[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content

[TECSHARE]

The title of the thread is "[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content" but it is about fraud. Mmmkay.

Repeat the straw man argument again, check. A couple more times and you can declare yourself a winner in this debate, congratulations.

Is it? Is it really though? One could argue the title of a thread tends to denote the subject at hand, and the subject at hand in the title has nothing to do with fraud. Run along now and formulate another failing sophist semantic attack strategy and pop your head in again as usual when you think up something that sounds convincing.

I know better than waste my time trying to make sense of your ramblings. I'm reasonably certain though that I didn't say anything about fraud nor is fraud the only reason to exclude someone so knock yourself out arguing that non-existent claim.

That is a rather convenient excuse to not substantiate any of your claims. No one said fraud was the only reason to exclude people, you did however claim this case was not about his words but rather about fraud, so that is a directly relevant response to your argument.

[1714999964]

1714999964

[suchmoon]

you did however claim this case was not about his words but rather about fraud

Ok, I know it's probably pointless, but let's try a picture just in case you're verbally challenged:


Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

Let me guess your next argument: the question mark makes it the other guy's fault?

[TECSHARE]

you did however claim this case was not about his words but rather about fraud

Ok, I know it's probably pointless, but let's try a picture just in case you're verbally challenged:

https://i.snipboard.io/50xUIJ.jpg][img width=500 alt=Loading...]https://i.snipboard.io/50xUIJ.jpg

Let me guess your next argument: the question mark makes it the other guy's fault?

You caught me. I used the word fraud. So what is that supposed to prove now? Is that supposed to prove you didn't claim this thread was not about his words and opinions but about his "scammy" behavior? Scammy, that is another word for fraudulent is it not?

This whole thread is focused around his words and claims it is a call to violence, homophobia, etc, but you are really claiming he was excluded because he is a legitimate threat of fraud?

Am I? Sounds suspiciously like one of those things that you make up when you get caught lying.

The whole thread is focused on what is the topic of the thread. That doesn't mean BitcoinSupremo's scammy sockpuppeting history suddenly ceased to exist.

BTW, you never did quote what you claim I was lying about or make any references. My entire premise was that he was excluded because you little Maoists in training want to punish people for having ideas you don't approve of, and this whole thread is filled with nothing but discussion of his politically incorrect thought crimes. Your little semantic context flipping diversion is irrelevant.

[suchmoon]

BTW, you never did quote what you claim I was lying about or make any references. My entire premise was that he was excluded because you little Maoists in training want to punish people for having ideas you don't approve of, and this whole thread is filled with nothing but discussion of his politically incorrect thought crimes. Your little semantic context flipping diversion is irrelevant.

No, it's more likely that you included BitcoinSupremo because you liked his rants against Lauda or whoever, and didn't even bother to check his trust feedback or any other accomplishments. Tends to happen a lot with you. It's no big deal really, anyone should feel free to do whatever they want with their trust list.

[TECSHARE]

BTW, you never did quote what you claim I was lying about or make any references. My entire premise was that he was excluded because you little Maoists in training want to punish people for having ideas you don't approve of, and this whole thread is filled with nothing but discussion of his politically incorrect thought crimes. Your little semantic context flipping diversion is irrelevant.

No, it's more likely that you included BitcoinSupremo because you liked his rants against Lauda or whoever, and didn't even bother to check his trust feedback or any other accomplishments. Tends to happen a lot with you. It's no big deal really, anyone should feel free to do whatever they want with their trust list.

Glad I have you here to explain to me why I do things, very helpful thank you.

Still defending Lauda huh? Why? Still got that brown mark on your nose? Of course he didn't get my support for standing up to abuse, and based on the simple fact you were collectively targeting him, no no, its because he ranted against Lauda. Got it. Solid logic.

[suchmoon]

Glad I have you here to explain to me why I do things, very helpful thank you.

Still defending Lauda huh? Why? Still got that brown mark on your nose? Of course he didn't get my support for standing up to abuse, and based on the simple fact you were collectively targeting him, no no, its because he ranted against Lauda. Got it. Solid logic.

Occam's razor. It's not the first time this kind of scenario is playing out with you. Third one since the overhaul of the trust system IIRC. Getting harder each time to believe in those coincidences.

[TECSHARE]

Glad I have you here to explain to me why I do things, very helpful thank you.

Still defending Lauda huh? Why? Still got that brown mark on your nose? Of course he didn't get my support for standing up to abuse, and based on the simple fact you were collectively targeting him, no no, its because he ranted against Lauda. Got it. Solid logic.

Occam's razor. It's not the first time this kind of scenario is playing out with you. Third one since the overhaul of the trust system IIRC. Getting harder each time to believe in those coincidences.

Not really sure what you are even implying here, but it sounds quite ominous and illicit I am sure. I have been targeted for daring to speak up against abusive people here pretty much continually for something like 7 years. There is no coincidence, it is just a long collection of miscreants struggling to take potshots at me using any angle they can pry into, no matter how flimsy the basis.

