More trust system abuse by Lauda

[TECSHARE]

The usual mob of perpetrators is at it again, this time taking retribution for daring to defend one of their targeted individuals. The referenced event happened some time ago, but the trust rating was only left now. I wonder why that is! Apparently putting people on my trust list Lauda doesn't approve of makes me dishonest.

This is a blatantly obvious pattern of abuse of anyone who dares to question this targeted abusive behavior. These people belong no where near having any kind of influence in a trust system, because to them it is simply a tool to use to punish people they don't agree with. They couldn't give a fuck less about the community, the community is just a tool they use to jerk off their egos.

Lauda   2019-12-18   Reference   "Dishonest. Wouldn't trust."

[1715091376]

1715091376

[1715091376]

1715091376

[1715091376]

1715091376

[1715091376]

1715091376

[1715091376]

1715091376

[nutildah]

The usual mob of perpetrators is at it again, this time taking retribution for daring to defend one of their targeted individuals.

That's not the reason. It's because you are being dishonest in your defense and unwilling to consider evidence in a rational fashion. You have a renowned habit of doing this. Please ask me to point to specific examples.

The referenced event happened some time ago, but the trust rating was only left now. I wonder why that is! Apparently putting people on my trust list Lauda doesn't approve of makes me dishonest.

Its not that Lauda doesn't approve of those people (is there any proof they disapprove of them?). Its because of the apparent rationale behind why you added them to your trust list. Again, you have a habit of including and excluding people from your trust list for less than honorable reasons. I think its a travesty that you're on DT1 now given your past behavior when it comes to DT-related issues.

This is a blatantly obvious pattern of abuse of anyone who dares to question this targeted abusive behavior.

FWIW I've had Lauda excluded for some time now, so... you were saying? Why haven't I been targeted? There's ways of conducting yourself in a civil and decent manner, but you are always in such a hurry to attack everybody. You can't be surprised when this eventually catches up with you.

[Timelord2067]

Reserved.

Found it:

Lauda creating flags against random people linked to threads not related. [Link]


See also this link (mostly down the bottom of the first post - in the last paragraph after LaudaM/Lauda)

[hacker1001101001]

Again, you have a habit of including and excluding people from your trust list for less than honorable reasons.

Blant BS, look at the mirror ! You do the same.

FWIW I've had Lauda excluded for some time now, so... you were saying? Why haven't I been targeted?

Probably because he has started liking you as your agends suite him somehow. Even he has put your clumsy post of attacking TECSHARE as a reference to his absolutely agendic trust rating.

[Lauda]

You have no proof where the funds went after OG received them, this is a fact. For all you know it could have been a refund, and you have no evidence to demonstrate otherwise, only speculation of where it went. This is not proof, this is speculation. Lauda's rating, according to what was left, has nothing to do with this, but of course based on the timing of the rating, it is obviously retribution for posting here and dismantling their efforts trying to target OGnasty with accusation after accusation based on speculation. This is just more proof these systems are merely tools you and your mob buddies use to punish people with ideas you don't like, and protecting people from fraud is merely an afterthought if it is considered at all. I don't think I will go anywhere. I think I will keep doing what I am doing and continually draw attention to the malignant behavior of you and your pals.

I have no idea who is right or wrong here, neither do I care. Reading up made it evident that you are dishonest, a hypocrite and are intentionally trying to distract away from the users that are actually willing to objectively look into this (and apparently attack those as well). I couldn't reference this thread as it might be misinterpreted as you being involved in the original ponzi-case, which you are not.
This was one of the clearest ratings[1] that I have ever handed out to anyone here. With that, I also will not address whatever you reply/distract to this, or to your attacks against the "accusers" or whatever it is that you're doing.

I don't always agree with Lauda's ratings but in this case I absolutely do.

Thanks. Sometimes I wonder whether some people are doing stuff like this purely to test where the limits are of different individuals here.
[1] Even the write-up is concise, and clean. Totally unlike me!

I'm not even involved in the thread that you're distracting away, nor involved with anyone that is objectively trying to figure out the history of it all, thus any points that you have against me in relation to that case are instantly invalidated. You should actually be thanking me for not flagging you, because there is more than enough grounds for it (given a reasonable thread summarizing it). You're not worth my time to do this, but maybe you are to someone else or they just feel generous.

Probably because he has started liking you as your agends suite him somehow.

I appreciate this, will be quoted in the near-future.

[Vod]

Techy - don't abuse trust and maybe others won't either?   

Hypocrite.

[nutildah]

Again, you have a habit of including and excluding people from your trust list for less than honorable reasons.

Blant BS, look at the mirror ! You do the same.

This thread isn't about me, its about Tecshare and Lauda. Please keep your obsession with me out of it.

