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

[TECSHARE]

Since marlboroza is unable to have an open discussion and allow me to reply after trying then failing miserably to drag me through the mud, and has to resort to locking his topic to try to make a point because he knows I will demolish it, I decided to open this topic up to continue any discussion that needs to be had, including my reply.

Not everyone's fault, just a small car full of clowns. Maybe I was wrong about you understanding this ongoing dynamic. It's ok, you will learn.

No, I don't think I can ever understand how you can keep someone in your trust list not because you trust their judgement but just to spite some "clowns".

I can't wait to see who else is going to show up in your trust list by the time you get back into DT1. One of Quicksy's alts would be my recommendation. That would make for a memorable showdown with the clown car.

If you don't like my answers, just make up your own and attribute them to me. The dynamic is the more you lash out at me, the more you give me credibility and lose your own, so I guess I should thank you and all the other clowns for giving me this opportunity to prove my merits and character so publicly and having the grace to disassemble your own reputations so I don't have to do it.

I didn't add him out of "spite", I added him because he was targeted, and he is staying there because it is being used to target me, there is a difference. It's too bad, you seem just a mite smarter than these other clowns, but your need to belong to the clown car seems to override your better judgement.

Did you "knew that it was TECHSHARE who included BitcoinSupremo to trust list or you know that I knew that it was TECHARE who included BitcoinSupremo" before you started this poll OP or not? No?

Former is publicly available information, I have no clue about later. How can I possible know what you know?
@TECSHARE, whatever you say, you have been pointed several times already who you have in your trust list, including BitcoinSupremo:

To be perfectly frank, if some one had simply politely notified me of this issue, I probably would have just removed him.

This is just not true. You have been notified 3 months ago. You are very aware of this and you did literally nothing, look: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149597.msg51388548#msg51388548


Anyway, truth to be told, I started this poll because I wanted to know forum member's opinion, it somehow become discussion about T. It actually wasn't my intention, I was hopping to have poll without members knowing who posted something, who included who etc. Just can't have these things around here without "investigations", eh?

Well, clown car driver instructed me to lock thread so locking this. @TECSHARE if you have anything to add, send PM to our clown car headquarters and they will coordinate me to unlock it.

You know because this subject was already discussed, and you have access to everyone's trust lists. The way you rolled out this attack is evidence enough that it had nothing to do with him, but was designed to "get me", necessitating that you already knew. It is not like you haven't been trying and failing to do similar things for months, no one is buying what you are selling.

You didn't just politely notify me, you pitched a tent and assembled a 3 ring circus. I am not going to reward and incentivize these actions by complying with your manipulation in the form of coordinated attacks.

Thanks for that link BTW, I was looking for that. That is why you locked the thread right hoping I wouldn't notice or post it isn't it?

~

Are you not able to read post which is in this thread?
I'll just drop this and now this http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-25_Sat_07.01h/754727.html  
Seems TESCHARE support violent persons and wants them in DT.

@TESCHARE, I figured it is best for me to put you on ignore for some time, so this is what I will do. Thank you for your replies on subject...

Sure does look like you knew I had BitcoinSupremo on my list months ago, but here you are swearing up and down to the entire community you didn't know. I especially love it when I can bury people with their own posted sources, so thanks for that. How can anyone trust anything you say when you blatantly and provably lie to all of us to sell your attack narratives?

[1715035642]

1715035642

[1715035642]

1715035642

[1715035642]

1715035642

[1715035642]

1715035642

[1715035642]

1715035642

[1715035642]

1715035642

[suchmoon]

If you don't like my answers, just make up your own and attribute them to me. The dynamic is the more you lash out at me, the more you give me credibility and lose your own, so I guess I should thank you and all the other clowns for giving me this opportunity to prove my merits and character so publicly and having the grace to dissasemble their own reputations so I don't have to do it.

I didn't add him out of "spite", I added him because he was targeted, and he is staying there because it is being used to target me, there is a difference. It's too bad, you seem just a mite smarter than these other clowns, but your need to belong to the clown car seems to override your better judgement.

I can't think of any possible reason "to belong to the clown car" or to any other of your imaginary conspiracy groups for that matter but I'm sure you'll enlighten me on what that reason could be.

