[Poll]Timelord2067 ad hominem, trolling, fud, accusations, fake flags, lies NSFW

[marlboroza]

I might refer to account Timelord2067 as "user". I just noticed this post in other thread:

Cue the hurt feelings...

I've just been Trolled by marlboroza (yet again and they have placed me on ignore (yippie!) - so this is my "right of reply" to their (marlboroza's) Trolling in my Known Alts thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg53626784#msg53626784 Archive [1], [2]

• Grow some balls...
• Harden the fuck up...
• Put them on ignore...
• Have a wank
• Go for a walk outdoors and enjoy the first day of the new year.

Archive [1] [2]

Get to work wanker.

This user is lying, it is not first time that they accused me of trolling, it happened before. I told them to send some funds to charity and when I complained that I am not happy how they handled funds user  accused me of trolling https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg51665603#msg51665603.

Of course, user created frivolous red flag and accused me that I am spreading FUD because it wasn't like they wanted to be https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157840.msg51590072#msg51590072, not to mention that they lied that they didn't say something and accused me of FUD.

There are many examples, for example, user created topic 100% of Quickseller's Flags are false. and because of lack of arguments user tried with ad hominem attack https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5165940.msg51857052#msg51857052 and lied about my reason to support some flags, then, because of lack of arguments, user literally attacked forum member xtraelv and accused them of plagiarism.

In this post this user accused forum member mikeywith and me that we are spreading FUD and of course, adds some ad hominem at the end of post and previously tried to pull the same attack here, not to mention reason why that started in first place.
^
In this post timelord2067 said respected user is a troll (obviously trolling)[1], of course, not giving credit to author of that post is OK according to user, but, when someone(me) actually link thread they start trolling right away, followed by "...hey marlboroza, this "link to walletexplorer" will assist you..."   , followed by my respond and post which is quoted in topic

User (in this post) accused member Vispilio of stalking them while in previous post user specifically mentioned and highlighted forum member Vispilio and linked this post where user also accused them.
^
Why would that be all, user created some weird flags not supported by anyone and opposed by many members (except flag on account wolwoo). After accused and while not receiving answer to question "why am I in this thread", I used the same way to connect accounts as timelord2067 is using (even thought it was parody), timelord2067 quoted my post, redacted it with word "FUD" and again used ad hominem. After pointed it was parody to his connection, and after very simple question "why their connection is good and my is bad" user again accused me of spreading FUD and again, uses ad hominem attack. And, again, in that thread, user lied one more time.
Then forum member nutildah posted very good and on point post and timelord2067 redacted their words and accused them of  "FUD".

There are more examples.

Anyway, today I noticed new feedback in my trust page (I just had to unignore user too see what respect they are talking about):



It was very bad idea to return to known alts thread (unignoring user was also bad idea), I even said somewhere in that thread that I won't return, user very likely misunderstood me, but how they don't remember me saying that I won't return to known alts thread?

You may recall your recent request to do an investigation on your behalf: Archive [1], [2]

Accounts connected (if you don't mind @timelord for returning to this thread for a moment or two):

My investigations in the time I had free can be found in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg53418358#msg53418358 Archive [1], [2]

And I didn't ask Timelord2067 to investigate this, wth   What respect, what FUD, what trolling?
Edit:
[1]actually, that isn't really what that forum member said, they completely took things out of context and/or missed point.

[1714791381]

1714791381

[1714791381]

1714791381

[1714791381]

1714791381

[suchmoon]

Your poll is missing one option what would be most appropriate IMO: ignore.

The user has always been eccentric and erratic and somewhat trollish. Just ignore.

[~DefaultTrust]

I see that some users in DT is working like farm. This is not an "account farm" but a "DefaultTrust farm". They feel important enough to have the privileges for trolling.

[suchmoon]

I see that some users in DT is working like farm. This is not an "account farm" but a "DefaultTrust farm". They feel important enough to have the privileges for trolling.

Piss off, sockpuppeting wanker. There is nothing to prevent incels like you from trolling so your whining is meaningless here.

[~DefaultTrust]

~

Your tantrums are inappropriate. Try to think before you speak. This is useful.

[pugman]

Timelord has been known to accuse the randomest of people as alts, and his obsession of linking accounts is very perplexed in nature. But then again, timelord has also also been successful in busting a lot of alts, so I wouldn't say he deserves a negative feedback perse. My initial response would be to resort to solving the issue/quandry in private, and settling down the "beef". But I am not sure, if it would work in this case, its quite possible for more allegations and more drama that could come out of this, so, like suchmoon said, its best if both of you ignore each other, and go your ways.

[nullius]

Timelord has been known to accuse the randomest of people as alts,

...and, in my case, publicly endorsed Quickseller’s (!) perennial accusation that “nullius” is just the latest in a long string of alts.  (Protip for Quickseller:  It’s called projection.)


Below is a draft of a PM that I wrote earlier with intent to send it to Timelord2067.  I held it, debating whether what began as a public tag should be taken to private discussions.  I see no reason to; and I am always wary of engaging in private arguments with parties whom I do not trust or even know very well, which may foreseeably lead to public misquotes or worse.  Now that I see this thread, I realize that it’s probably better just to post it here.  I invite Timelord2067’s “‘clarification’”.

The context:

Based on that, I put ~Timelord2067 on the new trust list I installed yesterday, and left the following neutral trust feedback dated 2020-01-16:

Cited Quickseller’s completely unfounded, factually incorrect speculation as the basis for a neutral tag on my account. Although this happened to be harmless to me, it shows exceedingly poor judgment. I leave this note to explain my ~Timelord2067. https://archive.fo/W9BlF#selection-1279.0-1279.12 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4626680.msg41800616#msg41800616

I dashed that off-the-cuff, while busy with exceedingly thorough vetting of trust-list inclusions.  (I take trust seriously.*)  On further reflection, it’s not harmless; see below.

(* Wherefore you should not take offence if you were not included, or if I later remove your inclusion without ~excluding you.  I spent hours examining the impact that each inclusion would have, and striking the names of people whom I respect for reasons that verge on the obsessive.  I expect for my inclusions list to grow slowly, if at all, and for my exclusions list to grow rapidly.  Motto for nullius, named “of nobody”:  Trust nobody.)


The following quote is of neutral trust feedback that Timelord2067 left for me on 2020-01-17 (today).


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=976210

nullius is reverse engineering his negative trust of me. (and has never communicated his "concerns" with me for "clarification")

You made a public statement on my trust page directly referencing Quickseller’s post, which is false from start to finish.  That was on your part an exercise of poor judgment—and worse, a false statement by you yourself.  So, being then in a lenient mood, I simply excluded reliance on your judgment, and made a statement publicly (just like yours) explaining why.

