Ree @hacker1001101001 ICO bump account

[JollyGood]

He pops in and of this thread but is very happy to let his buddies continue the misdirection tactics....

May I remind everyone this topic isn't discussion about

1) Lauda
2) Nutildah
3) TECSHARE's trust list
4) JollyGood
5) yobit
6) Insert any other deflection
Mr. Payed Review, you still didn't address something here, instead of bad attempts of you and your objective standard guild buddies to move this into some other direction, address this:

~snip~

[1713476134]

1713476134

[1713476134]

1713476134

[1713476134]

1713476134

[TECSHARE]

You seemingly completely forgot what this thread was about. If you give a shit so much, ask your question in the proper thread. Any one of the billion that cryptohunter and his alts have started about the subject will do.

In all of your topic sliding, you still never said I was wrong about my assumption.

I haven't forgotten anything. Look in a mirror if you are concerned with topic slide. Your assumption is wrong. Happy now grand peanut hunter?

May I remind everyone this topic isn't discussion about

1) Lauda
2) Nutildah
3) TECSHARE's trust list
4) JollyGood
5) yobit
6) Insert any other deflection

Actually it is about Lauda, because his criticism of Lauda was the impetus behind your peanut hunting expedition. It is all ways the same group of people with big red floppy shoes coming after anyone who does anything but wash the balls of The Clown Pope. This tactic designed to silence criticism is demonstrated by all the same users, over, and over, and over again. Still no one can tell me the imminent threat Hacker1001101001 poses to the community that warrants this kind of continual and endless prostate exam.

[bones261]

Actually it is about Lauda, because his criticism of Lauda was the impetus behind your peanut hunting expedition. It is all ways the same group of people with big red floppy shoes coming after anyone who does anything but wash the balls of The Clown Pope. This tactic designed to silence criticism is demonstrated by all the same users, over, and over, and over again. Still no one can tell me the imminent threat Hacker1001101001 poses to the community that warrants this kind of continual and endless prostate exam.

My main qualm with hacker1001101001 was his response when I was asking how to report a member for posting an invite to kill another member in the personal message space. (The one found below the avatar.)

There isn't any feature to report a personal text on the forum to be a threat and I don't think it should be reportable as it is a users personal advertising space.

I don't even think it is that serious of an threat though, rather just an move out of spite.

Thank goodness that the administrator disagreed and ended up temp banning the offending member. Poo pooing death threats clearly shouldn't be what this board is about.

[Timelord2067]

I meant to ask earlier: What's with the goofy

Code:

ree

Is this some sort of baby-talk / secret code for "let's hammer one unsuspecting person in this thread who will be unable to respond to our increasingly off topic downward spiral of posts that we are happy to get paid $5-$6 per post from our various (or the same) Signature Campaign." ??

Can any of you say what the actual topic or contents of the tread have been so far?  What are you even attacking?  Do you even know?


In any event.

[hacker1001101001]

Actually it is about Lauda, because his criticism of Lauda was the impetus behind your peanut hunting expedition. It is all ways the same group of people with big red floppy shoes coming after anyone who does anything but wash the balls of The Clown Pope. This tactic designed to silence criticism is demonstrated by all the same users, over, and over, and over again. Still no one can tell me the imminent threat Hacker1001101001 poses to the community that warrants this kind of continual and endless prostate exam.

My main qualm with hacker1001101001 was his response when I was asking how to report a member for posting an invite to kill another member in the personal message space. (The one found below the avatar.)

There isn't any feature to report a personal text on the forum to be a threat and I don't think it should be reportable as it is a users personal advertising space.

I don't even think it is that serious of an threat though, rather just an move out of spite.

Thank goodness that the administrator disagreed and ended up temp banning the offending member. Poo pooing death threats clearly shouldn't be what this board is about.

FYI, I was not advocating for death threats to be allowed on the borad, rather the reply was based on the minimal effect of the death threat you mentioned in the OP ( i.e A newbie with an personal text containing death threat ) on anyone around here. I didn't knew it was offensive and would land me up with being on your exclusion list.

[bones261]

FYI, I was not advocating for death threats to be allowed on the borad, rather the reply was based on the minimal effect of the death threat you mentioned in the OP ( i.e A newbie with an personal text containing death threat ) on anyone around here. I didn't knew it was offensive and would land me up with being on your exclusion list.

