Ree @hacker1001101001 ICO bump account

[Lauda]

I will be raising a flag type-1 against this user[1] in the near future on similar reasoning that was used for the flag type-1 against Quickseller. If somebody has any objections, please state so.
[1] And on any and all of his alt accounts.

[1714117687]

1714117687

[1714117687]

1714117687

[1714117687]

1714117687

[1714117687]

1714117687

[TECSHARE]

I will be raising a flag type-1 against this user[1] in the near future on similar reasoning that was used for the flag type-1 against Quickseller. If somebody has any objections, please state so.
[1] And on any and all of his alt accounts.

Theymos is a chump for giving you another chance. Your actions are clearly retaliatory in nature and designed to punish dissent.

[hacker1001101001]

I will be raising a flag type-1 against this user[1] in the near future on similar reasoning that was used for the flag type-1 against Quickseller. If somebody has any objections, please state so.
[1] And on any and all of his alt accounts.

Keep using this tools to satisfy your agendas and flexing them. You are nowhere right and you know that.

[Lauda]

I will be raising a flag type-1 against this user[1] in the near future on similar reasoning that was used for the flag type-1 against Quickseller. If somebody has any objections, please state so.
[1] And on any and all of his alt accounts.

Flag on hacker1001101001: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1412.
Flag on poochpocket (alt account): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1413.
If you want to contest the alt claim, I am ready to talk about it.

hacker1001101001", is your alt account / have you ever used the account (in any way or form) under the name: "poochpocket"?

Yes, the account is in control of me. I would also like to mention I have never used it for any scamming purpose hence none, me or the other account deserves a tag or an flag.

Quoted for reference.

[Timelord2067]

I will be raising a flag type-1 against this user[1] in the near future on similar reasoning that was used for the flag type-1 against Quickseller. If somebody has any objections, please state so.
[1] And on any and all of his alt accounts.

Flag on hacker1001101001: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1412.
Flag on poochpocket (alt account): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1413.
If you want to contest the alt claim, I am ready to talk about it.

Fake flags have been identified as such:

If you continue posting lies like that, you are going to create enough references for yourself to be flagged. Those flags are on-point and based on evidence, zero speculation. Some people..

Guy who has created the highest number of fake flags most recent fake flags have been tagged as such:

Flag 1220: Accused User hacker1001101001 is not mentioned in the OP or first page by the accuser - Flag is therefore invalid.
Flag 1412: Accused User hacker1001101001 is not mentioned in the OP or first page by the accuser as having committed an indictable offence. The accuser did not create the thread - Flag is therefore invalid.
Flag 1413: Accused User poochpocket is not mentioned in the OP or first page by the accuser as the accuser did not create the thread - Flag is therefore invalid.

Updated 28/Feb/2020

[Lauda]

Fake flags have been identified as such:

None of your reasoning is correct. I highly advise you to stop your malicious behavior as you continue digging your own hole..

[suchmoon]

If you want to contest the alt claim, I am ready to talk about it.

The evidence should be in the referenced thread.

[Lauda]

If you want to contest the alt claim, I am ready to talk about it.

The evidence should be in the referenced thread.

The evidence can not be posted in this section due to forum rules. The connection is valid, and stands unless he wants to claim otherwise. If he wants to claim this is not true, then we are moving into the Investigations section. It would be so much simpler if people were just honest..
Let's make it simple. Here is a question directed at "hacker1001101001". It is a simple yes and no question. "hacker1001101001", is your alt account / have you ever used the account (in any way or form) under the name: "poochpocket"?
If you avoid it or ignore it, then you will leave me no other choice but to post in the investigations section. OP can then cross reference by linking in the first post.

[hacker1001101001]

Let's make it simple. Here is a question directed at "hacker1001101001". It is a simple yes and no question. "hacker1001101001", is your alt account / have you ever used the account (in any way or form) under the name: "poochpocket"?
If you avoid it or ignore it, then you will leave me no other choice but to post in the investigations section. OP can then cross reference by linking in the first post.

Yes, the account is in control of me. I would also like to mention I have never used it for any scamming purpose hence none, me or the other account deserves a tag or an flag.