That was the actual reason for my ~.  There was no “reverse-engineering”.  It further shows poor judgment (or worse) that you pretend to read my mind, and insinuate unstated ulterior motives to deny the quite reasonable motive I plainly stated.

I don’t know why you are using scare quotes, but I will set that aside.  If you wish to “clarify”, then please explain how it did not show poor judgment (and worse) for you to implicitly endorse the veracity of this:

He moved on. The account he was as posting from was not his first not by a long shot and likely won’t be his last.

Now, for a contrast just to show how ridiculous is your assertion that I am “reverse-engineering” my stated reasons...

As you may have noticed, suchmoon outright red-tagged my account with the following negative feedback dated 2019-01-10:

This feedback serves as a warning that this user has been inactive for a long time. You should be careful if this account reactivates and attempts to trade.

The feedback was truthful; and the red-tag was reasonable, insofar as this would be a very valuable account for anyone who could compromise it.  I did not complain—to the contrary!  I PMed a PGP-signed statement to suchmoon on 2020-01-01, with outright thanks for red-tagging my account (“Good call.  I appreciate the prophylactic effect of the negative, in so far as it makes the account unattractive for theft.”).  If you wish to verify this, I unequivocally consent to suchmoon disclosing that PM.

(And by the way, the tag was not removed for several weeks thereafter; I still did not complain, for I myself had suggested that suchmoon wait and watch to be sure that I am really me.  IIUC, another user independently PMed suchmoon and asked for its removal.)

suchmoon’s negative feedback, and the stated reasons therefor, showed wise judgment.  That was protecting the forum—and protecting me, too.  I would not want for a Craig Wright type of character to break into my forum account and promote some scam as “Nullian Vision”.  It took effort and personal merit for me to build my reputation.  In case of a forum hack, identity thieves should not be able to abuse my good name for purposes that I would hate.

Whereas your neutral tag idiotically made it look as if Quickseller knew something about me.  Worse, by implication, you, Timelord2067, were telling the world that I float from alt to alt, and now I “moved on”.  That shows much worse than poor judgment.

I never had any conflict with you before, but that made me realize you do not care too much about the veracity of statements you make about other people.  ~ exists for that reason.  I do not want to see your tags as “trusted”; and I suggest that others should not, either.


Please be advised, if you want to squabble with me over this, I may disclose PMs on this subject if I think that’s necessary to protect myself, or otherwise warranted.  I myself will stand by all I just said, any way that may arise; if you so desire, feel free to post this whole PM in Reputation.

[suchmoon]

(And by the way, the tag was not removed for several weeks thereafter; I still did not complain, for I myself had suggested that suchmoon wait and watch to be sure that I am really me.  IIUC, another user independently PMed suchmoon and asked for its removal.)

I thought it was you PMing me from your main account.

j/k

The main account is obviously the one with more meritzzzz.

[TECSHARE]

Timelord is in fact a dildor. In spite of this fact, this is not what the trust system is for. Exclude him and encourage others to do so, don't abuse trust ratings in retribution, it only devalues the whole system in order to satiate your need for petty retribution.

[marlboroza]

The user has always been eccentric and erratic and somewhat trollish. Just ignore.

Yeah, eccentric, erratic and trollish, john5mith is not Timelord2067, the_doctor is not Timelord2067, DrWho is not Timelord2067, Dimelord is not Timelord2067. There is some other medical term for this.

2 for ignore, I would also like to hear opinions of people who voted for neutral and negative.

Timelord has been known to accuse the randomest of people as alts, and his obsession of linking accounts is very perplexed in nature. But then again, timelord has also also been successful in busting a lot of alts, so I wouldn't say he deserves a negative feedback perse. My initial response would be to resort to solving the issue/quandry in private, and settling down the "beef". But I am not sure, if it would work in this case, its quite possible for more allegations and more drama that could come out of this, so, like suchmoon said, its best if both of you ignore each other, and go your ways.

It somehow started here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108783.msg49747436#msg49747436 but really began here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108783.msg49762067#msg49762067 when I said that "I masturbated on his positive trust" and IIRC it escalated here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5112175.msg49859981#msg49859981.

I have tried to explain him that it was a bloody joke, I previously pointed what part of that post he should read because it was obviously misunderstanding but he didn't want to listen. Since then, whatever I say and he doesn't like, he use that thread as ad hominem attack. Not to mention trolling. After I don't know how many posts in known alts, scam accusations and PM's we shared, he said "link to walletexplorer" will assist you", well fuck you Timelord2067.

Yeah, I am all for "burying the hatchet", but Timelord2067 has to accept that it was a bloody joke first. He has to take that thing out of his head. Fucking prick, it was first positive feedback I got, I felt so proud and happy and stuff to receive that feedback because it came from known investigator.

But how can we bury hatchet, he thinks I am lauda, he doesn't like lauda therefore he doesn't like me any more. What is his proof actually? "Lauda was moderator in croatian local and marlboroza speaks croatian"! One can act for some time, but since 2016., FFS my and Lauda's English are, we have expression here, "sky and ground" (very different levels  )

Dude! In 2016. I sent many messages to Lauda because forum member U2 accused me of being alt of Egg.chuck scammer, I don't have those messages because I wiped PM's but Lauda might have them. Connection was made using bitvest.io wallet and all messages are deleted from Known alts thread, there was account Chris (please don't make me search for correct account nick, rather correct me) posted something, and lauda said something, and timelord2067 said something and I almost end up with negative, I texted bitvest owner zodiac and then he said few words and we all agreed to delete messages, unfortunately I wasn't aware of archive site so record does not exist. Well Timelord2067 obviously forget that! So how the fuck I know that?

Yeah, I am all for burring hatchets, but only if it involves other party.
(@nullius @TECSHARE I will read your post now)

[nullius]

The main account is obviously the one with more meritzzzz.

The real nullius is the one with no history of promoting the DeepOnion scam.  (I am deliberately not mentioning who PMed you, because I don’t want to dishonourably backtalk him in an unrelated thread whereas I think that he was sincerely trying to help me.  I am just mentioning it to be clear, I did not ask for that help.)

I'm getting paid by sarcasm to carry it in my signature

j/k

You still have not explained why sarcasm stopped paying for your signature.  Why were you banned from sarcasm’s campaign, hmmm?  Very suspicious!  You did not deny that sarcasm banned you.  I will now flag and tag you, and use this post as my evidence.

