but you were right.

Lot of fortune jack alts and pals all joined around the same time didn't they.

Things that may seem incoherent to idiots and non achieving scammer supporters or worse like yourselves are perfectly comprehensible to those that are way smarter. Just so you know. Although even that concept may be out of your league.

What a filthy gambling sig spamming scammer supporting fucking loser we have here.  Can you imagine being so low and worthless on the scammer league table you are a public tman ass feltcher and scammer defender... hahaha

[actmyname]

I am going to cut out all the ad-hominem attacks so you can see the substance of the post.

@TMAN [...] you were right.

Observable instances

Just so you know.

hahaha

Even if others use ad-hominem against you, it detracts from your post substantially when you decide to enter the same path of argumentative logic.

[The-One-Above-All]

I am going to cut out all the ad-hominem attacks so you can see the substance of the post.

@TMAN [...] you were right.

Observable instances

Just so you know.

hahaha

Even if others use ad-hominem against you, it detracts from your post substantially when you decide to enter the same path of argumentative logic.

Well, taking the full context of this thread, I think that there is far greater value to that post to the discerning reader. That may have not read ALL pages thus far. Many of what you may consider ad hominem attacks are not meeting the definition of ad hominem at all in our opinion in the context of this thread. (of course you could present an arguement we would openly consider and evaluate)

When one has clearly and undeniably been demonstrated to support scammers then calling them out as scammer supporters in a thread focusing on scammers and scammer supporters that are infesting DT then there is certainly value. The reader can always ask for clarification and validation.

However, ignoring that for the time being.

Are you seriously going to continue to selectively apply your counsel in our direction whilst saying nothing at all to the myriad of others that engage in far more clear cut adhominem attacks (that are also going to fall apart under even mild scrutiny not highly credible statements such as our own) that occur instantly on our threads that seek to derail and destroy any real chance of a debate on the central and core points being raised?

I would only ask that you appear early on in our threads and give the same counsel to ANY member that starts with ad hominem attacks or going off topic and relevant at all.

If you refuse to do so then we ask respectfully that you refrain from selectively injecting your criticism in our specific direction.

In the notes we have it says to treat you with respect and it goes on to say that your posts should be carefully appraised before tackling your central points fairly and clearly with no form of undo aggression and certainly no ad hominem attacks regardless of whom or what you are giving support to at that current moment.

I mean if you are to objectively remove all valueless content and that of negative value then meta would likely be a very sparse place.

I think you will find that if you are really taking ad hominem then we are far less guilty than most ( that do not receive your counsel)

A discerning reader will almost always cut away ad hominem anyway , however unless they are privy to the truth and history in all cases it is impossible to cut away trolling and scammer supporting.

[actmyname]

Are you seriously going to continue to selectively apply your counsel

On a technical basis, I am being selective. If I had both the free time and the desire to go through all posts and extract only the non-ad-hominem fragments of the replies, then I would do so. The latter is the bigger factor in this.

[other ad-hominem attacks] that occur instantly on our threads that seek to derail and destroy any real chance of a debate on the central and core points being raised?

Refer to my post's comment about "two wrongs don't make a right".

I would only ask that you appear early on in our threads and give the same counsel to ANY member that starts with ad hominem attacks or going off topic and relevant at all. If you refuse to do so then we ask respectfully that you refrain from selectively injecting your criticism in our specific direction.

Selective truths are still truths. Whether I nitpicked the ad-hominem attacks of JUST you or everyone else doesn't take away from the fact that the post was an egregious display of ad-hominem argumentation.

I mean if you are to objectively remove all valueless content and that of negative value then meta would likely be a very sparse place.

True of all boards.

I think you will find that if you are really taking ad hominem then we are far less guilty than most ( that do not receive your counsel)

"Not as bad as" fallacy.

A discerning reader will almost always cut away ad hominem anyway

True. Doesn't mean it's warranted regardless.Any questions?

[The-One-Above-All]

Are you seriously going to continue to selectively apply your counsel

On a technical basis, I am being selective. If I had both the free time and the desire to go through all posts and extract only the non-ad-hominem fragments of the replies, then I would do so. The latter is the bigger factor in this.

[other ad-hominem attacks] that occur instantly on our threads that seek to derail and destroy any real chance of a debate on the central and core points being raised?

Refer to my post's comment about "two wrongs don't make a right".

I would only ask that you appear early on in our threads and give the same counsel to ANY member that starts with ad hominem attacks or going off topic and relevant at all. If you refuse to do so then we ask respectfully that you refrain from selectively injecting your criticism in our specific direction.

Selective truths are still truths. Whether I nitpicked the ad-hominem attacks of JUST you or everyone else doesn't take away from the fact that the post was an egregious display of ad-hominem argumentation.

I mean if you are to objectively remove all valueless content and that of negative value then meta would likely be a very sparse place.

True of all boards.

I think you will find that if you are really taking ad hominem then we are far less guilty than most ( that do not receive your counsel)

"Not as bad as" fallacy.