You literally said that you (1) would have removed BitcoinSupremo if you had been notified, which turned out to be a lie (you had been notified months ago and you didn't remove him); and (2) you're not removing him now and others (the "clowns") are to blame for that. Whatever narcissistic spin you're trying to put on it, the bottom line is that you're not only misusing the trust system, you can't even man up and own it instead of resorting to playground excuses.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52426883#msg52426883

To be perfectly frank, if some one had simply politely notified me of this issue, I probably would have just removed him. Unfortunately his words were always just a mechanism to target people for their ideas, be it about life in general or the forum. As a result, you are all essentially assuring I CAN'T remove him from my inclusions, because to do so would be to provide validation to and incentivize these coordinated kinds of reputational attacks. So, good job on making the forum a better place to be Piddles, Bozo, and Shakes.

[TECSHARE]

If you don't like my answers, just make up your own and attribute them to me. The dynamic is the more you lash out at me, the more you give me credibility and lose your own, so I guess I should thank you and all the other clowns for giving me this opportunity to prove my merits and character so publicly and having the grace to dissasemble their own reputations so I don't have to do it.

I didn't add him out of "spite", I added him because he was targeted, and he is staying there because it is being used to target me, there is a difference. It's too bad, you seem just a mite smarter than these other clowns, but your need to belong to the clown car seems to override your better judgement.

I can't think of any possible reason "to belong to the clown car" or to any other of your imaginary conspiracy groups for that matter but I'm sure you'll enlighten me on what that reason could be.

You literally said that you (1) would have removed BitcoinSupremo if you had been notified, which turned out to be a lie (you had been notified months ago and you didn't remove him); and (2) you're not removing him now and others (the "clowns") are to blame for that. Whatever narcissistic spin you're trying to put on it, the bottom line is that you're not only misusing the trust system, you can't even man up and own it instead of resorting to playground excuses.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52426883#msg52426883

To be perfectly frank, if some one had simply politely notified me of this issue, I probably would have just removed him. Unfortunately his words were always just a mechanism to target people for their ideas, be it about life in general or the forum. As a result, you are all essentially assuring I CAN'T remove him from my inclusions, because to do so would be to provide validation to and incentivize these coordinated kinds of reputational attacks. So, good job on making the forum a better place to be Piddles, Bozo, and Shakes.

It is human nature to want to be part of the in crowd. Imaginary? You know for a while just dismissing these accusations as conspiracy theory worked, but you and your face painted friends have jumped the shark. I don't have to convince anyone now of these coordinated attacks, you have all done an exceptionally good job doing that for me, so thank you.

Once again, I wasn't just notified, a tent was pitched, and a 3 ring circus was assembled. That is exactly what I will NEVER respond to positively, because I refuse to incentivize this attack mob type mentality by complying with its demands.

[suchmoon]

It is human nature to want to be part of the in crowd. Imaginary? You know for a while just dismissing these accusations as conspiracy theory worked, but you and your face painted friends have jumped the shark. I don't have to convince anyone now of these coordinated attacks, you have all done an exceptionally good job doing that for me, so thank you.

So your theory is that if multiple users criticize your behavior then it must be coordinated? Is it possible that perhaps your behavior is not faultless?

Once again, I wasn't just notified, a tent was pitched, and a 3 ring circus was assembled. That is exactly what I will NEVER respond to positively, because I refuse to incentivize this attack mob type mentality by complying with its demands.

This is just amazeballs. You're so bravely destroying your own reputation just to resist something that you made up.

[The-One-Above-All]

It is human nature to want to be part of the in crowd. Imaginary? You know for a while just dismissing these accusations as conspiracy theory worked, but you and your face painted friends have jumped the shark. I don't have to convince anyone now of these coordinated attacks, you have all done an exceptionally good job doing that for me, so thank you.

So your theory is that if multiple users criticize your behavior then it must be coordinated? Is it possible that perhaps your behavior is not faultless?

Once again, I wasn't just notified, a tent was pitched, and a 3 ring circus was assembled. That is exactly what I will NEVER respond to positively, because I refuse to incentivize this attack mob type mentality by complying with its demands.

This is just amazeballs. You're so bravely destroying your own reputation just to resist something that you made up.