[Edit:  Added classic suchmoon quote for a damaging admission, appropriately stripped of all context.]

[suchmoon]

You still have not explained why sarcasm stopped paying for your signature.  Why were you banned from sarcasm’s campaign, hmmm?  Very suspicious!  You did not deny that sarcasm banned you.  I will now flag and tag you, and use this post as my evidence.

Shhhhh... I'm a secret agent for sarcasm now, don't blow my cover.

Yeah, I am all for burring hatchets, but only if it involves other party.

Well, someone has to move first and my money is on the sane one, i.e. you.

[pugman]

It somehow started here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108783.msg49747436#msg49747436 but really began here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108783.msg49762067#msg49762067 when I said that "I masturbated on his positive trust" and IIRC it escalated here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5112175.msg49859981#msg49859981.

I have tried to explain him that it was a bloody joke, I previously pointed what part of that post he should read because it was obviously misunderstanding but he didn't want to listen. Since then, whatever I say and he doesn't like, he use that thread as ad hominem attack. Not to mention trolling. After I don't know how many posts in known alts, scam accusations and PM's we shared, he said "link to walletexplorer" will assist you", well fuck you Timelord2067.

Yeah, I am all for "burying the hatchet", but Timelord2067 has to accept that it was a bloody joke first. He has to take that thing out of his head. Fucking prick, it was first positive feedback I got, I felt so proud and happy and stuff to receive that feedback because it came from known investigator.

But how can we bury hatchet, he thinks I am lauda, he doesn't like lauda therefore he doesn't like me any more. What is his proof actually? "Lauda was moderator in croatian local and marlboroza speaks croatian"! One can act for some time, but since 2016., FFS my and Lauda's English are, we have expression here, "sky and ground" (very different levels  )

Dude! In 2016. I sent many messages to Lauda because forum member U2 accused me of being alt of Egg.chuck scammer, I don't have those messages because I wiped PM's but Lauda might have them. Connection was made using bitvest.io wallet and all messages are deleted from Known alts thread, there was account Chris (please don't make me search for correct account nick, rather correct me) posted something, and lauda said something, and timelord2067 said something and I almost end up with negative, I texted bitvest owner zodiac and then he said few words and we all agreed to delete messages, unfortunately I wasn't aware of archive site so record does not exist. Well Timelord2067 obviously forget that! So how the fuck I know that?

Yeah, I am all for burring hatchets, but only if it involves other party.

I think if TimeLord got mad for the masturbate joke, out of everything else, its pretty wack.

The connection between you and Lauda makes no sense, its like as if you both are humans. But Lauda is a CAT! A FRIGGING CAT! Nullius can approve too!!!

But yeah no, as for burying the hatchet, send him a pm, apologize for the "mastubation joke" even though you shouldn't really be, and if things are still the same, just ignore and move on. Y'all don't have to waste too much time on a damn misunderstanding on a fucking joke. Like seriously, its like 4 years now.

[nullius]

The connection between you and Lauda makes no sense, its like as if you both are humans. But Lauda is a CAT! A FRIGGING CAT! Nullius can approve too!!!

Since Timelord2067 deems Quickseller’s alt-account accusations to be reliable evidence, here is another:

Nullius' knowledge about blockchain science and cryptography is a dead giveaway....  He could even be Satoshi.  

nullius is lauda. That is very clear. Anyone who does not see this is simply closing their eyes.

Wait, does this mean that I am marlboroza, the feline inventor of Bitcoin?  Help, I am confused!

It somehow started here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108783.msg49747436#msg49747436 but really began here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108783.msg49762067#msg49762067 when I said that "I masturbated on his positive trust" and IIRC it escalated here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5112175.msg49859981#msg49859981.

It is impossible for me not to see and to forget first positive feedback I received. I masturbated on it for few days IIRC.

Wait, how is that even offensive to Timelord2067?  It is not “disrespectful” of him as he subsequently alleged in the threads you cited.

I would infer prickly religious sensibilities (unapproved by the One True Religion), except that his avatar makes that a bit improbable.  I really cannot imagine any other reason why he would be even mildly annoyed, much less pick up some sort of vendetta against you over that.

The fact that one of my early positive feedbacks was, unfortunately, a literal declaration of love from a honeytrap scammer who started here by fooling his/her/its way through GirlsGoneBitcoin verification is totally, absolutely irrelevant to my inability to conceive of any reason to see your feedback masturbation joke as anything but complimentary.

Shhhhh... I'm a secret agent for sarcasm now, don't blow my cover.

QUOTED!  Expect to see this admission of nefarious motives pop up at unexpected times, far into the future.

[dragonvslinux]

The main account is obviously the one with more meritzzzz.

(I am deliberately not mentioning who PMed you, because I don’t want to dishonourably backtalk him in an unrelated thread whereas I think that he was sincerely trying to help me.  I am just mentioning it to be clear, I did not ask for that help.)

You're talking about me right? Kind of obvious when I investigated your pgp signature (that hadn't previously been staked) 
You're wrong though, I wasn't trying to help you (sorry). I saw a verification error. Namely, you signing a message without previously staked key and was curious so investigated...
PS - Sounds like you're trying to a shill a shitcoin.

[marlboroza]

I think if TimeLord got mad for the masturbate joke, out of everything else, its pretty wack.

The connection between you and Lauda makes no sense, its like as if you both are humans. But Lauda is a CAT! A FRIGGING CAT! Nullius can approve too!!!

But yeah no, as for burying the hatchet, send him a pm, apologize for the "mastubation joke" even though you shouldn't really be, and if things are still the same, just ignore and move on. Y'all don't have to waste too much time on a damn misunderstanding on a fucking joke. Like seriously, its like 4 years now.

I already posted it was a joke, what can I possibly send him, "I am sorry that one part of my post was supposed to be some kind of humor?

Well, he can read everything in this thread and respond. It is up to him now to react.

Timelord is in fact a dildor. In spite of this fact, this is not what the trust system is for. Exclude him and encourage others to do so, don't abuse trust ratings in retribution, it only devalues the whole system in order to satiate your need for petty retribution.

I have no clue what word "didlor" means, please explain.

Other parts, I have no idea what you want to say, but I remember someone was tagged by admin because they created wrong flag. Also, I have no clue what you mean by "abuse trust ratings in retribution", I don't remember doing this. This thread is perfect example, I am asking for solutions. Also, you said it is OK to tag trolls so I don't know what you are talking about.