A discerning reader will almost always cut away ad hominem anyway

True. Doesn't mean it's warranted regardless.Any questions?

Well, we are not expecting you to go through all of the posts on the forum, but perhaps a sensible analysis of just the posts on the thread that you are choosing to comment on would be optimal.  It seems unlikely that a time constraint would consistently lead to your sole selection of our posts only that need to be criticized especially where there are higher frequency and higher density of other users on those thread using ONLY ad hominem attacks that are not even mixed among/based upon valid and irrefutable points.  It is not impossible that a time constraint could result in such selective or randomly allocated criticism ending on our doorstep alone, but each time that it does pass over everyone else and does land on our door step alone it becomes increasingly improbable that could be the sole explanation.

Also I don't believe that our comment meets the threshold for not as bad fallacy in this instance. As I explained that particular post and many of the terms and statements made are not strictly ad hominem when you take the full context of the thread including the points raised in the initial post and other subsequent revelations. Therefore there are certainly posts contained within this thread and the other thread that your point would have been clearly more relevant and clearly stronger in terms of no opposition could have been forthcoming that would stand up to scrutiny. That is keeping in mind that our understanding is that ad hominem are personal attacks (even if factually based) that have no direct influence on the central points being made or that the central points being made are certainly not dependent on those personal attacks/statements of fact. I'm not even sure that one can say that calling a skunk a skunk is an attack anyway, no more than calling an undeniable scammer and undeniable scammer, especially when discussing skunks being present in places they have no business being and scammers being in places they have no business being.

That's not to say your points are disputed in full, but only that your points seems to lack the accuracy and indisputable relevance and strength they may have had if directed as any of other numerous members on this thread relying on PURE and undeniable clear ad hominem. Therefore the impact can be seen to be reduced or even nulled in full.

So that is what we meant by not as bad, perhaps not as applicable, not as relevant, not as clear cut, not as indefensible  etc.

We appreciate ad hominem is ad hominem, we simply dispute that post is clear cut as adhominem in the full context. Certainly you would have less problem presenting your point as clearly and undeniably valid with many other posts here by other members. Or even just for a change to mix things up a bit with a view to being neutral and all of that kind of thing.

I have no idea why you do not just join with the debate. I suspect it is because you have enough sense to realize they are trying to defend pretty much indefensible positions that they have put themselves in due to the observable instances in their post histories. Or again it could be a time constraint or lack of interest. Those are certainly possibilities.

As we say we have no direct issue with you actmyname, and are always willing to be cordial and fair. We ask the same.

[actmyname]

Well, we are not expecting you to go through all of the posts on the forum, but perhaps a sensible analysis of just the posts on the thread that you are choosing to comment on would be optimal.  It seems unlikely that a time constraint would consistently lead to your sole selection of our posts only that need to be criticized especially where there are higher frequency and higher density of other users on those thread using ONLY ad hominem attacks that are not even mixed among/based upon valid and irrefutable points.  It is not impossible that a time constraint could result in such selective or randomly allocated criticism ending on our doorstep alone, but each time that it does pass over everyone else and does land on our door step alone it becomes increasingly improbable that could be the sole explanation.

This paragraph was constructed due to a miscommunication.

If I had both the free time and the desire to go through all posts and extract only the non-ad-hominem fragments of the replies, then I would do so. The latter is the bigger factor in this.

Also I don't believe that our comment meets the threshold for not as bad fallacy in this instance.

Unless you want to twist meaningless semantics, there are no partial fallacies. The idea of a threshold should be no different than "is" or "isn't" - a binary state.

statements are not strictly ad hominem when you take the full context of the thread

Depending on how you define 'ad hominem' you could falsify this point by attacking a premise. Nevertheless, I shall state: you should not see a non-quoted statement that is a character attack, to then subsequently change your opinion and decide that it is in fact not a character attack, once you uncover preceding events.

How would context make the following remarks not ad-hominem?

• chode
• mutated tourettes
• filthy dirty skanky scammers
• degenerate asskissing servile scummy scam supporters
• disgusting shit stain ass kissing scammer supporters
• scum bags
• observably low functioning plebs
• Turd world desperate scum bags
• Morons
• idiots
• filthy gambling sig spamming scammer supporting fucking loser
• public tman ass feltcher
• shit pumpers
• turd word scanks
• dregs
• Tourettes poet
• terrified little scamming bitch
• imbecile and useful idiot
• all that you splurge out here as if it is moronic spew
• lauda ass feltchers
• dirty little scumbag club
• Shut up scum bag
• dirt bags
• the rest of their useful idiots could still make it out
• smarmacist a sneaky snake like fool
• Get on with it scabby little exit scamming exchange pusher
• you and your scamming pals
• Got to love the defense here by these scumbags
• agent foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• foxpooping
• foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• foxpoop
• foxpoop
• foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• foxpoop
• foxpoop
• foxpoop
• Foxpoop
• foxpooping
• agent foxpoop
• foxpooping
• agent foxpoop
• foxpooper
• foxpoop
• FOXPOOP
• foxpoop
• foxpoops
• agent foxpoop
• direwolf supports tmans tourettes syndrome [...] Direposting assfeltching burger flipping dreg that he is.

