PrimeNumber7 is an alt of Quickseller, Take 2

[PrimeNumber7]

I also have good reason to believe he has been trying to get some people who are active in handing out tags to notice this connection "on their own".

Further, with the near admission of puppetry used in this thread, I would question your claim of lack of involvement in this thread, and this one...

It is clear to me this has been spread by Suchmoon since mid May, this included by a trust exclusion and a neutral rating (I don't remember which one came first). This happened to be within a few weeks of getting a rule prohibiting the sale of KYC verified accounts without explaining how they are not hacked enforced. It has long been my presumption the rating was in response to my weeding out this particular type of fraud in the marketplace as a form of retaliation.

For me, posts like these are just as incriminating as any of the evidence presented here. These read exactly like someone who has had a grudge against suchmoon for a long time (i.e. QS), and not at all like a relative newbie. Why not rally against nutildah, or The-Devil, who started the threads? Why not against Lauda, who has left red trust? Instead he chooses to rally on suchmoon and even make completely unrelated and unsubstantiated claims about selling accounts?

I have seen Suchmoon insinuate this connection for months and have tried to bring this to the attention of people who are frequently tagging people. I have been paying attention and all this ultimately can be traced to what Suchmoon has posted.  The OPs role is puppet, the-devil is a suspicious merit farmer who abandoned his account as soon as he created another thread about me. The-devil has no real reason to highlight the connection because QS who created a flag on him has no power to harm his account and he cited literally nothing as proof. Lauda is not acting fairly in my opinion and I think he should remove the tag if he can’t articulate evidence. Another suspicious new user made an attempt at getting Lauda to look at merit he sent me months ago. I have seen Lauda get attacked a lot but I am willing to bet that wasn’t the last time he accidentally quoted his own post.

I think you bring up this detail is akin to pettifogging.

I'm not sure how much I like staff using backend information, or arguably confidential/PM information, against users like that...

I have reported many posts, without the expectation of any kind of recognition or reward (unlike some other people who brag about their report count),  and for no reason other than to make the forum better and cleaner. I however will no longer be reporting posts as this has been ‘rewarded’ with information from this activity being used in a witch hunt. I would recommend others do the same if the official stance on disclosing this information is too bad, we have the right to disclose it when we wish. I don’t think many other people would feel this kind of disclosure is appropriate.

[1715338399]

1715338399

[1715338399]

1715338399

[1715338399]

1715338399

[suchmoon]

I have seen Suchmoon insinuate this connection for months and have tried to bring this to the attention of people who are frequently tagging people. I have been paying attention and all this ultimately can be traced to what Suchmoon has posted.  The OPs role is puppet, the-devil is a suspicious merit farmer who abandoned his account as soon as he created another thread about me. The-devil has no real reason to highlight the connection because QS who created a flag on him has no power to harm his account and he cited literally nothing as proof. Lauda is not acting fairly in my opinion and I think he should remove the tag if he can’t articulate evidence. Another suspicious new user made an attempt at getting Lauda to look at merit he sent me months ago. I have seen Lauda get attacked a lot but I am willing to bet that wasn’t the last time he accidentally quoted his own post.

I have seen you making shit up for years so I'm not going to ask for proof of any of the above. Sad to see that your new-found friendship with Lauda didn't last.

[TECSHARE]

in fact just to be clear---i don't give a shit about quickseller. what i'm obviously bothered about is this lynch mob culture, and the tendency to throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. the OP admitted he lacked proof but wanted to make the accusation anyway, just to see if it would develop into the downfall of PrimeNumber7. and truthfully we all know: you don't need proof if you get the right people on your side. the danger of mob mentality is ever present....

The accusation was floating around for a long time and PN7 got red tagged before this thread even existed. As you can see it didn't change many opinions, which is pretty much what I would have expected. Most people simply don't care but for those that do (e.g. people attacked by Quickseller) it's good to know which users they should avoid dealing with.

The accusation was floating around? Like just in the ether? The beginnings of those accusations couldn't have been you couldn't it and you are simply laundering your own past accusations as if they were just "floating around" as if materializing out of the ether and from no one in particular? The really dumb thing about all of this is, even if you are right, who gives a fuck? Quickseller is a huge pain in the ass and has a history of making false accusations, along with a relatively minor impropriety were the damage was minimal if anything. What exactly are you protecting the community from here? I wouldn't trust Quickseller but I don't consider him a threat. All of this is self serving mobbing over nothing.

[suchmoon]

The accusation was floating around? Like just in the ether? The beginnings of those accusations couldn't have been you couldn't it and you are simply laundering your own past accusations as if they were just "floating around" as if materializing out of the ether and from no one in particular? The really dumb thing about all of this is, even if you are right, who gives a fuck? Quickseller is a huge pain in the ass and has a history of making false accusations, along with a relatively minor impropriety were the damage was minimal if anything. What exactly are you protecting the community from here? I wouldn't trust Quickseller but I don't consider him a threat. All of this is self serving mobbing over nothing.