[nullius]

I already posted it was a joke, what can I possibly send him, "I am sorry that one part of my post was supposed to be some kind of humor?

Although I get that pugman is just trying to be pragmatic and turn down the drama, I find the modern apology culture to be quite odious.  Wresting an insincere apology from someone who did nothing wrong, and accepting an insincere apology from a manipulative criminal who is just trying to steal back trust, are two sides of the same apology shitcoin.

So if you want to bury the hatchet as deeply as you can, why don’t you send Timelord a polite PM saying, “Dear ‘Sir’:  I’m sorry you feel like my innocently-intended bawdy joke was somehow ‘disrespectful’ toward you.  Please ‘forgive’ me.  P.S., you are the ‘master’ of scare-quotes; I ‘learn’ at your feet.”  From all you have said in this thread, it seems that would be sincere.  We could then wait with bated breath for his apology for making accusations against you on the basis of no evidence.

Am I not a master of apologetic diplomacy?  So sorry!


dragonvslinux, so sorry, I was deliberately trying to not publicly criticize you—much less to start some off-topic flamage in a thread about Timelord2067.  I don’t want to derail the thread here; but if you are accusing me of bad PGP practice, well, I have a reputation to maintain!

You're talking about me right? Kind of obvious when I investigated your pgp signature

Why the mere fact that you posted about it make this so obvious?  johhnyUA was the first to publicly call for a signed statement from me, with the appropriate remark that “His pgp keys is well known” and a handy link.  Husna QA has had my public key for a long time; he is the author of the Indonesian forum PGP tutorial, where I am listed in the credits that I unfortunately can’t read.  Both of them replied to my signed statement in the PGP key thread before you did, plus someone else who apparently used Keybase (please, don’t).

(that hadn't previously been staked)  

Key management on this forum is a train wreck; and I would not expect for you to find it buried in that disorganized thread.  However, it is there—ironically, first brought there by Timelord2067.  See below.

You're wrong though, I wasn't trying to help you (sorry). I saw a verification error. Namely, you signing a message without previously staked key and was curious so investigated...

Nope.  It’s there—at least the important part, the full fingerprint, plus a binding signed statement demonstrating possession of the corresponding private key.  [Edit:  Oops, I mixed up what I had posted in which thread.]  (The latter is actually unnecessary for me, since I bound my Bitcoin Forum userid into a PGP key userid.)  That was the only stuff sensible to “stake” at a time before the public keyserver network crashed and burned.

From the thread where you say I didn’t “stake” anything, n.b. Timelord’s archive of my profile page (here changed from http to https in the quote):

I've just noticed Junior Member nullius' signature in a post in a vanitygen thread I post in occasionally: [...]

The PGP 0xC2 is also on his profile page https://archive.is/lqi7R#selection-471.0-471.47

Thanks for noticing that.  My PGP key fingerprints are:

• Ed25519, preferred: 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C
• [...]

Also, I had previously staked my PGP key fingerprint with a binding signed message in another “stake” thread.  Also, my PGP key fingerprint has been in the signature of every forum post that I have ever made since December 2017, as may be verified in the Internet Archive and other sources.  —And in my signature in archived messages to bitcoin-dev, tor-dev, and elsewhere.  —And...  I have been at pains to spread my PGP identity root-of-trust fingerprint so far and wide that it should be infeasible even for powerful attackers to fake or erase it everywhere all at once.

I am glad that you put so much effort into verifying my key.  Cryptographic authentication is important in the small, to protect my account from theft, and important in the large, to ward off Faketoshi-style scams.  However, neither johhny, Husna, nor I made any “error” here; and really, there was no need for you to out yourself in this thread.

PS - Sounds like you're trying to a shill a shitcoin.

OK, assemble the evidence and tag me for it.  If your evidence is good, then I expect that Lauda will step up and blast me to Hell.  I will take a catnap whilst I wait.


With due apologies, I will now refocus on the thread topics:  Timelord2067’s vendetta over marlboroza’s masturbatory humour, suchmoon’s scandalous ulterior motives for promoting laughs, and Timelord2067’s ~poor judgment (or worse) in basing tags on Quicksold nonsense.  At least, one of those is not funny.

Well, he can read everything in this thread and respond. It is up to him now to react.

[marlboroza]

Although I get that pugman is just trying to be pragmatic and turn down the drama, I find the modern apology culture to be quite odious.  Wresting an insincere apology from someone who did nothing wrong, and accepting an insincere apology from a manipulative criminal who is just trying to steal back trust, are two sides of the same apology shitcoin.

So if you want to bury the hatchet as deeply as you can, why don’t you send Timelord a polite PM saying, “Dear ‘Sir’:  I’m sorry you feel like my innocently-intended bawdy joke was somehow ‘disrespectful’ toward you.  Please ‘forgive’ me.  P.S., you are the ‘master’ of scare-quotes; I ‘learn’ at your feet.”  From all you have said in this thread, it seems that would be sincere.  We could then wait with bated breath for his apology for making accusations against you on the basis of no evidence.

Am I not a master of apologetic diplomacy?  So sorry!

Nullius, regardless your sarcasm, I have temper and I have that crazy Balkan mentality I don't suck balls like some people around here and I don't apologize for jokes no matter how hard "you" (scare quote) think they are and I definitely won't apologize for this. I am pretty damn much honest, when I said it was a joke it was a joke. It was a fucking joke FFS.

I want to know WHY Timelord2067 turned 180 degrees after 2 years, if it was because of this than fuck it.
I edited topic to NSFW, because of "fuck" words..modern society...stone age  

[nullius]

Nullius, regardless your sarcasm, I have temper and I have that crazy Balkan mentality I don't suck balls like some people around here and I don't apologize for jokes no matter how hard "you" (scare quote) think they are and I definitely won't apologize for this. I am pretty damn much honest, when I said it was a joke it was a joke. It was a fucking joke FFS.

I noticed.  Although meticulous evidence-gathering was more important (as was a lack of finnicky reasons to not include you), it is a part of why I included you on v1.0 of my refreshed trust list:  I place more trust in people whom I expect will not kowtow to smear campaigns, mudslinging, emotional manipulation, etc.  The same criterion was a point in favour of Lauda, TMAN, actmyname, The Pharmacist, and several key staff members and/or Bitcoin Core devs who have demonstrated track records of standing their ground against extreme personal attacks.

The ability to resist pressure is necessary but insufficient to exercise trustworthy judgment.  The weak-willed are ipso facto untrustworthy, for in the end, they don’t really exercise their own judgment at all; bad people can simply browbeat them into submission.