And then once you answer that...

Refer to my post's comment about "two wrongs don't make a right".

I'm not even sure that one can say that calling a skunk a skunk is an attack anyway, no more than calling an undeniable scammer and undeniable scammer

Refer to the above for examples of non-scammer insults and attacks.

especially when discussing skunks being present in places they have no business being and scammers being in places they have no business being.

s^nide

only that your points seems to lack the accuracy and indisputable relevance and strength [...] [t]herefore the impact can be seen to be reduced or even nulled in full.

A single point, an individual conclusion... it is either true or false.

So that is what we meant by not as bad, perhaps not as applicable, not as relevant, not as clear cut, not as indefensible  etc.

These are justifications, are they not? If they were not justifications, it would be not as bad. An objective statement as opposed to a subjective statement. This is simply downplaying severity, which is on a binary scale.

We appreciate ad hominem is ad hominem, we simply dispute that post is clear cut as adhominem in the full context.

Addressed above.

Certainly you would have less problem presenting your point as clearly and undeniably valid with many other posts here by other members.

That is true but this has already been addressed in the first post.

Or even just for a change to mix things up a bit with a view to being neutral and all of that kind of thing.

Neutrality does not necessarily mean addressing both sides equally.

I have no idea why you do not just join with the debate.

I have better things to do.

Or again it could be a time constraint or lack of interest. Those are certainly possibilities.

Yes.

As we say we have no direct issue with you actmyname, and are always willing to be cordial and fair. We ask the same.

I have always been fair. Blunt and fair.

[suchmoon]

• chode
• mutated tourettes

I don't know what this is and I can't be bothered to read the walls of text to find out but it looks like a list of cryptohunter's best friends so I'm deeply offended that "fat slob" is not in the list. Did I eat all those cookies for nothing? Will sue for discrimination and damage of my fragile ego.

[The-One-Above-All]

saving this spot to reply directly to actmyname... we are scooting out for a bit this evening but don't wish reams of scammer supporter drivel injected between our two posts.

We immediately notice a couple of small points...

chode is not our word or one we were familiar with, we copied that from nutildahs fun poll about CH on his account sales thread. I think that context need be examined again by actmyname. That I recall was clearly a shout out to his poll and a clear reference to his use of it ...

The goal posts seem to have been moved from us claiming the single post in question (to which we referring)  was not clearly ad hominem to apparently claiming we have indulged in a little cathartic ad hominem retaliation here and there in the past.

There seems to be a multiple query next to the same foxpoop terms. Is there need for more than one example? Not that we mind of course but it was just an unexpected elongation of a list that could have been filled with more variation perhaps.

When debating with actmyname then clear examples and analogies can be useful since it is not always clear to us what point he is making. It does become clear when examples are used.

However, these kind of interactions are always interesting and we like to work with others to arrive at the optimal solution or outcome.

This part is also confusing...

"Refer to the above for examples of non-scammer insults and attacks."

since then the explanation is given, would it not be best to remove those that are  scammer/scammer supporting  related from that list in this instance?  Once those are removed and the foxpoopers are consolidated, then the list will be significantly shorter ... and none if any at all would remain that are directly relevant to our defense of the post singled out for an actmyname selective counselling of the use of ad hominem.
Although we would be willing to present context where those others would by our " current" opinion not be ad hominem attacks.

These kinds of debates are useful even if not strictly on topic so better to go with those and enjoy them rather than constantly debunking the excuses and deliberate attempts at derailing and diverting of the same old scammer supporters over and over.

Later we can get back to the analysis of the observable instances in the initial post and as to whether people such as those should be in positions of TRUST.

I mean the thread has been so derailed and diverted and corrupted by  (as actymyname clearly seems to acknowledge) undeniable and indefensible accounts of sustained ad hominem attacks of other members we can take a break from that now to debate on something a little more sensible,more cordial/measured and reasonable way.

We ask actmyname looks over his post and then decide if any edits are required. If they decide not, then fair enough we shall seek to answer as is.


Although two wrongs do not make a right as you say actmyname, i think it is sensible to counsel as frequently and fairly as you possibly can both sides. I mean fair is subjective but I think it would be universally accepted that to counsel/chastise  one child constantly when both ( in your opinion) are doing wrong would indicate some form of bias even if not a conscious act.































 

[DireWolfM14]

I don't know what this is and I can't be bothered to read the walls of text to find out but it looks like a list of cryptohunter's best friends so I'm deeply offended that "fat slob" is not in the list. Did I eat all those cookies for nothing? Will sue for discrimination and damage of my fragile ego.

I made the list and you didn't?  There's something inherently wrong with that.

Actmyname did a remarkable job scouring for foxpoop, but he also missed moronbozo (my personal favorite,) so don't take it personally.  It is monumental task he so brazenly volunteered to undertake.