I have suspected it for a long time, that's not exactly a secret given my neutral trust rating but as far as I can remember the first public mention of this link didn't come from me or from anyone I may have told about it. If I'm wrong about it I'm sure you'll prove it with solid evidence.

I also never said anything about "protecting the community". As far as being a threat, people casually doxed by Quickseller might disagree with you but it's up to everyone's individual choice if they want to share personal info with PrimeNumber7 or include him in their trust lists.

[TECSHARE]

The accusation was floating around? Like just in the ether? The beginnings of those accusations couldn't have been you couldn't it and you are simply laundering your own past accusations as if they were just "floating around" as if materializing out of the ether and from no one in particular? The really dumb thing about all of this is, even if you are right, who gives a fuck? Quickseller is a huge pain in the ass and has a history of making false accusations, along with a relatively minor impropriety were the damage was minimal if anything. What exactly are you protecting the community from here? I wouldn't trust Quickseller but I don't consider him a threat. All of this is self serving mobbing over nothing.

I have suspected it for a long time, that's not exactly a secret given my neutral trust rating but as far as I can remember the first public mention of this link didn't come from me or from anyone I may have told about it. If I'm wrong about it I'm sure you'll prove it with solid evidence.

I also never said anything about "protecting the community". As far as being a threat, people casually doxed by Quickseller might disagree with you but it's up to everyone's individual choice if they want to share personal info with PrimeNumber7 or include him in their trust lists.

Why would I waste my time disproving a premise you have the burden of proof on? This is a pattern of behavior among several "scambusters" here on the forum. They make accusations and just repeat them until people forget where it even came from and just act as it is now accepted fact. This is also known as operant conditioning, a primary technique used in propaganda and marketing. If you are so concerned about doxing, why is it you still have Vod on your trust list? Like I said before, you have a habit of picking a target then arranging facts around them to manipulate a certain narrative rather than following the facts themselves. The primary purpose of the trust system is to protect the community. Your use of it is an implicit claim of doing so with your action.

[suchmoon]

Why would I waste my time disproving a premise you have the burden of proof on?

I was talking about YOUR claim of laundering accusations and whatnot. I don't have a burden of proof for that, you do.

The primary purpose of the trust system is to protect the community. Your use of it is an implicit claim of doing so with your action.

So you're protecting the community by including PrimeNumber7 in your trust list?

I feel safer already, thanks.

[marlboroza]

They make accusations and just repeat them until people forget where it even came from and just act as it is now accepted fact. This is also known as operant conditioning, a primary technique used in propaganda and marketing.

They post lies and just repeat them until people forget they are liars and start believing in their lies. This technique is often used by scammers so accusations have to be repeated so people won't forget that they are potentially lying.

Shit, I didn't move out of scam accusation board to listen all this crap again I usually listened from people accused to run scam ICO's, so fuck off TECSHARE.

[TECSHARE]

Why would I waste my time disproving a premise you have the burden of proof on?

I was talking about YOUR claim of laundering accusations and whatnot. I don't have a burden of proof for that, you do.

Of course you are, and in the process just skipping the part where you prove your prerequisite claim:

The accusation was floating around for a long time and PN7 got red tagged before this thread even existed.

Seeing a lot of this going on too:

[figmentofmyass]

@nutildah almost everything in my last post went right over your head.

Its not just me. Apparently you went over everybody's heads.

that's probably because nobody in the thread actually knows dick about forensic linguistics or statistical rigor despite the armchair expertise intended to show otherwise.

the OP admitted he lacked proof but wanted to make the accusation anyway, just to see if it would develop into the downfall of PrimeNumber7

Not at all. Its because I want people to be aware that evidence of the connection exists. If I wanted to actively contribute to his downfall I would have neg tagged him.

it's much safer for you to achieve consensus first. that precludes any risk of having feedback countered or trust line exclusion or general drama around your judgment. group consensus is essential for mob mentality, which was the apparent object here since (as you acknowledge) proof was never on the table.

it's very transparent what was really happening here. i'm glad someone---TECSHARE---is willing to call it out for what it is.

some people are trying to act as if quickseller was such a huge scammer who scammed so many people out of so much money (), that it's vitally important that his alts be outed even absent any direct evidence. people who were active during quickseller's heyday can instantly see through that transparent posturing.

if quickseller had ever stolen money or actually achieved a long con, these low standards for evidence might be acceptable. in truth, people are only taking that line because quickseller showed himself to be an unhinged, sociopathic pain in the fucking ass (which is the true reason he fell from grace, not "forensic linguistics" or "self-escrow")---not because there is truly any moral justification. they are transparently just lynch mobbing because they hate quickseller. as TECSHARE notes, "scambusting" is the perfect veneer to engage in such behavior:

That is because they pick a target then arrange the "evidence" around them, AKA confirmation bias. This is just a convenient methodology to target people they have disputes with using the plausible deniability of "scambusting". They do it over and over again. Some one criticizes them or one of their buddies, suddenly they are all digging through all of their shit looking for anything they can manipulate to cast them in a bad light in retribution for daring to criticize one of the chosen.