I would like to point out as well, no one bothered contacting me directly with their concerns, I just happened to stumble upon this thread. One would think if the target really was BitcoinSupremo that some one would try messaging me with their concerns, but nope, not one message. Just another aptly timed 3 ring circus complete with clowns and a sad magician.

[marlboroza]

Sorry Techy, I have no idea what you are talking about ? Why do you think, when I opened thread, that I knew it was you who added BitcoinSupremo to your trust network ?

I would like to point out as well, no one bothered contacting me directly with their concerns, I just happened to stumble upon this thread. One would think if the target really was BitcoinSupremo that some one would try messaging me with their concerns, but nope, not one message.

Why would anyone contact you for anything? Look what you have answered me last time I contacted you in very polite way to add some crucial information to thread:

I have sent PM to TECSHARE to unlock thread so I can add something:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103785.msg49486640#msg49486640

If you have something to add PM me to unlock the thread.

Can you unlock the thread, I have something to add regarding this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103785.msg52085045#msg52085045

Thanks.

When he reopens thread I will post some important data about this matter.

I will not be unlocking the thread.

Anyway, I am glad that you came here to give your point of view about topic and poll.
To spice it little with P&S, completely off topic:

Punishing people for their speech, no matter how abhorrent you find it, is ALWAYS the tool of totalitarians. I am a free speech absolutist. This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public. I don't have to agree with his ideas to object to him being punished for having a mind of his own. This is a problem that is not just on this forum but growing across the internet. It will result in everyone losing their freedoms, and I object to it on principle.

History has shown that this kind of "free speech" and "opinions" leads to people getting beaten, killed and on larger scale it leads to wars. Not to mention speech of hate is forbidden in certain countries and you could get fine or jail penalty because of it (guess why...).
Free speech is one thing but speech of hate is completely different thing, maybe it is time for English lesson?

[TECSHARE]

Sorry Techy, I have no idea what you are talking about ? Why do you think, when I opened thread, that I knew it was you who added BitcoinSupremo to your trust network ?

I would like to point out as well, no one bothered contacting me directly with their concerns, I just happened to stumble upon this thread. One would think if the target really was BitcoinSupremo that some one would try messaging me with their concerns, but nope, not one message.

Why would anyone contact you for anything? Look what you have answered me last time I contacted you in very polite way to add some crucial information to thread:

I have sent PM to TECSHARE to unlock thread so I can add something:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103785.msg49486640#msg49486640

If you have something to add PM me to unlock the thread.

Can you unlock the thread, I have something to add regarding this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103785.msg52085045#msg52085045

Thanks.

When he reopens thread I will post some important data about this matter.

I will not be unlocking the thread.

Anyway, I am glad that you came here to give your point of view about topic and poll.
To spice it little with P&S, completely off topic:

Punishing people for their speech, no matter how abhorrent you find it, is ALWAYS the tool of totalitarians. I am a free speech absolutist. This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public. I don't have to agree with his ideas to object to him being punished for having a mind of his own. This is a problem that is not just on this forum but growing across the internet. It will result in everyone losing their freedoms, and I object to it on principle.

History has shown that this kind of "free speech" and "opinions" leads to people getting beaten, killed and on larger scale it leads to wars. Not to mention speech of hate is forbidden in certain countries and you could get fine or jail penalty because of it (guess why...).
Free speech is one thing but speech of hate is completely different thing, maybe it is time for English lesson?

The feigning of ignorance is quite convincing. Yeah, you have been totally polite in your obvious coordinated clown car attack. I live in the USA where we still have free speech, and according to the law hate speech doesn't exist, so maybe a lesson in law?

[marlboroza]

Yeah, you have been totally polite in your obvious coordinated clown car attack.

Repeat it as many times as you like, it won't become true, you know 

I live in the USA where we still have free speech, and according to the law hate speech doesn't exist, so maybe a lesson in law?

I don't live in USA and according to law in my country hate speech does exist. So tell me, why have you included BitcoinSupremo to your trust list?

[TECSHARE]

Yeah, you have been totally polite in your obvious coordinated clown car attack.

Repeat it as many times as you like, it won't become true, you know 

I live in the USA where we still have free speech, and according to the law hate speech doesn't exist, so maybe a lesson in law?

I don't live in USA and according to law in my country hate speech does exist. So tell me, why have you included BitcoinSupremo to your trust list?

I don't have to, it is observably true and blatantly obvious. You don't live in the USA? Sucks to be you. Too bad the forum is based here, and the forum still protects free speech. I suggest you try Facefuck or Twatter if you want your frail sensibilities protected from evil words. I already explained why he is included, as you are well aware.

[marlboroza]

You don't live in the USA? Sucks to be you.

Does it apply to everyone who does not live in USA or just me?

I suggest you try Facefuck or Twatter if you want your frail sensibilities protected from evil words.