This "newbie" account was being actively used to promote casinos. I hope he learned that it is never a good strategy to call for the killing of a complaining customer. Let's keep it somewhat classy around here. Also, I am not accusing you of advocating death threats. I am accusing you of "poo pooing" the gravity of the situation.

[JollyGood]

That was spot on but he has poo pooing around many situations in this forum for a long time.

Ever since he has had backing from a couple of users that encourage him in this thread and ever since he has had some support from the handful of Kamal Pasha loving Turkish language board members that like to attack everybody that they believed scuppered their (non-existent) chances of getting lucrative signature campaigns, Mr Poo Pooing has got a little ahead of himself. It is as though every so often something new is being stated about even though he every opportunity to come clean once and for all.

He has a mountain of evidence against him which he never replied to because his buddies are always trying to deflect attention away from the seriousness of activities he has been behind.

FYI, I was not advocating for death threats to be allowed on the borad, rather the reply was based on the minimal effect of the death threat you mentioned in the OP ( i.e A newbie with an personal text containing death threat ) on anyone around here. I didn't knew it was offensive and would land me up with being on your exclusion list.

This "newbie" account was being actively used to promote casinos. I hope he learned that it is never a good strategy to call for the killing of a complaining customer. Let's keep it somewhat classy around here. Also, I am not accusing you of advocating death threats. I am accusing you of "poo pooing" the gravity of the situation.

[TECSHARE]

~

So in summary, you don't like his opinion?

[bonesjonesreturns]

FYI, I was not advocating for death threats to be allowed on the borad, rather the reply was based on the minimal effect of the death threat you mentioned in the OP ( i.e A newbie with an personal text containing death threat ) on anyone around here. I didn't knew it was offensive and would land me up with being on your exclusion list.

This "newbie" account was being actively used to promote casinos. I hope he learned that it is never a good strategy to call for the killing of a complaining customer. Let's keep it somewhat classy around here. Also, I am not accusing you of advocating death threats. I am accusing you of "poo pooing" the gravity of the situation.

But is this not like you poo poohing racism on the thread that was dedicated to the pharmacists aka hugeblackwomans racist trolling. Your argument was that because you claim to be black that you found it amusing for pharmacist a white guy to be pretending to be a hugeblackwoman and pushing racist troll spam everywhere? Other persons claiming to be black were not amused.  They may claim you were poo poohing?

Or poo poohing irrefutable evidence of scamming as trolling?

Can you explain the difference. I mean your poo poohing seems worse?

There still seems to be no stated purpose for this thread. If marlboroza wont tell us the purpose ( since he already decided hacker0010101 is guilty and should have red) then what we discussing? If we rhink he should have red or if he should be excluded or is malboroza unsure of the red or exclusion he gave hacker01001 and wants opinion?

Is the thread itself some kind o further punishement?

Why no answers here?

Let's not have double standards here

People who poo pooh must be treated equally i think. We must not poo pooh poo poohing around here it seems.  

[bones261]

So in summary, you don't like his opinion?

I think liking/not liking someone's opinion is sufficient criteria for deciding who to include/exclude from my trust list, no?

Can you explain the difference. I mean your poo poohing seems worse?

If you don't know the difference in gravity between calling for someone's death and any of the other things you mentioned, I can't help you.

[JayJuanGee]

So in summary, you don't like his opinion?

I think liking/not liking someone's opinion is sufficient criteria for deciding who to include/exclude from my trust list, no?

Can you explain the difference. I mean your poo poohing seems worse?

If you don't know the difference in gravity between calling for someone's death and any of the other things you mentioned, I can't help you.

Exactly, there is a difference with discussions that starts to get into threats of the physical actions in the real world, versus just throwing around words on the interwebs.  Sometimes discussions of race might end up going in that physical actions direction, but merely differing of opinion about race or one person’s ability to talk about racial topics or their substantive opinions about race would not necessarily, on its face, rise to the same level of egregiousness as actual physical threats, or trying to entice or encourage others to carry out physical violence, whether death or some lesser physical assault.