Why would I waste my time disproving a premise you have the burden of proof on? This is a pattern of behavior among several "scambusters" here on the forum. They make accusations and just repeat them until people forget where it even came from and just act as it is now accepted fact. This is also known as operant conditioning, a primary technique used in propaganda and marketing.

quickseller is known for his ridiculous logical contortions and unproven accusations against other people. why reduce ourselves to that level?

[suchmoon]

Of course you are, and in the process just skipping the part where you prove your prerequisite claim:

The accusation was floating around for a long time and PN7 got red tagged before this thread even existed.

Sorry, I thought you can read dates. Lauda's tag precedes this thread. Do you need help figuring that out?

Prior accusations:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215097.msg53538429#msg53538429
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5195337.msg52912409#msg52912409

There is a lot more if you care to look for it, which I'm guessing you don't and you'll deflect into something else now.

[figmentofmyass]

Of course you are, and in the process just skipping the part where you prove your prerequisite claim:

The accusation was floating around for a long time and PN7 got red tagged before this thread even existed.

Prior accusations:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215097.msg53538429#msg53538429
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5195337.msg52912409#msg52912409

are there prior accusations from before you tagged PrimeNumber7 in july 2019?

The primary purpose of the trust system is to protect the community. Your use of it is an implicit claim of doing so with your action.

So you're protecting the community by including PrimeNumber7 in your trust list?

I feel safer already, thanks.

while PrimeNumber7 doesn't presently have particularly valuable feedback or trust list, i'm beginning to see the value in including users from both sides of any "forum drama", if not generally issuing counter feedback. or at least tempering my trust list to account for how DT is actually used.

it's obvious that trust feedback (including DT) is generally used to facilitate personal vendettas and forum politics, not to mention that proof is optional. as TECSHARE pointed out, there are doxxers and plenty of legally/morally questionable behavior whichever side of the divide (DT and its detractors) you look at, so DT itself is not an accurate gauge for what is acceptable behavior on this forum. those who were around during quickseller's heyday know that he likely could have easily redeemed himself and retained his DT status in 2015 had he simply kneeled at the time instead of doubling down on his scoundrel behavior and digging himself deeper and deeper. (as we know quickseller tends to do)

i think all of this is fairly obvious to anyone who knows the facts and has a brain. very few people are willing to call it out or accept their role in perpetuating it though. props to TECSHARE and mikeywith for having the balls not to toe the party line. some other people ITT just depress the fuck outta me.

[suchmoon]

are there prior accusations from before you tagged PrimeNumber7 in july 2019?

I don't know. How is that relevant?

while PrimeNumber7 doesn't presently have particularly valuable feedback or trust list, i'm beginning to see the value in including users from both sides of any "forum drama", if not generally issuing counter feedback. or at least tempering my trust list to account for how DT is actually used.

it's obvious that trust feedback (including DT) is generally used to facilitate personal vendettas and forum politics, not to mention that proof is optional. as TECSHARE pointed out, there are doxxers and plenty of legally/morally questionable behavior whichever side of the divide (DT and its detractors) you look at, so DT itself is not an accurate gauge for what is acceptable behavior on this forum. those who were around during quickseller's heyday know that he likely could have easily redeemed himself and retained his DT status in 2015 had he simply kneeled at the time instead of doubling down on his scoundrel behavior and digging himself deeper and deeper. (as we know quickseller tends to do)

i think all of this is fairly obvious to anyone who knows the facts and has a brain. very few people are willing to call it out or accept their role in perpetuating it though. props to TECSHARE and mikeywith for having the balls not to toe the party line. some other people ITT just depress the fuck outta me.

Whatever floats your boat. I don't see how that explains trusting and distrusting the same person at the same time but it doesn't really matter to me.

[figmentofmyass]

are there prior accusations from before you tagged PrimeNumber7 in july 2019?

I don't know. How is that relevant?

i think it's pretty clear from the following conversation:

The accusation was floating around for a long time and PN7 got red tagged before this thread even existed.

The accusation was floating around? Like just in the ether? The beginnings of those accusations couldn't have been you couldn't it and you are simply laundering your own past accusations as if they were just "floating around" as if materializing out of the ether and from no one in particular?

I have suspected it for a long time, that's not exactly a secret given my neutral trust rating but as far as I can remember the first public mention of this link didn't come from me or from anyone I may have told about it. If I'm wrong about it I'm sure you'll prove it with solid evidence.