FWIW I've had Lauda excluded for some time now, so... you were saying? Why haven't I been targeted?

Probably because he has started liking you as your agends suite him somehow. Even he has put your clumsy post of attacking TECSHARE as a reference to his absolutely agendic trust rating.

Its just one instance of many that demonstrates the less-than-honest behavior of Techshare when it comes to DT-related issues. There's only space for 1 link in the Reference section of a trust rating, after all.

[marlboroza]

I have read this topic while it was in meta and I had some feeling that lauda tagged you for the same reason I removed counter which I placed right after Vod's feedback. Now, I have read lauda's post and yep, I was right.

[Lauda]

I couldn't reference this thread as it might be misinterpreted as you being involved in the original ponzi-case, which you are not.

This thread gave me the opportunity to do this without having to waste my own or anyone's time. I thank OP to that. The rating links my post (in this thread, not the original one) and also links to the previous reference link.

[xolxol]

Reserved.

Found it:

Lauda creating flags against random people linked to threads not related. [Link]


See also this link (mostly down the bottom of the first post - in the last paragraph after LaudaM/Lauda)

We all know he's the reason why this place is a mess,he'll do whatever it takes to get his stupid position here,like Vod being an idiot.Lauda's abuses should be taking care by theymos itself..If people will oppose to these abusers they will just wake up with red tags.

[Vod]

If people will oppose to these abusers they will just wake up with red tags.

That is the reason more people haven't tagged OG.  They'll wake up tagged by OG AND Techy.  :/

[eddie13]

I wouldn't worry about it too much TS..
Personal vendetta tags by lauda are just a badge of honor..

[johhnyUA]

Time passes, but Lauda is still forum Sauron (or Soros  ) in the eyes of some people. Good to see that on forum something remains the same  

I don't understand why OP so worried about one feedback. It doesn't matter is it abuse or not. As i see, you have a lot good feedbacks about your reliability in financial terms. I doubt that one feedback will ruin all past achievements.

[TECSHARE]

I'm not even involved in the thread that you're distracting away, nor involved with anyone that is objectively trying to figure out the history of it all, thus any points that you have against me in relation to that case are instantly invalidated. You should actually be thanking me for not flagging you, because there is more than enough grounds for it (given a reasonable thread summarizing it). You're not worth my time to do this, but maybe you are to someone else or they just feel generous.

Oh you aren't involved? Interesting, I suppose the fact that you left this rating for me today for something that happened months ago as I have become active drawing attention to the lack of evidence to support the accusations against OGNasty is just a coincidence is it? Is that just like the coincidence that your referenced link of accusations against me claiming to know my state of mind and motivations just so happened to be made right after I helped resolve a dispute with the members of the Turkish community and regained my place on the default trust list? It seems odd so many coincidences are being stacked atop of one another and being used to justify each other.

It is almost like a pattern of abusive behavior is being established in the form of baseless accusations, much like in the case of the accusations against OGNasty. I suppose it is just another coincidence that all the same people making accusations there are making accusations against OGNasty, and once again here against myself. You certainly are above abusing the trust system to protect the positions of your pals on the default trust now aren't you? Oh wait, I forgot you were blacklisted from the default trust list, but I am the real abuser right?

Techy - don't abuse trust and maybe others won't either?   

Hypocrite.

You are dead last on the list of people who should be making accusations of trust system abuse. I would ask you to clarify exactly what I did that was abusive but you will just make an accusation and then fail to substantiate it as you always do as you use it as an opportunity to topic slide.

That is the reason more people haven't tagged OG.  They'll wake up tagged by OG AND Techy.  :/

Again, would love to see some substantiation of this claim of retaliatory negative ratings but we both know they don't exist. Your retaliatory ratings however come by the dozen.

I wouldn't worry about it too much TS..
Personal vendetta tags by lauda are just a badge of honor..

Oh I am not at all worried. I am just establishing this pattern of behavior in public so that every time they lose control and lash out like this they take a hit to their own reputations.

The usual mob of perpetrators is at it again, this time taking retribution for daring to defend one of their targeted individuals.

That's not the reason. It's because you are being dishonest in your defense and unwilling to consider evidence in a rational fashion. You have a renowned habit of doing this. Please ask me to point to specific examples.

The referenced event happened some time ago, but the trust rating was only left now. I wonder why that is! Apparently putting people on my trust list Lauda doesn't approve of makes me dishonest.

Its not that Lauda doesn't approve of those people (is there any proof they disapprove of them?). Its because of the apparent rationale behind why you added them to your trust list. Again, you have a habit of including and excluding people from your trust list for less than honorable reasons. I think its a travesty that you're on DT1 now given your past behavior when it comes to DT-related issues.