I find problematic death threats and even lesser threats (less than death) to physically harm someone in the real world (like beat him up) if such threat is either seriously suggesting such action should be carried out (of course, sometimes there are jokes that are just meant symbolically rather than real advocation of physical violence) or such threat could be read by a reasonable person as advocating such real world physical violence action... one time posts might be considered less serious.. because the idea is more fleeting, rather than putting the matter in a signature or in personal text as an ongoing message.

[TECSHARE]

So in summary, you don't like his opinion?

I think liking/not liking someone's opinion is sufficient criteria for deciding who to include/exclude from my trust list, no?

Can you explain the difference. I mean your poo poohing seems worse?

If you don't know the difference in gravity between calling for someone's death and any of the other things you mentioned, I can't help you.

Exactly, there is a difference with discussions that starts to get into threats of the physical actions in the real world, versus just throwing around words on the interwebs.  Sometimes discussions of race might end up going in that physical actions direction, but merely differing of opinion about race or one person’s ability to talk about racial topics or their substantive opinions about race would not necessarily, on its face, rise to the same level of egregiousness as actual physical threats, or trying to entice or encourage others to carry out physical violence, whether death or some lesser physical assault.

I find problematic death threats and even lesser threats (less than death) to physically harm someone in the real world (like beat him up) if such threat is either seriously suggesting such action should be carried out (of course, sometimes there are jokes that are just meant symbolically rather than real advocation of physical violence) or such threat could be read by a reasonable person as advocating such real world physical violence action... one time posts might be considered less serious.. because the idea is more fleeting, rather than putting the matter in a signature or in personal text as an ongoing message.

No, not liking some one's opinion is not valid reason for excluding them. You are supposed to include and exclude people based on whether you think their use of the trust system is valid or not. I don't remember saying death threats were acceptable, but please feel free to quote me.

[bones261]

No, not liking some one's opinion is not valid reason for excluding them. You are supposed to include and exclude people based on whether you think their use of the trust system is valid or not. I don't remember saying death threats were acceptable, but please feel free to quote me.

A person's use of the trust system is usually based on them forming an opinion and taking the action they think is appropriate. Also, my quip about the death threats appears under a quote of another member, so it is not directed at you.

[suchmoon]

No, not liking some one's opinion is not valid reason for excluding them. You are supposed to include and exclude people based on whether you think their use of the trust system is valid or not.

If you don't trust someone's judgement you can surely exclude them without waiting for them to start [ab]using the trust system.

There was also this lunatic DT1 member who claimed to be including people based on whom they argue with, I wonder how that squares with your valid reasons.

[JayJuanGee]

So in summary, you don't like his opinion?

I think liking/not liking someone's opinion is sufficient criteria for deciding who to include/exclude from my trust list, no?

Can you explain the difference. I mean your poo poohing seems worse?

If you don't know the difference in gravity between calling for someone's death and any of the other things you mentioned, I can't help you.

Exactly, there is a difference with discussions that starts to get into threats of the physical actions in the real world, versus just throwing around words on the interwebs.  Sometimes discussions of race might end up going in that physical actions direction, but merely differing of opinion about race or one person’s ability to talk about racial topics or their substantive opinions about race would not necessarily, on its face, rise to the same level of egregiousness as actual physical threats, or trying to entice or encourage others to carry out physical violence, whether death or some lesser physical assault.

I find problematic death threats and even lesser threats (less than death) to physically harm someone in the real world (like beat him up) if such threat is either seriously suggesting such action should be carried out (of course, sometimes there are jokes that are just meant symbolically rather than real advocation of physical violence) or such threat could be read by a reasonable person as advocating such real world physical violence action... one time posts might be considered less serious.. because the idea is more fleeting, rather than putting the matter in a signature or in personal text as an ongoing message.

No, not liking some one's opinion is not valid reason for excluding them. You are supposed to include and exclude people based on whether you think their use of the trust system is valid or not. I don't remember saying death threats were acceptable, but please feel free to quote me.

It seems that I was largely suggesting that there are differing kinds of behaviors, and there is a difference when words are used for the purpose of threatening people in the real world, whether that is death or bodily harm as compared with having differing opinions about race or if someone has or does not have credibility to speak on a topic, such as race.

Regarding excluding or excluding someone from trust, there could be a variety of reasons, including that you might exclude someone because you believe that they do not understand certain kinds of meaningful distinctions, such as the difference between having disagreements about race or whether it is acceptable for a member to advocate for the physical harm of another member, whether death or some other lesser form of physical harm.  