[Lauda]

Let's make it simple. Here is a question directed at "hacker1001101001". It is a simple yes and no question. "hacker1001101001", is your alt account / have you ever used the account (in any way or form) under the name: "poochpocket"?
If you avoid it or ignore it, then you will leave me no other choice but to post in the investigations section. OP can then cross reference by linking in the first post.

Yes, the account is in control of me. I would also like to mention I have never used it for any scamming purpose hence none, me or the other account deserves a tag or an flag.

Quoted for reference. I thank you for your honesty and sparing me having to post personal information about you (I despise this practice nowadays and try to avoid at all costs). OP please add to the initial post.

[hacker1001101001]

Let's make it simple. Here is a question directed at "hacker1001101001". It is a simple yes and no question. "hacker1001101001", is your alt account / have you ever used the account (in any way or form) under the name: "poochpocket"?
If you avoid it or ignore it, then you will leave me no other choice but to post in the investigations section. OP can then cross reference by linking in the first post.

Yes, the account is in control of me. I would also like to mention I have never used it for any scamming purpose hence none, me or the other account deserves a tag or an flag.

Quoted for reference. I thank you for your honesty and sparing me having to post personal information about you (I despise this practice nowadays and try to avoid at all costs). OP please add to the initial post.

You have an line of bad deeds here, you would never be sorry about doxxing someone. So yet I was just more inclined to be honest not afraid of you posting personal info.

[nullius]

If you want to contest the alt claim, I am ready to talk about it.

The evidence should be in the referenced thread.

As the very first person (besides Lauda) who supported Flag #1412 and Flag #1413 (after I tagged #304376 “poochpocket” two days ago), I object to the implication that the alt accusation was made without adequate basis—especially from one who has a history of “neutrally” FUDding the hell out of identity on the basis of then-undisclosed evidence that was admittedly weak, and really amounted to no more than a reasonable suspicion.  For my part, I look to substance and not mere labels.

If Lauda says that she has strong objective evidence (as distinct from her uncanny intuition), I know that she is not just blowing smoke.

To be clear, of course, I am speaking only for myself—and so doing, just because I dislike that no good deed goes unpunished.  Whereas Lauda was only being kind and merciful by acting against hacker1001101001’s alt without a dramatic moment of revelation.

The evidence can not be posted in this section due to forum rules. The connection is valid, and stands unless he wants to claim otherwise. If he wants to claim this is not true, then we are moving into the Investigations section. It would be so much simpler if people were just honest..

[—confession—]

Quoted for reference. I thank you for your honesty and sparing me having to post personal information about you (I despise this practice nowadays and try to avoid at all costs). OP please add to the initial post.

Not that mercy was ever rewarded, or kindness ever met gratitude from classless louts...

You have an line of bad deeds here, you would never be sorry about doxxing someone. So yet I was just more inclined to be honest not afraid of you posting personal info.

How terribly rude.  To improve your manners, please try this instead:  “Thank you, Lauda, for being sincerely reluctant to ruin my privacy, instead of seizing a legitimate opportunity to gloat, shut the critics up, and triumphally march my dox through Investigations.  I am humbled by the grace with which you act to protect the community, without petty self-aggrandization at my expense—even when such an action would be rationally justified.  May I learn wisdom from your example.”

HTH, HAND.

[suchmoon]

As the very first person (besides Lauda) who supported Flag #1412 and Flag #1413 (after I tagged #304376 “poochpocket” two days ago), I object to the implication that the alt accusation was made without adequate basis—especially from one who has a history of “neutrally” FUDding the hell out of identity on the basis of then-undisclosed evidence that was admittedly weak, and really amounted to no more than a reasonable suspicion.  For my part, I look to substance and not mere labels.

If Lauda says that she has strong objective evidence (as distinct from her uncanny intuition), I know that she is not just blowing smoke.

That doesn't matter:

Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with poochpocket is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions.

poochpocket was not even mentioned in this thread at the time the flag was raised. There were no "factors mentioned in this topic" relating to poochpocket and there were no "concrete red flags". Threatening someone with doxing is also a questionable move:

2. It is not allowed to post someone's dox if it is especially obvious that you're just using the dox as a weapon.

[hacker1001101001]

How terribly rude.  To improve your manners, please try this instead:  “Thank you, Lauda, for being sincerely reluctant to ruin my privacy, instead of seizing a legitimate opportunity to gloat, shut the critics up, and triumphally march my dox through Investigations.  I am humbled by the grace with which you act to protect the community, without petty self-aggrandization at my expense—even when such an action would be rationally justified.  May I learn wisdom from your example.”