This is a blatantly obvious pattern of abuse of anyone who dares to question this targeted abusive behavior.

FWIW I've had Lauda excluded for some time now, so... you were saying? Why haven't I been targeted? There's ways of conducting yourself in a civil and decent manner, but you are always in such a hurry to attack everybody. You can't be surprised when this eventually catches up with you.

And you get to decide what an "honest" defense is do you? What could go wrong negative rating people for submitting a defense you don't approve of? That certainly wouldn't create a chilling effect on people trying to defend themselves and others from baseless accusations now would it? After all, you get to decide who is guilty, and who gets to have a defense, and if people oppose your conclusions, well then they are guilty too! Of course the rating left supposedly has nothing to do with the OGNasty accusation thread according to the references, but you like to have your cake and eat it too as you claim it is for a deceptive defense but then on the other hand not retribution for exposing the lack of basis for such an accusation in that thread.

Apparent rationale, according to who, you and your all encompassing psychic skills? As covered above your accusations were little more than yet another act of retribution for defending targets of trust system abuse, and a transparent attempt to make sure I was removed from the default trust. You don't have any basis for these accusations, just lots of speculation, just like all these other accusations I am refuting. I am standing in the way of your ability to impugn the character of people here without basis, and for that I have become an object of obsession with these abusers. You don't want a system that requires proof for accusations, because that makes it much harder for you to simply invent a story that sounds believable but in reality has no basis in fact in order to target those you are perusing vendettas against. All I am doing is demanding proof to back up accusations, if you perceive that as an attack, then you are the one with the problem, not me.

[hacker1001101001]

This thread isn't about me, its about Tecshare and Lauda. Please keep your obsession with me out of it.

The best way to judge peoples honesty and trustworthiness is if they practice what they preach, but you on the other hand just teach others what you don't even bother to do. I am just pointing this to the people who thinks your words are like a ethical person and believe you, even to once who shower some merit sperms on you.

The thread topic isn't about you, but the one of the strong reason it has arised is because of your constantly attacking TECSHARE on multiple occasions, some of your steps here have surely boosted this situation in the OP. Anyways TECSHARE's main reason behind this thread is to make this abusive pattern public, and I am helping him in doing so.

Its just one instance of many that demonstrates the less-than-honest behavior of Techshare when it comes to DT-related issues. There's only space for 1 link in the Reference section of a trust rating, after all.

I could not stop laughing on it loud, was it really less than honest ?

He solved a issue between two users in a very mutual and friendly manner. Asked both of them politely to remove each other's rational ratings. Many people around the forum ( not much globals as the gang can attack them) were convinced and happy with his balanced minded act of handling the situation and this made him get that non random but fruitful and on-the-point inclusions. A person having IQ less than number of his balls can understand the reason behind it was not abusive but situational.

Yes, there is only one reference link but it should be fill with some informative links ( atleast by DT's ) rather than someone's totally vendetta based posts. But here the whole rating is a big game play and abuse in official words.

[TECSHARE]

All I am doing is demanding proof to back up accusations, if you perceive that as an attack, then you are the one with the problem, not me.

That's the problem. People present proof. Then you just say "that isn't proof." There is no way to change your mind about anything once you've already made it up. Its part of what makes you dishonest, untrustworthy, and not cut out for DT.

blah blah blah

Welcome to Ignoreland.

But is wasn't proof of anything as Philipma1957 and Eddie13 so eloquently put it:

attempt to read, organize to understand

I have.. I have been following this topic of conversation from it's origination, since before it was even moved to this particular thread, and many previous semi-related topics.. I believe you will find that this topic originated there in the link (OG stealing from passthrough)..
But you know, I would not claim myself to be a foremost expert on blockchain investigation, so it is possible my understanding is faulty, no matter my personal efforts, though my efforts have been great, including the effort to make this post..

However..
philipma1957 is more trustworthy than me or any other user commenting here, according to me personally, and I also trust him to have among the highest level of blockchain expertise to decipher this evidence.. 
I also don't see anyone here daring to accuse him of anything character or motive related, therefore I find it quite reasonable for me to accept his findings as highly accurate, logical, and neutral..

still it seems that og did not get the other 1400. 

A) no one has come to the plate and said they were not refunded.

B) no one has shown he got 2500 coins paid back.

C) pirate may have  misstated he fully paid Ognasty during statements quoted in the thread.

i looked and looked and look and i dont see this.

i see a partial payment which ognasty  paid in under an hour to investors .

if you can show me more then the three payments you showed which add to under 1200 btc

meaning ognasty was shorted around 1300 btc.

if you find the payments for that 1300,which i cant. you would have something.