If ONLY THE SAME USERS keep criticizing someone for behaviors that warrant less negative attention than their own, and they appear to be worried personally about the out come of his behavior since it will take away their absolute domination of DT.  Then you can be pretty much sure that is collusion and gaming of the system by them.

Once again. We ask you to bring your includes and the other DT members ganging up on him,  and match your includes with his includes and we can all compare the implications of your trust list "behaviors"

Each person on your includes can be individually scrutinized in public and you can all say YES or NO to whether their prior behaviors are suitable for DT.

WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF AND WHY DO YOU REFUSE??

Now we notice suchmoon is saying.. perhaps it does not even matter is scoundrels or even proven scammers are on DT. LOL

Yep a trust system full of scammers does not matter at all. Brilliant idea. Sets a great example to the board and I am sure people speaking out against these prior behaviors will surely not mind a nice new scam tag for their efforts. Even scammers are going to say fuck off, if you can scam, I can scam. This is unfair and double standards.

Imagine having judges that were also all KNOWN criminals having committed worse crimes than they are handing down sentences for and never having been punished at all, actually they were rewarded instead. hahaha

Doesn't matter, what advantage does it give them says suchmoon. What is the possible problem here?

and then suchmoon said..... of course I can include a proven auction scammer, a proven and willing facilitator of scamming for the correct prices, a project pumping bag holding scammer, probable extortionists, probably shady escrows if I want. .... What's that tecshare?? call the police, someone said they are tougher than homosexuals. Shut the board down. we are all going to be robbed now. Quick my fellow scammers and extortionists, scam facilitators and auction scammers and their supporters... save our hard earned btc from this tough homosexual thrasher. haha

The twilight zone of meta board.

It is shocking how the worst scammers and their supporters even DARE to start this "we want to analyse the behaviors of people that are being included into the trust system". It is beyond strange. Only theymos the warden can sit by and enjoy the twilight zone he has allowed to spring up here over the years.

What is more strange is that the tecshare does not say to them. Okay scum bags I will openly compare the persons on my includes with the persons on your includes. I can't believe that there can be more hard evidence of financially motivated wrong doing in the past behaviors of his includes compared to MANY DT1 members.

What is this passive pussy board. Bunches of weak knee weasels and wimps. Same for the admin. All pretending this black lagoon is not forming right under their very noses.

Man up ffs.

Financially motivated wrongdoing = NOT TRUSTWORTHY = NOT PART OF THE TRUST SYSTEM.

Supporting those that have clear instances of financially motivated wrong doing = NOT TRUSTWORTHY = NOT PART OF THE TRUST SYSTEM.

Undeniable, and allowing this to happen is immoral and wrong.

This trust system reflects poorly on this entire board. I mean if from 100's of 1000s of members we can not even find 30 people that have zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing or even open scamming. That is a disgrace. I do not believe it is true.

[marlboroza]

Since marlboroza is unable to have an open discussion and allow me to reply after trying then failing miserably to drag me through the mud, and has to resort to locking his topic to try to make a point because he knows I will demolish it, I decided to open this topic up to continue any discussion that needs to be had, including my reply.

I literally posted that I will reopen it if you send PM! So, instead of contacting someone, you choose to try to defame me?

Sure does look like you knew I had BitcoinSupremo on my list months ago, but here you are swearing up and down to the entire community you didn't know.

Where did I say that I didn't knew? Quote me correct post or you are lying. As far as I remember, there was question mark at the end of each sentence so it has to be a question - your words, not my.

I didn't add him out of "spite", I added him because he was targeted

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52426923#msg52426923

This is not true. He was tagged because his account has bitcoin connection with scammer egg.chuck, he was tagged because he used alt accounts to self vouch for payed gambling tips ("I bought tip, would recommend") and he was tagged for making blatant lies. As I said few times, everything is publicly available information, together with his other retaliatory nonsensical feedback you ARE ignoring right now.

and he is staying there because it is being used to target me

So you added him because he was "target" even thought it is not true, and he stayed in your trust list because someone pointed that you have him in your trust and you thought this is targeting you?  

Thanks for that link BTW, I was looking for that. That is why you locked the thread right hoping I wouldn't notice or post it isn't it?