So, yes, some members might conclude that NOT understanding such differences between differing kinds of threats or different kinds of advocating is NOT a BIG deal to them, but to me it seems a fair reason to NOT trust someone's judgement if they are making comments that seem to not recognizing a difference in various kinds of forum conduct and that from their perspective physically threatening crosses over a line and not understanding that physically threatening crosses over a line of a person having bad judgement, and cannot otherwise be trusted (from my opinion).  

In this hypothetical, you, TECSHARE, might include that person in your trust list in spite of their beliefs, and that is in your discretion, but I might decide to exclude them in my trust or even exclude you because you have told me that you don't believe that there is a difference between physically threatening and advocating racial beliefs in one direction or another.  

In other words,  because in this hypothetical, I believe that you and or that other member has poor judgement, I decide to exclude you and that other person.. while at the same time both you and I are potentially being reasonable in our own way of thinking and we have discretion regarding those kinds of inclusions and exclusion decision matters, and we each have discretion to explain our reasoning for inclusions or not or to choose NOT to explain our reasoning for such inclusion or exclusion decisions.

[bonesjonesreturns]

So in summary, you don't like his opinion?

I think liking/not liking someone's opinion is sufficient criteria for deciding who to include/exclude from my trust list, no?

Can you explain the difference. I mean your poo poohing seems worse?

If you don't know the difference in gravity between calling for someone's death and any of the other things you mentioned, I can't help you.

So you were poo pooing scamming and racism? Poo. Pooing those is ok.

I think the point is that they didnt perceive the noobs childish death threat as a credible real life threat. Like you say scamming is probably not scamming and to say that it is is trolling
Or that racism is funny because he does not mean it because he is white?
Those things are okay to poo poo
I mean thats the point of poo pooing right ? You don't beleive it is that real or credible ?it is not serious?

If you really thought that pharmacist was a racist or lauda was a scammer you would not poo pooh it would you?

It's I guess about perception of how real something seems to you.
Perhaps people make miscalculations or maybe they dont?
Lauda is a scammer but did that guy kill anyone yet? Who got it more wrong?

That is the point..he perhaps didn't think it was a serious death wish just like you didnt think it is serious to scam or that pharmacist was not really a racist. Its the perception of the real intent. If it is not serious then it is not serious right?

I don't agree with any of it personally.

Hate speech, scamming, stated death wishes....... possible ico bumping ?

Poo poo

I see a suggestion of exclusion punishment. I do not feel it is consistent or fair.

[TECSHARE]

No, not liking some one's opinion is not valid reason for excluding them. You are supposed to include and exclude people based on whether you think their use of the trust system is valid or not. I don't remember saying death threats were acceptable, but please feel free to quote me.

A person's use of the trust system is usually based on them forming an opinion and taking the action they think is appropriate. Also, my quip about the death threats appears under a quote of another member, so it is not directed at you.

Kinda stretching your reasoning a little thin aren't you?

No, not liking some one's opinion is not valid reason for excluding them. You are supposed to include and exclude people based on whether you think their use of the trust system is valid or not.

If you don't trust someone's judgement you can surely exclude them without waiting for them to start [ab]using the trust system.

There was also this lunatic DT1 member who claimed to be including people based on whom they argue with, I wonder how that squares with your valid reasons.

Cute. I like how you absolve yourself from responsibility from your statements by being vague. Too bad that was never actually said, you and others just implied it and ran with it as if it were fact.

[bonesjonesreturns]

May I remind everyone this topic isn't discussion about
1) Lauda
2) Nutildah
3) TECSHARE's trust list
4) JollyGood
5) yobit
6) Insert any other deflection

Moderators are useless. 

I think moderators should delete scammers accounts like yours too

However since this appears to be an either should we red tag hacker0101001 or should we excluded hacker001010 from DT thread, then it can only be correctly appraised and decided in the context of malborozas other punishments he hands out for other more serious evils.

What does malboroza hand out for

Laudas scamming = no red trust no exclusions
 Nutildahs willing scam facilitating for pay = no red tags no exclusions
Tmans auction scamming = no red trust no exclusions

Therefore possible ico bumping = ?