What evidence we have here seems to show, with quite great magnitude of certainty IMO, that OG's pirate passthrough was not fully paid out by pirate..
This shows me that their is very little reason to believe that OG lied about being fully "reimbursed", or I would rather say "paid out" by Pirate..

so 144 coins.

did not he repeatedly state he invested coins .

he did. lots of posts show he said he put coins into this pirate club.

so now you need to prove those 144 coins belonged to whomever.

.......

so did he simply keep that as it was what he invested?

1. Their is no proof.. Only a dead end.. But many here seem to believe that proof is not required, contrary to my and philipma1957's opinion, which is what creates this great divide in the community, between those who require proof to come to a solid conclusion, and those who do not..
Our only choice is to either agree to disagree on the necessity of proof, or argue on forever.. I think I am in the "agree to disagree" camp, seeing as this will most likely just be left unsolved..
I don't see how this could be any more respectable on my part than that..

2. These coins being OG's share of the partial reimbursement and him rightfully keeping them is just as logical of a hypothesis as him "stealing" them, and IMO more likely due to OG's most excelent track record of handling great amounts of funds over many many years, if he even kept them at all..

OGNasty's word > pirate's word 100% IMO, and the fact that statements were made to the police or any government agents only makes them less credible, also IMO..

OG stole BCH - fact.   

What basis do you have for this claim? Link please?
The thread I linked at the top of this post clearly proves that he did not steal BHC, unless you are thinking of some other unrelated incident I am yet unaware of.. But I welcome any evidence you may be able to share..

Of course you are the great and powerful Nutulduhhhh and you get to declare anyone who challenges your baseless conclusions as "dishonest" and "less than honorable", and your baseless conclusions as facts, then justify the use of the trust system in retribution for challenging this conclusion.

[nutildah]

Of course you are the great and powerful Nutulduhhhh and you get to declare anyone who challenges your baseless conclusions as "dishonest" and "less than honorable", and your baseless conclusions as facts, then justify the use of the trust system in retribution for challenging this conclusion.

To me, all you are doing is declaring "facts" to be "baseless conclusions". That in itself is dishonest. I don't need your approval to hold an opinion on the matter. Neither does anybody.

[TECSHARE]

Of course you are the great and powerful Nutulduhhhh and you get to declare anyone who challenges your baseless conclusions as "dishonest" and "less than honorable", and your baseless conclusions as facts, then justify the use of the trust system in retribution for challenging this conclusion.

To me, all you are doing is declaring "facts" to be "baseless conclusions". That in itself is dishonest. I don't need your approval to hold an opinion on the matter. Neither does anybody.

You are free to your opinion, but my "opinion" is invalid and is deserving of a negative trust rating is it? Sounds rational to me.

[nutildah]

You are free to your opinion, but my "opinion" is invalid and is deserving of a negative trust rating is it? Sounds rational to me.

You're not being red trusted for holding an opinion. This is what the referenced link says:

Reading up made it evident that you are dishonest, a hypocrite and are intentionally trying to distract away from the users that are actually willing to objectively look into this (and apparently attack those as well).

You were doing quite a bit of attacking in that thread. Maybe if you would have presented your opinion in a more neutral tone, it wouldn't have been seen as an attack designed to distract attention from the main issue, and possibly silence others.

It all really depends on whether the majority of the community agrees more often with you or with Lauda.

You'll really have to make a better case for yourself if you want your rating removed. I would honestly suggest being more humble and open-minded - and less hostile - going into the future.

[TECSHARE]

You are free to your opinion, but my "opinion" is invalid and is deserving of a negative trust rating is it? Sounds rational to me.

You're not being red trusted for holding an opinion. This is what the referenced link says:

Reading up made it evident that you are dishonest, a hypocrite and are intentionally trying to distract away from the users that are actually willing to objectively look into this (and apparently attack those as well).

You were doing quite a bit of attacking in that thread. Maybe if you would have presented your opinion in a more neutral tone, it wouldn't have been seen as an attack designed to distract attention from the main issue, and possibly silence others.

It all really depends on whether the majority of the community agrees more often with you or with Lauda.

You'll really have to make a better case for yourself if you want your rating removed. I would honestly suggest being more humble and open-minded - and less hostile - going into the future.

Right, the fact that it was left now for an event that happened months ago is just a total coincidence is it? By "attacking" you mean pointing out the accusers have no evidence of theft and a history of making baseless accusations against OGNasty? Now my tone needs to be approved by you?

Silencing others? How exactly, by disagreeing with them and receiving unjustified negative ratings? Are you fucking kidding me? If you did any more projecting you would need to get a part time job at a movie theater. I would honestly suggest you go fuck yourself with your feigned moderation.