I think it’s important to mention this.  With the newly democratized DT, I fear that DT will slowly devolve into a popularity contest for who can best pander, flatter, and curry favour—i.e., politicians who not only bend to ill-motivated sticks, but also dangle carrots to actively exploit the underlying human frailties to their advantage.  To be worthy of DT, you need to be at least a little bit of what many people would consider “a jerk”—not for the hell of it, not for trollish purposes, but just because you need to be ruthless and tough as nails against bad people who will try to sway you any way they can, by hook or by crook.

Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive—so wisdom wisheth us; she is a woman, and ever loveth only a warrior.

I want to know WHY Timelord2067 turned 180 degrees after 2 years, if it was because of this than fuck it.

A reasonable question.

[hacker1001101001]

Could you add ignore option to the poll if you consider it as an vaild solution ? Using trust system to indicate your grudge on others is not an proper use of trust system and doesn't set as an good example for others if you see.

Btw, I don't think you should be misguided by the great judge nullius. He seems to like adding highly inflammatory substances to the already burning fire in the drama. This colud even be solved by no one apologising and by ignoring each other.

[nullius]

Btw, I don't think you should be misguided by the great judge nullius. He seems to like adding highly inflammatory substances to the already burning fire in the drama. This colud even be solved by no one apologising and by ignoring each other.

So, the solution is to ignore wild accusations against self and others on the basis of inadequate or nonexistent evidence (marlboroza), or public statements on the basis of Quicksold “evidence” that you are merely the latest in a string of alts who “moved on” (me).

For sacrebleu!  To discuss these issues candidly on a forum called “Reputation” constitutes “adding highly inflammatory substances to the already burning fire in the drama.”

With all due thanks for your undoubtedly “sincere” attempts to make forum peace, I myself will take that “under advisement”. 🗑️


I have not decided between poll options, for I am waiting to see if/when/how Timelord2067 responds.

[LoyceV]

I voted Neutral. I must admit I haven't read all posts about it (there's just not enough time in a day to keep up with all the drama on Bitcointalk), but in general: when in doubt, use neutral feedback!

[dragonvslinux]

dragonvslinux, so sorry, I was deliberately trying to not publicly criticize you—much less to start some off-topic flamage in a thread about Timelord2067.  I don’t want to derail the thread here; but if you are accusing me of bad PGP practice, well, I have a reputation to maintain!

You're talking about me right? Kind of obvious when I investigated your pgp signature

Why the mere fact that you posted about it make this so obvious?  johhnyUA was the first to publicly call for a signed statement from me, with the appropriate remark that “His pgp keys is well known” and a handy link.  Husna QA has had my public key for a long time; he is the author of the Indonesian forum PGP tutorial, where I am listed in the credits that I unfortunately can’t read.  Both of them replied to my signed statement in the PGP key thread before you did, plus someone else who apparently used Keybase (please, don’t).

I should clarify that I left neutral feedback with the reference of the verified the public key, hence sounds like me, but I see your point, it could of been someone else. More relevantly, I don't have a problem jumping into this now it seems you are willing to discuss it. Given nobody had thought to leave at minimum neutral feedback referencing any verification (to counter the outdated negative) is beyond me, but that's another topic. If you had responded to my PM, I would of explained this to you privately, but oh well.

First off, I have no issue with you publicly criticizing me, as I have enough public criticisms of my mine of the PGP practice you undertook. At best it was inconsiderate (keep reading), at worst it was dodgy (prior to verifying). I otherwise hadn't seen this request for a signature from you, but also this isn't relevant to the verification process, as you probably know. I saw the johhnyUA's reference to your key which appeared irrelevant to me, as it wasn't an archived link from years ago. I could of checked web archive to see if this fingerprint hadn't been modified or added, but it looked like a rabbit hole to trust rather than verification.

There's no point in PGP if you can go back an edit a post and put a new public key or fingerprint in for example, as you probably know, hence the PGP staking thread and archiving scheme (the latter being an obvious basic requirement). Likewise there's no point in PGP if it relies on a few individuals who have access to your public key, but fail to provide either chronological or cryptographic evidence to the fact it belonged to you (a past signature, an archived key). Instead it relies on trusting these users, which is against the ethos of public key encryption. The negative trust seemed entirely accurate given there wasn't a way to publicly verify (without exceptions, ie any user) that the public key you used to sign was actually yours, from the past. Ironically this is as much about referencing as it is about PGP practice.

Most relevantly, all of this information that you included in this thread (sig request, public key archive and past signature), wasn't referenced in the PGP thread. 1 solid archive of your key or a past signature would of been enough, but unfortunately neither you nor other PGP users had provided this. Hence the verification, feedback and PMs. You see now, anyone who doubts your authentication, can verify it themself, instead of trusting other users' confirmation of your key. I hope this ramble makes sense to you.

(that hadn't previously been staked)  

Key management on this forum is a train wreck; and I would not expect for you to find it buried in that disorganized thread.  However, it is there—ironically, first brought there by Timelord2067.  See below.

You're wrong though, I wasn't trying to help you (sorry). I saw a verification error. Namely, you signing a message without previously staked key and was curious so investigated...

Nope.  It’s there—at least the important part, the full fingerprint,  (The latter is actually unnecessary for me, since I bound my Bitcoin Forum userid into a PGP key userid.)  That was the only stuff sensible to “stake” at a time before the public keyserver network crashed and burned.

As explained above, you didn't reference any public key archive or previous signature, therefore without investigating, the fingerprint was meaningless. To clarify, yes the manner in which you posted "proof" of your PGP signature was very badly done, your defense of the situation is potentially worse. You still haven't amended your PGP post.

Also, I had previously staked my PGP key fingerprint with a binding signed message in another “stake” thread.  Also, my PGP key fingerprint has been in the signature of every forum post that I have ever made since December 2017, as may be verified in the Internet Archive and other sources.  —And in my signature in archived messages to bitcoin-dev, tor-dev, and elsewhere.  —And...  I have been at pains to spread my PGP identity root-of-trust fingerprint so far and wide that it should be infeasible even for powerful attackers to fake or erase it everywhere all at once.

Yes I know you staked your key in other thread, because I searched for the key and that was the signature (in combination with the other) I used to actually verify your identity, without a shadow of a cryptographic doubt. Obviously archived keys and fingerprints are more convenient or common, but also harder to find. Again, these are all great references you are providing that could of saved me (or anyone else) a little digging, and I recommend you use these next time in your PGP practices, but ultimately: nevermind.