Yes, that is exactly why I posted link in public forum. I hoped no one will notice....
Why is this thread in meta?
This is personal attack against me!

NOTE TO MODERATORS: This thread is now clearly directed at me individually, please move it to the appropriate subforum of REPUTATION

Upps...source:tecshare

[suchmoon]

Why is this thread in meta?
This is personal attack against me!

You got it all wrong. Getting your own personal REEEE thread is a badge of honor bestowed upon you by His Techcellency.

Yep, I'm jealous.

[marlboroza]

You got it all wrong. Getting your own personal REEEE thread is a badge of honor bestowed upon you by His Techcellency.

Yep, I'm jealous.

Techbadge?

Anyway, I am particularly interested in this part:

Sure does look like you knew I had BitcoinSupremo on my list months ago, but here you are swearing up and down to the entire community you didn't know.

I am still waiting for correct quotation from locked poll, seems TECSHARE is making things up.

[nutildah]

After reading the final contents of the locked thread I clicked on Meta predicting to see this thread, and here it is. So thanks for that, because I really wanted to respond to this:

FYI, I never had any conflict with Timelord until I spoke out about his abusive flags against some of the Turkish community (after first defending him from the same abuse BTW). I added BitcoinSupremo quite a while ago, not that timelines matter in your shitslinging narrative.

Idiot. As I pointed out well-before this comment of yours, Timelord was the only person who had BitcoinSupremo excluded before you included him.



Thus, who on earth could you possibly be referencing other than Timelord when you said you said this?

Quote from: TECSHARE on September 10, 2019, 07:09:09 AM

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

Quote from: TECSHARE on September 09, 2019, 09:02:19 AM

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.

Like that's ever a great reason to add somebody to your trust list to begin with... 

You keep getting mixed up in your lies.

[TECSHARE]

Quote from: redsn0w on September 08, 2019, 03:52:40 AM
Who wrote this?

Lets just keep it this way for now.

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 ?

So you made assumption that I knew that it was TECHSHARE who included BitcoinSupremo to trust list or you know that I knew that it was TECHARE who included BitcoinSupremo to his trust list?

Did you "knew that it was TECHSHARE who included BitcoinSupremo to trust list or you know that I knew that it was TECHARE who included BitcoinSupremo" before you started this poll OP or not? No?

Former is publicly available information, I have no clue about later. How can I possible know what you know?
@TECSHARE, whatever you say, you have been pointed several times already who you have in your trust list, including BitcoinSupremo:
...
Anyway, truth to be told, I started this poll because I wanted to know forum member's opinion, it somehow become discussion about T. It actually wasn't my intention, I was hopping to have poll without members knowing who posted something, who included who etc. Just can't have these things around here without "investigations", eh?...

You knew I had him on my trust list. The fact that you knew months ago is publicly documented. You knew this when you posted the OP, then attempted to give the impression this was not the case several times to distract from the fact this was about targeting me directly rather than about BitcoinSupremo.

You posting it without attribution was just your way of rehashing a subject that we have already been over in such a way as to maximize attention while also not having to take any responsibility for directly accusing me of anything. Then one of your clown proxies steps in shortly after and names me by name, and looky loo you get to deny this was targeted at me while still being the ringmaster of your own personal 3 ring circus.

This is what is known in journalism as "information laundering".  This is the same exact technique DireWolfM14 used to exactly the same effect in this thread. Amazing all these coincidences, you both making a thread "not directed at me" at the same time, using the same deceptive and misleading technique, talking about exactly the same scenario. Of course we can't forget the sad party magician making his thumb disappear too. This is not how organic events by individuals occur. This is how group coordinated planned events occur.

All this is meaningless anyways. The fact is, every one in town can see you brought the whole carnival when a PM would have been any reasonable person's first step. This subject was already raised months ago in a similar 3 ring manner. Just be sure to pick up all the trash from the fairgrounds when all the carnies are done looking for clues in my toilet bowl.

[AB de Royse777]

Excuse my off-topic (if it really is): Isn't it reputation thread?
I do not see anything meta related here.

Yeah, I noticed the original thread.

[nutildah]

Excuse my off-topic (if it really is): Isn't it reputation thread?
I do not see anything meta related here.