So if the full context and for malboroza to be seen as consistent and fair he should be ??

That is what we can all review, discuss, and debate

You can not discuss appropriate punishment in a void or in isolation from other wrongdoing you have encountered and reacted to previously.

Now go cry elsewhere or keep on topic. No more derailing and trying to force and unfair and inconsistent  narrative  so you can punish whistleblowers or just anyone that disagree with you.

[marlboroza]

May I remind everyone this topic isn't discussion about
1) Lauda
2) Nutildah
3) TECSHARE's trust list
4) JollyGood
5) yobit
6) Insert any other deflection

Moderators are useless.  

And, off topic conversation continues. Just look at this waste of sperm:

possible ico bumping

"possible"  

1051 characters, I ignored all spam and off topic parts of last post and there is exactly 17 on topic characters. I am not sure from where are all these shitposts and conspiracy theories coming from, but last time I checked, this is what is in topic:

What do you mean it is not your reddit account and you have nothing to do with ICO bumping service?

That is important part. And first reply was:

I was not involved in any type of paid posting promotion rather was just filling my signature campaigns post requirements.

That is also most important part. Hacker lied several times and denied everything then he was exposed then he confessed. After deeper study of hacker's address, there is unignorable number of transactions going to and from various bump accounts, now some users like TECSHARE and bonesjonesreturns are trying to bury my discovery in the sea of off topic deflective shitposts.


Why is TECSHARE trying to deflect this topic, "ico payed review sevice" is fraud business, there is significant number of users who are fighting against these fraud services and I don't see him doing this in any other topic (this is for example one topic about the same subject https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238597.0, which is, bump service, nah, you won't see tecshare there)  

[bonesjonesreturns]

May I remind everyone this topic isn't discussion about
1) Lauda
2) Nutildah
3) TECSHARE's trust list
4) JollyGood
5) yobit
6) Insert any other deflection

Moderators are useless.  

And, off topic conversation continues. Just look at this waste of sperm:

possible ico bumping

"possible"  

1051 characters, I ignored all spam and off topic parts of last post and there is exactly 17 on topic characters. I am not sure from where are all these shitposts and conspiracy theories coming from, but last time I checked, this is what is in topic:

What do you mean it is not your reddit account and you have nothing to do with ICO bumping service?

That is important part. And first reply was:

I was not involved in any type of paid posting promotion rather was just filling my signature campaigns post requirements.

That is also most important part. Hacker lied several times and denied everything then he was exposed then he confessed. After deeper study of hacker's address, there is unignorable number of transactions going to and from various bump accounts, now some users like TECSHARE and bonesjonesreturns are trying to bury my discovery in the sea of off topic deflective shitposts.


Why is TECSHARE trying to deflect this topic, "ico payed review sevice" is fraud business, there is significant number of users who are fighting against these fraud services and I don't see him doing this in any other topic (this is for example one topic about the same subject https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238597.0, which is, bump service, nah, you won't see tecshare there)  

Nobody is burying anything
You say you have proved hacker0101000101 was bumping ico?

What is the point of this thread? If you have proven this to yourself and you already gave him red tag and excluded him?

Which seems strange because you take zero action against proven scammers.

What is this thread for.  You want others to ignore scamming or support scammers but red trust members you say you have proven are ico bumpers?

Can i know the purpose of the thread? I thought it was a

Should marlboroza give hacker0101000101 red tags and exclude ...is this a sensible consistent and fair punishment that other should follow thread? If not what is it?

Why are you upset? We are comparing what you claim hacker0101000101 has done to other wrong doing and deciding what to do right?

How is comparing = burying?  Are you confused?

I will be ready to talk about hacker0101000101 and compare his alleged ico bumping or any other alleged crimes with you marlboroza. No burying and 100% sensible debate but you want to discuss punishment but you want to bury the context of your prior behaviors so you want only the narrative that suits you not fair assessment.

If this is true put in your thread. I want to unfairly punish hacker0101000101 and be inconsistent. I dont care if i want to support scammers sometimes i just need to on this occasion punish someone no matter how unfair or inconsistent it seems. Please dont mention that and just pretent my narrative is not double standards abuse.

Then we can understand to just all be unfair and inconsistent like you and you will enjoy your thread more??

Is this what you wish? Then please adjust your title and op