I am glad that you put so much effort into verifying my key.  Cryptographic authentication is important in the small, to protect my account from theft, and important in the large, to ward off Faketoshi-style scams.  However, neither johhny, Husna, nor I made any “error” here; and really, there was no need for you to out yourself in this thread.

This is pecisely why I investigated your signature to be honest, with what appeared to be (on the face of it) a "fresh" key (ie, not staked & archived reference), along with two users jumping in to verify it without referencing enough evidence, it all seemed a bit dodgy. The ways in which humans can fool each other is with these "slight of hands" (such as the infamous CSW fake signature), and is precisely why we should always investigate these matters instead trusting others. Remember when people trusted Gavin, because he trusted CSW's signature? This is the biggest weakness in PGP, the ability to deceive another with faked verification.

To clarify why I wasn't doing it to help you, I was doing so because I hadn't starting noticing your posts that were either interesting or useful, and had send you merit. When I saw your PGP signature, without an archived key (or reference to one), I felt the need to investigate myself, given the feeling of minimal responsibility by sending you merit. Hence why at best your PGP practice was not only incomplete, but also inconsiderate to other PGP users (such as myself who had a "vested interest" in being able to verify your identity).

In summary, if you fail to understand that PGP is intended so that everyone can verify someone (or something's) authentication, with concrete evidence and references, then I can't help you. Likewise, if you don't understand the value of giving the accessibility to the average PGP user to verify authentication themself, then I can't convince you. Nonetheless, apology accepted, not that it was required as I wasn't offended in the first place to be honest - more confused by your off-topic "PM-worthy" passing mention of my actions.

Don't trust, verify.

Disclaimer for skimreaders: nullius's key is verified, this is not questioning the validity of the authentication, but of the PGP practice that was undertaken.

[suchmoon]

~

Are you trying to out-wall nullius?

Please get a room thread of your own to masturbate at pictures of PGP keys.

I voted Neutral. I must admit I haven't read all posts about it (there's just not enough time in a day to keep up with all the drama on Bitcointalk), but in general: when in doubt, use neutral feedback!

Given the scandalous lack of "ignore" option I would agree that this would be the next best option.

[marlboroza]

Could you add ignore option to the poll if you consider it as an vaild solution ? Using trust system to indicate your grudge on others is not an proper use of trust system and doesn't set as an good example for others if you see.

There is somehow equal number of votes and opinions for neutral, negative and ignore. Why the fuck are you paraphrasing TECSHARE?
I'll be removing off topic replies from this point.

[Lauda]

Again this, again hypocrisy[1]. Users who advocated against me for less-numerical cases of improper ratings are advocating neutrals or ignore. This is why this is turning into a joke, and some actual neutrals are getting sucked into it without even noticing their downfall (evil tends to corrupt and drag down everything and anything it can with it) and the damage that has been and will be inflicted as a consequence of this.
I voted negative, because he is not trustworthy and I will tag him again now. This is proper use of the fucking system, it even always has been. It has been in the old, more stricter trust system and it is in the current more lenient one and with lenient I mean the requirements for a negative are much more lenient than before. Have your brains turned into baboon poop? Note: I do like baboons regardless.
[1] hacker1001101001 & co. has been noted in this particular instance.

I'll be removing off topic replies from this point.

Please continually archive this thread as you remove replies because above.

Nullius, regardless your sarcasm, I have temper and I have that crazy Balkan mentality I don't suck balls like some people around here and I don't apologize for jokes no matter how hard "you" (scare quote) think they are and I definitely won't apologize for this. I am pretty damn much honest, when I said it was a joke it was a joke. It was a fucking joke FFS.

This is actually the worst thing you could do for yourself and for everyone else. Giving in to users like him only empowers them. So for fork sake: Do not apologize for any joke and ignore suggestions of this kind.
This has probably way crossed Type-1 flag requirements, but I'd have to check in with theymos to double check.

[nullius]

Again this, again hypocrisy[1]. Users who advocated against me for less-numerical cases of improper ratings are advocating neutrals or ignore.

I noticed.

I voted negative, because he is not trustworthy and I will tag him again now.

I think that’s reasonable, as is the statement in your tag.

For my part, I am still awaiting Timelord2067’s response.  As a matter of principle, I always try to see what an accused party has to say for himself.  He has been online as recently as just over five hours ago, and he usually watches Reputation like a hawk; perhaps I am waiting too long, but I will err to the side of caution.

Please continually archive this thread as you remove replies because above.

Over ten hours ago, I already took snapshots on the assumption that marlboroza would probably delete xolxol’s zero-content offtopic insults:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200118055900/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218451.msg53635426#msg53635426
https://web.archive.org/web/20200118061229/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218451.0;all

Off-topic:  I thank xolxol for bringing his account to my attention.

<edit>
Edit 2020-01-19:  Snapshot of xolxol now whining with insults about marlboroza’s deletion of his prior whine with insults:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200119031414/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218451.msg53642844#msg53642844
Full thread snapshot:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200119031421/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218451.0;all
</edit>

Giving in to users like him only empowers them.

Hit nail on head.

[—n00b-style untrimmed quote snipped by nullius—]

Good job making this about you. You really are a loser with nothing better to do than harass people.

Now that Lauda is here, the danger is that the hate-Lauda crowd will make the thread about Lauda.

The only part of Lauda’s post that was self-referential was the bit about hypocrisy, which I quoted above.  It was a reasonable observation, for what it showed about reluctance to tag Timelord2067, the subject of this thread.  Lauda otherwise discussed Timelord, and topics relevant to Timelord such as how best to apply the trust system, plus a request that the self-moderating OP retain evidence of deleted posts.

I know that the name “Lauda” is like waving a red flag before a bull, but please stay on topic.

[suchmoon]

I know that the name “Lauda” is like waving a red flag before a bull, but please stay on topic.

Asking the bull to stay on topic is like waving a red flag and kicking the bull in the balls. "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE: Timelord2067" thread coming soon. Has he come up with a nickname for you yet?

[eddie13]

Timelord being timelord is nothing new.. This is why he is not on DT..
Everyone knows (should) to verify his accusations of account linking, and to safely ignore his "findings" that are not factually based..
I suppose he could be tagged for false accusations if you feel the need..

I do not find the fact of more tools being added (flags) to greatly increase the leniency of the use of the old system (tags), and would be careful who you take advice from regarding to the proper use of the trust system(s)..  

[hacker1001101001]

Could you add ignore option to the poll if you consider it as an vaild solution ? Using trust system to indicate your grudge on others is not an proper use of trust system and doesn't set as an good example for others if you see.