Yeah, I noticed the original thread.

Its Meta (the original thread, anyway) because it pertains to what should or shouldn't be acceptable criteria for adding/excluding someone to/from a trust list.

[TECSHARE]

Excuse my off-topic (if it really is): Isn't it reputation thread?
I do not see anything meta related here.

Yeah, I noticed the original thread.

Its Meta (the original thread, anyway) because it pertains to what should or shouldn't be acceptable criteria for adding/excluding someone to/from a trust list.

Yes, of course rules only apply to those you oppose, even though this is literally about the same topic.

[AB de Royse777]

Its Meta (the original thread, anyway) because it pertains to what should or shouldn't be acceptable criteria for adding/excluding someone to/from a trust list.

The original thread was okay in the meta but this one, it's all about TECSHARE so, my understanding is that it's a reputation issue.

Yes, of course rules only apply to those you oppose, even though this is literally about the same topic.

Same topic but more concentration to the reputation of an account.

PS: Please do not get me wrong. I am just trying to fit my understanding that I have learnt from all those years in this forum. I am off by the way.

[suchmoon]

The original thread was okay in the meta but this one, it's all about TECSHARE so, my understanding is that it's a reputation issue.

Careful now. If you apply logic in a TECSHARE-related topic you will be assigned to the clown car and will have to wear makeup and a wig for the rest of your life.

[marlboroza]

Careful now. If you apply logic in a TECSHARE-related topic you will be assigned to the clown car and will have to wear makeup and a wig for the rest of your life.

Forget about logic, jump into clown car wagon, have fun with clowns! I have special red nose designed for new clown car members!
REEEEE:

You knew I had him on my trust list.

Changing subject quoted for record.

Sure does look like you knew I had BitcoinSupremo on my list months ago, but here you are swearing up and down to the entire community you didn't know.

Where did I say that I didn't knew? Quote me correct post or you are lying. As far as I remember, there was question mark at the end of each sentence so it has to be a question - your words, not my.

REEE:

What is this - >  ?

REEE:

I am just making sure you understand the meaning of a question mark considering it was included in your quote of mine. I presented a question, not a statement. Do you propose the fact that I posed this question was mistaken?

REEE:

I asked a question. You made interpretations, now expect me to take responsibility for them. Uh no.

Now, as we resolved this misunderstanding by simply using your own words, I am politely asking you to address this:

Sure does look like you knew I had BitcoinSupremo on my list months ago, but here you are swearing up and down to the entire community you didn't know.

Where did I say that I didn't knew? Quote me correct post or you are lying.

REEE:

You knew I had him on my trust list. The fact that you knew months ago is publicly documented.

Like any other user, he is free to leave negative ratings at will. He has little to no power in this system. If he does start abusing any authority he has let me know and I will handle it one way or another.

So you will just go "lalalalala"?

I have already told you that is publicly available information, so when you say "let me know", I did.

To be perfectly frank, if some one had simply politely notified me of this issue, I probably would have just removed him.

Source: TECSHARE

I'll just drop this and now this http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-25_Sat_07.01h/754727.html 
Seems TESCHARE support violent persons and wants them in DT.

Aw look at you putting on your little bow tie pretending to be all diplomatic all of a sudden. I can read just fine. You on the other hand don't know the definition of the word "ignore". Apparently you don't know the definition of the word "violent" either. As far as the other links, what is your point, that I responded within 10 hours of being on the default trust and removed years old additions to my list that should not have been there? THE SHAME!

REEE over and out.

[TheNewAnon135246]

This is getting confusing. Is the whole clown car thing the new 'Lauda gang'?

[suchmoon]

This is getting confusing. Is the whole clown car thing the new 'Lauda gang'?

NFI but it's small so I'm guessing Lauda's whole gang wouldn't fit:

just a small car full of clowns

[bob123]

So your theory is that if multiple users criticize your behavior then it must be coordinated?

Is this a rhetorical question ?


Remember:

Yeah but he's never ever wrong

[suchmoon]

So your theory is that if multiple users criticize your behavior then it must be coordinated?

Is this a rhetorical question ?

Not really a question, but the question mark is there so that I could later weasel out with some bullshit like this:

I presented a question, not a statement.

Learning from the best.