Your conclusions are, as usual, wrong.

already explained why he is included, as you are well aware.

So you included liar, self voucher, someone who has solid connection to scammer via bitcoin address because he said something?

Can you quote correct post?

[TECSHARE]

You don't live in the USA? Sucks to be you.

Does it apply to everyone who does not live in USA or just me?

I suggest you try Facefuck or Twatter if you want your frail sensibilities protected from evil words.

Your conclusions are, as usual, wrong.

already explained why he is included, as you are well aware.

So you included liar, self voucher, someone who has solid connection to scammer via bitcoin address because he said something?

Can you quote correct post?

Sucks for anyone not free to speak. Am I wrong? Seems to me like Theymos has made it pretty clear he intends to protect free speech.

Your suspicions do not constitute guilt. Provide me evidence and we can discuss it. Your condemnations are worth less than the goose shit on my shoe.

Of course this isn't really about them, this is about using them as a vector to defame me.

[marlboroza]

You don't live in the USA? Sucks to be you.

Does it apply to everyone who does not live in USA or just me?

Sucks for anyone not free to speak.

Everyone who hate someone should come to USA to spread that hate and to say they would beat the hell out of them for free?

Provide me evidence

That is publicly available information.

[nutildah]

I already explained why he is included, as you are well aware.

I have the user in question on my trust list for one single reason.

Punishing people for their speech, no matter how abhorrent you find it, is ALWAYS the tool of totalitarians. I am a free speech absolutist. This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public. I don't have to agree with his ideas to object to him being punished for having a mind of his own. This is a problem that is not just on this forum but growing across the internet. It will result in everyone losing their freedoms, and I object to it on principle.

You didn't actually say why you included him. So please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying you included him because you thought he was being unfairly "excluded." Pray tell, what exactly was he being excluded from? He only had 1 Trusted by and 1 Distrusted by before you trusted him and Hhampuz distrusted him. He wasn't on DT before Hhampuz distrusted him.



So he wasn't being "excluded" from anything or by anyone except Hhampuz (and the pre-existing non-DT Timelord2067), and there's no way you could have known that Hhampuz had excluded him as you both updated your trusts lists with him in the same week.

Interestingly, it did happen to be the same week he left you this nice positive feedback:



Regardless of any of the above, perceptions that someone has been mistreated should not be the sole criteria for adding someone to a trust list.

[TECSHARE]

You don't live in the USA? Sucks to be you.

Does it apply to everyone who does not live in USA or just me?

Sucks for anyone not free to speak.

Everyone who hate someone should come to USA to spread that hate and to say they would beat the hell out of them for free?

Provide me evidence

That is publicly available information.

Anyone who comes to the USA is allowed to say whatever the fuck they want as long as it is within the law. If that is what they want to say I don't care. Words are not violence, violence is violence.

If the information is so public and easily available, why don't you share it with the class?

I have the user in question on my trust list for one single reason.

Punishing people for their speech, no matter how abhorrent you find it, is ALWAYS the tool of totalitarians. I am a free speech absolutist. This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public. I don't have to agree with his ideas to object to him being punished for having a mind of his own. This is a problem that is not just on this forum but growing across the internet. It will result in everyone losing their freedoms, and I object to it on principle.

This is just a sad excuse for a collection of former despots taking revenge. None of these people here making all kinds of accusations of racism, homophobia, etc give a fuck about any of these things, they are here because they think they can use it to "get me". Its pathetic and transparent.

I dunno, that looks like a pretty clear answer to me. I am very sorry if you aren't satisfied with it grand peanut hunter.

He was excluded, as in inclusions and exclusions from trust lists. Enjoy your alternate definitions of words to try to squeeze a drop of whatever you can out of this pathetic display.

Glad I have you here to dictate to me who, why, and how I should be using my trust list. I don't know how I would keep count of the peanuts in my turds without you.

[nutildah]

Well I guess that settles that then.

You really stuck it to Timelord pretty hard by including BitcoinSupremo after he had excluded him. Showed him who's boss.

I still don't think that's a decent way to guide your trust list setup, but that's wholly your decision, and you are of course free to do as you see fit.

Carry on.

[TECSHARE]

Well I guess that settles that then.

You really stuck it to Timelord pretty hard by including BitcoinSupremo after he had excluded him. Showed him who's boss.

I still don't think that's a decent way to guide your trust list setup, but that's wholly your decision, and you are of course free to do as you see fit.

Carry on.

Until next time cupcake. I know you will be back as soon as you see me eating another Snickers bar.

[suchmoon]

Interestingly, it did happen to be the same week he left you this nice positive feedback:

That's totally one of them coincidences, I'm like 1% sure of that.

[TECSHARE]

Interestingly, it did happen to be the same week he left you this nice positive feedback:

That's totally one of them coincidences, I'm like 1% sure of that.

Well, if true, that certainly would be a mountain, and not a mole hill.