There is somehow equal number of votes and opinions for neutral, negative and ignore. Why the fuck are you paraphrasing TECSHARE?

There are more two peoples in this thread suggesting you to ignore each other to solve the issue other than TECSHARE. I am not paraphrasing anyone, that's just my own views. Anyways, I agree with what he said though.

[Lauda]

I do not find the fact of more tools being added (flags) to greatly increase the leniency of the use of the old system (tags), and would be careful who you take advice from regarding to the proper use of the trust system(s)..  

I did not mean to imply anything other than what theymos did/said. The old system has changed when the trust-system changed (and with flags). Flag introduction is a relevant, but separate event. Remember the red text on your profile when you had a single red rating? That was removed for example. Flags were created with very specific requirements exactly for this very purpose. There would be no need to remove that text otherwise and create more work for everyone (flagging scammers that were already tagged) otherwise. Re-read theymoses posts and you will understand that this statement is quite correct.

[eddie13]

Re-read theymoses posts

Funny you would appeal to the word of theymos..
I am not in favor of the reduction of standards of the use of DT..
Using the new tools for harsher warnings on older cases of absolutely proven scammers is correct..
I do not believe that I have ever had the red warning text on my profile..

[Lauda]

Funny you would appeal to the word of theymos..

I always try to contact theymos when necessary.

I am not in favor of the reduction of standards of the use of DT..

They were already reduced. Go back to the thread and argue against it. I despised the change and want the red text back (which would also come with an return of standards, I hope).

I do not believe that I have ever had the red warning text on my profile..

I did not mean it like that, use of you/your tends to circle around. In general do you remember when people had it? Of course you do, you've been around long. I even had one several times on and off.

[nullius]

I have voted negative in this topic’s poll and tagged #131361 “Timelord2067” accordingly, with OP as my reference link.

A formerly productive member of the community, who has degenerated into a crackpot with a chip on his shoulder.  Randomly attacks others with bizarre accusations so nonsensical that they would be beneath notice, were they not haloed in a false credibility from the good forum work that he did years ago.  As it is, a bright red warning is warranted:  Distrust this user and *anything whatsoever* that he says or does.

[Lauda]

I have voted negative in this topic’s poll and tagged #131361 “Timelord2067” accordingly, with OP as my reference link.

A formerly productive member of the community, who has degenerated into a crackpot with a chip on his shoulder.  Randomly attacks others with bizarre accusations so nonsensical that they would be beneath notice, were they not haloed in a false credibility from the good forum work that he did years ago.  As it is, a bright red warning is warranted:  Distrust this user and *anything whatsoever* that he says or does.

Seems fair. I do not understand what happened to him and it makes it even worse when he makes statements such as this:

(and he also removed one of the two negative trust feedbacks he'd previously left for me the same day he's telling others to ~Timelord2067 - Lauda is becoming increasingly confused about what he's saying and doing)

Something in your brain no longer ticks proper and I do not know what caused it.

[marlboroza]

I just had to "unignore" one troll account to see what timelord2067 merited, and I was really surprised to see this:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54188671#msg54188671

This is your long-term so called "scam buster" and alt account investigator:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5235038.msg54103332#msg54103332
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5235038.msg54105312#msg54105312
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54167617#msg54167617

Person who will close their eyes and ignore everything if they get signature payment from ICO bump account. Except because of money, I figured out why he is also doing this, he is doing this out of spit, just because he doesn't like someone (or doesn't like someone any more).

And, I just figured that he did some crazy shit here, instead of clicking exactly 4 links and doing his usual thingy, what timelord did? This:

...

Perhaps it would be better if you refreshed your knowledge of how to submit an investigation by perusing the OP including the section on archiving any proof.

His major concern is about me not following some edited rules instead of tagging scammer and supporting that flags.

It is just disgusting.

[suchmoon]

LOL at Timelord's selective comprehension AKA blatant lying:

Notice how the DT1 Troll is repeating his post over and over again.  Getting $5 - $6 per post and then rinse and repeating?  OP You should (if I can be so bold as to make a suggestion) delete these posts as soon as they appear - it'll lower his post to deleted ratio.  It might make him think twice before trolling this thread.

happy to get paid $5-$6 per post

instant gratification you get knowing you'll be paid $5-$6 per post

Notice how the non-DT1 troll is repeating the $5-$6 rate over and over again but completely ignores all other pertinent rules. Posts shorter than 100 characters are not paid. Deleted posts are not paid. Self-mod deleted posts don't lower any "ratio" that I can see.

[marlboroza]

Notice how the non-DT1 troll is repeating the $5-$6 rate over and over again but completely ignores all other pertinent rules. Posts shorter than 100 characters are not paid. Deleted posts are not paid. Self-mod deleted posts don't lower any "ratio" that I can see.

This is timelord's way to say that he doesn't have good argument(as usual).

I found very amusing when he mention someone's nick and then he accuse them of stalking. Or when he mention someone's nick and then he complains why they replied  
@TECSHARE, you are not allowed to post here any more.

[suchmoon]

If you want to make a local rule, it needs to be in an unedited OP. So I will post here all I like and you can suck my dick. Have fun deleting all the valid criticism you like, because like I said, you have no argument, so that is all you have left.

I know you don't read the deleted post notification PMs but you might want to start doing that unless you enjoy embarrassing yourself.

[Lauda]

His major concern is about me not following some edited rules instead of tagging scammer and supporting that flags.

It is just disgusting.

He is either become sick throughout the years which would be very unfortunate, or he was always actually quite morally evil and has only recently shown his true face. You can choose which version you wish to believe.

[marlboroza]

He is either become sick throughout the years which would be very unfortunate, or he was always actually quite morally evil and has only recently shown his true face. You can choose which version you wish to believe.

I have no clue what happened to Timelord. For example, Nutildah said he is in contact with Bruno's family.
Timelord said this:

Irony:

I knew Bruno personally and have been in contact with a family member.

You want us to take your word that you've spoken to Bruno's family, but tell us not to believe another user who makes the same claim.  

Nutildah said: "YES"

And Timelord said:

Yes.

Thank-you for voting "yes" to the Poll topic.

Next.

I mean, WTF happened here? I am not sure which version to pick.

[suchmoon]

I mean, WTF happened here? I am not sure which version to pick.

Oh there are so many choices:

1) A few marbles short of a full deck.
2) Not the brightest knife in the chandelier.
3) As sharp as a bag of wet hammers.
4) All of the above.

[marlboroza]

I mean, WTF happened here? I am not sure which version to pick.