HTH, HAND.

You are full of shit !

I have already shared my personal information with many other users here and have even traded goods multiple times, so I don't care. I thought this forum was safer than this back then but it's not in the real. Anyways, you still licking the pussy after such an shameful act by Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her, make you an totally unethical and an untrustworthy person overall.

[GazetaBitcoin]

Anyways, you still licking the pussy after such an shameful act by Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her, make you an totally unethical and an untrustworthy person overall.

It's advisable to try this approach instead: "The Queen of Cats guides us. The Queen of Cats teaches us. The Queen of Cats protects us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours.".

[hacker1001101001]

Anyways, you still licking the pussy after such an shameful act by Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her, make you an totally unethical and an untrustworthy person overall.

It's advisable to try this approach instead: "The Queen of Cats guides us. The Queen of Cats teaches us. The Queen of Cats protects us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours.".

Yes, one can't lick it better than your adviced approach.

[Lauda]

Threatening someone with doxing is also a questionable move:

2. It is not allowed to post someone's dox if it is especially obvious that you're just using the dox as a weapon.

Nobody was threatened with anything here. If I was the one being accused of something like this, my doxx would be dumped within 1 nano seconds in the investigation section and nobody would blink. I chose not to go with this route even when it is people who are defaming me whenever they can. I was considering accepting exclusions just to avoid using the DOX and still keep the flag up to protect people from deception, but thanks I guess I am evil. Sigh.

Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her

It does not work like that. You can apologize a million times to me, it does not matter. I do not need nor want your apologies. You can not expect forgiveness when you are involved in absolute bullshit like TECSHARE's Guild of Stupidity, send me apologies - yet seize every single opportunity to disagree with me (even when the disagreeing side has an opinion that is worse than the anti-vax club), seize every opportunity to to sneak in something bad about me or about people who share my views or support my flags. This is not remorse, this is not being sorry, this is worse - active deception under pretenses of being remorseful.
I am willing to forgive every single person given enough time (but not forget): This assumes that one shows true remorse via non-acts of evil and acts of good (what this means I leave up to the individual to interpret) or deceive me so well enough that I mistake high-level deception as true remorse.
Update 2: Now that I realize it, I am not even asking you to do anything hacker1001101001. All I am asking you is to stop doing things you already are (see tiny list in previous paragraph). However, do not come back in 1 month and say look I have not done anything for 30 days please remove ratings.

[suchmoon]

Nobody was threatened with anything here. If I was the one being accused of something like this, my doxx would be dumped within 1 nano seconds in the investigation section and nobody would blink. I chose not to go with this route even when it is people who are defaming me whenever they can. I was considering accepting exclusions just to avoid using the DOX and still keep the flag up to protect people from deception, but thanks I guess I am evil. Sigh.

Accepting exclusions? What does that mean?

Doxing over something this trivial is unnecessary. You being (potentially) doxed doesn't make it right either.

[Lauda]

Nobody was threatened with anything here. If I was the one being accused of something like this, my doxx would be dumped within 1 nano seconds in the investigation section and nobody would blink. I chose not to go with this route even when it is people who are defaming me whenever they can. I was considering accepting exclusions just to avoid using the DOX and still keep the flag up to protect people from deception, but thanks I guess I am evil. Sigh.

Accepting exclusions? What does that mean?

Getting excluded over a flag in refusal to DOXX somebody while keeping the flag to protect the public. I stated it because I do not want to do it not to this guy, not to TECSHARE, CH or whoever next is mounting stupid attacks against me.

Doxing over something this trivial is unnecessary.

If the DOX is the evidence, then it is different (this is the case). When it is DOXing as an attack or retaliatory, then that is a whole different matter.

You being (potentially) doxed doesn't make it right either.

Once I see uniform reactions I will believe them. Somebody should run covert experiments around here. Where a puppet master when you need him?  

[marlboroza]

@hacker is this bought account?