Oh there are so many choices:

1) A few marbles short of a full deck.
2) Not the brightest knife in the chandelier.
3) As sharp as a bag of wet hammers.
4) All of the above.

I was thinking about something and I thought timelord was joking in howeycoins topic but I am really not sure any more. I think he really investigated it!

edit: here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3920469.msg41736089#msg41736089

He is either become sick throughout the years which would be very unfortunate, or he was always actually quite morally evil and has only recently shown his true face. You can choose which version you wish to believe.

...this investigation happened 2 years ago, maybe he was always like this and eventually he showed his true face?

[nutildah]

I was thinking about something and I thought timelord was joking in howeycoins topic but I am really not sure any more. I think he really investigated it!

edit: here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3920469.msg41736089#msg41736089

Holy fuck, that is hilarious. Thanks for sharing.

I apologize for going severely OT, but I wonder what ever happened to MagicSmoker. He was an up-and-comer, and I remember him fondly because he nominated me as one of Bitcointalk's most entertaining personalities.

~snip

Timelord2067 clearly doesn't get what is special about HoweyCoins - just look at how quickly it has garnered >39 pages of positive posts, mainly from that stalwart supporter of so many projects here on btct, Haiku Bot®. So the Fry you really want is:

Maybe he quit because his Activity reached 420?

Speaking of that, my account is officially 6 years old today! I say "my account" because as we all know I bought it from the real nutildah in 2016, who was kind of a jerkoff. I'm so much better than that guy.

(that's sarcasm, you fucks)

[suchmoon]

(that's sarcasm, you fucks)

You wish. Timelord2067 will use this as a red trust reference, and I'm sure TECSHARE will find ways to be a humorless prick about it too.

[marlboroza]

(that's sarcasm, you fucks)

You wish. Timelord2067 will use this as a red trust reference, and I'm sure TECSHARE will find ways to be a humorless prick about it too.

Nutildah placed disclamer so no red trust, but he might get another neutral feedback because of off topic parts, something like this:

"Reference: bitcoin forum -> Nutildah can't stay on topic (archive, web archive, archive of web archive)"

[nutildah]

From the ChipMixer sig campaign thread:

You might have given them *three* positives, but they haven't given you anything.

To be fair, Bit_Happy didn't say that the compliment was in the form of trust feedback. It would be quite weird to use the trust system to compliment someone on posting quality.

Pardon?




Weird to complement, but ok to run them down?

Really?

...

suchmoon was just pointing out that Timelord was saying something that was incorrect, and of course Timelord's response is to troll them with stupidity. Not really upping his chances of getting accepted to the campaign.


A few weeks ago I realized that the first interaction I ever had with Timelord was when I was trying to tell him that Bruno wasn't the same person as cryptohunter, even though his trust feedback for cryptohunter (still) reads:



Like his most recent engagements with me, his reaction at the time was to be a hostile dick.

Something that Timelord is incapable of saying:

Oh, you're right. My bad, or let me fix that.

[marlboroza]

^ obviously, timelord is always right.

I have recently sent counter to timelord and lauda and timelord created crazy theory. I have tried to explain him why I have sent that feedback, and, instead of reading, timelord went full retard so I gave up and I just told him that he is idiot and I linked my post. His last reaction was this(of course, once again timelord tried to hide something, in this case, link from my post):

Nice deflection.  Now cry me a river.

You are idiot.

The correct English usage is: "You Sir, are an idiot!"

Or, you can get away with:

"You are an idiot!" or the contracted: "You're an idiot!"  (Note also the punctuation in the form of an exclamation mark).

In every case please note how you have omitted the word AN

Most important when you are trying to insult someone to get it right.


Your hostile reaction over the last few posts is proof positive that you haven't changed, you are still as hostile as ever and your glowing positive trust was only a method to attack mhanbostanci using myself as collateral damage.

I've moved on.  I didn't say I'd forgiven, or forgotten.  Just that I've moved on. Marlboroza is going to have to work out whatever daemons are burning him up on his own.

Now cry me a river.

 

[marlboroza]

This guy is complete lunatic. It seems that I am not allowed to respond in topics started by fake newbie accounts, if I do, according to timelord, I am automatically their alt account:

Instead of replying off topic can you tell us on what trust and deals you added rohang to your trust list? Please give one example why rohang should be trusted and I'll never message on forum again.

Are you sure you know which alt you're using to make these idle threats that mean nothing from?

Well, Mr. Moron2067, it's not me.

(ARCHIVED --> http://archive.is/lJlUA#selection-9535.0-9907.95 <--)

[nutildah]

Well, Mr. Moron2067, it's not me.

You mean your first instinct after making an alt account isn't to quickly give it some merits so it can level up? Which sig campaign are you planning on entering it in eventually? Hope its not Chipmixer.

[marlboroza]

You mean your first instinct after making an alt account isn't to quickly give it some merits so it can level up? Which sig campaign are you planning on entering it in eventually? Hope its not Chipmixer.

Damnit, you got me 

[marlboroza]

~
Perhaps marlboroza should practice what they preach.

Ekhem...lets not forget your "neutral-feedback-bumps".
I know that you, timelord2067, can't remember things lately so little reminder for you to read few posts in this thread again. I promise I won't remove your post if you write something meaningful (no trolling/out of context/similar thingies).

[nullius]

The following is is off-topic on a thread that that I don’t want to keep bumping with Timelord’s nonsense.

What the hell is he even trying to say?  I ask for somebody who is not Timelord to interpret this.  Is he implying that my account was acquired as the alt of an alt account that I myself had acknowledged with bidirectional neutral feedbacks?  Is he actually psychotic?  Or is he just trolling?

Oh, yes, I just tagged him again for the reasons thereby referenced.

Are you able to read the bold title which says in large letters, “Trust summary for Trade Runner”, and bold subtitle which says, “Sent feedback”?  I directly quoted from Trade Runner’s trust page, with a link thereto.

Your post, its title, and its insinuations are defamatory of me.  Your sabre-rattling about “for future reference” is ridiculous, in the sense of inviting ridicule of you.  Also, you do not know how to spell “misleading”.

I have tagged you accordingly.

Where do I start:

You trust feedback abuse of me:

Or, that you in turn can't read:

Next you will tell me I can't spell colour. 

[marlboroza]

^
I am giving my best not to read timelord's posts as I have no clue what the hell he talks about, unfortunately, I can't ignore him when I am not logged in and reading forum. Let's just call it "another off topic timelord's rant".
Heey! I have an idea! Theymos should invent something like "ignore button for forum guests"!