Why would I waste my time disproving a premise you have the burden of proof on?

I was talking about YOUR claim of laundering accusations and whatnot. I don't have a burden of proof for that, you do.

Of course you are, and in the process just skipping the part where you prove your prerequisite claim:

The accusation was floating around for a long time and PN7 got red tagged before this thread even existed.

Prior accusations:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215097.msg53538429#msg53538429
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5195337.msg52912409#msg52912409

There is a lot more if you care to look for it, which I'm guessing you don't and you'll deflect into something else now.

TECSHARE asserted the accusation against PrimeNumber7 originated with you (and insinuated this thread is part of a personal ongoing effort to smear him). you denied that assertion, but AFAICT the earliest public accusation does appear to come from you. please correct me if i'm wrong.

that's why it seemed relevant---it was literally the subject of discussion for several vitriolic posts back and forth.

Whatever floats your boat. I don't see how that explains trusting and distrusting the same person at the same time but it doesn't really matter to me.

perhaps that should boil down to the individual feedback and trust lists since they are two different accounts.

i think of trust in terms of "whose feedback (including counter feedback) do i want to see to assess trader reputability", not "is there circumstantial evidence of an alt account? i better change my trust ratings based on that!!1!!1!"

i would add PrimeNumber7 to my trust list too if i thought his feedback and trust list were actually valuable to me. they aren't.

[suchmoon]

TECSHARE asserted the accusation against PrimeNumber7 originated with you (and insinuated this thread is part of a personal ongoing effort to smear him). you denied that assertion, but AFAICT the earliest public accusation does appear to come from you. please correct me if i'm wrong.

Why did you omit your own post from the fake quote pyramid? It originated with you claiming that this thread made the PN7 == QS accusation but that's clearly false. I didn't make that accusation either - my neutral rating was worded the way it was (and made neutral to begin with) for a good reason.

So why don't you dispense with the pretzels and state exactly what it is you're trying to pin on me. Posting a neutral rating based on a suspicion? Guilty as charged. Anything else?

[TECSHARE]

TECSHARE asserted the accusation against PrimeNumber7 originated with you (and insinuated this thread is part of a personal ongoing effort to smear him). you denied that assertion, but AFAICT the earliest public accusation does appear to come from you. please correct me if i'm wrong.

Why did you omit your own post from the fake quote pyramid? It originated with you claiming that this thread made the PN7 == QS accusation but that's clearly false. I didn't make that accusation either - my neutral rating was worded the way it was (and made neutral to begin with) for a good reason.

So why don't you dispense with the pretzels and state exactly what it is you're trying to pin on me. Posting a neutral rating based on a suspicion? Guilty as charged. Anything else?

Yeah the part where you start the accusations, then refer to them later as if some one else started them. You then claim that prior accusations exist, you swear it, except you can't produce them. Like I said before:

Without seeing evidence, it is not possible to put on a useful defense.

Your wish has been granted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253

although i am loathe to get involved in this kind of forum drama, i feel it's necessary to point out the apparent weakness of that "evidence": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53658861#msg53658861

i'm disappointed in the bad judgment exhibited here and in that thread. the fact that people are tagging PrimeNumber7 on the basis of such non-evidence is disappointing.

i've always had a low opinion of the default trust system and its politics. somehow you guys have managed to lower it even more.

That is because they pick a target then arrange the "evidence" around them, AKA confirmation bias. This is just a convenient methodology to target people they have disputes with using the plausible deniability of "scambusting". They do it over and over again. Some one criticizes them or one of their buddies, suddenly they are all digging through all of their shit looking for anything they can manipulate to cast them in a bad light in retribution for daring to criticize one of the chosen.

The accusation was floating around? Like just in the ether? The beginnings of those accusations couldn't have been you couldn't it and you are simply laundering your own past accusations as if they were just "floating around" as if materializing out of the ether and from no one in particular? The really dumb thing about all of this is, even if you are right, who gives a fuck? Quickseller is a huge pain in the ass and has a history of making false accusations, along with a relatively minor impropriety were the damage was minimal if anything. What exactly are you protecting the community from here? I wouldn't trust Quickseller but I don't consider him a threat. All of this is self serving mobbing over nothing.

I have suspected it for a long time, that's not exactly a secret given my neutral trust rating but as far as I can remember the first public mention of this link didn't come from me or from anyone I may have told about it. If I'm wrong about it I'm sure you'll prove it with solid evidence.

I also never said anything about "protecting the community". As far as being a threat, people casually doxed by Quickseller might disagree with you but it's up to everyone's individual choice if they want to share personal info with PrimeNumber7 or include him in their trust lists.

Why would I waste my time disproving a premise you have the burden of proof on? This is a pattern of behavior among several "scambusters" here on the forum. They make accusations and just repeat them until people forget where it even came from and just act as it is now accepted fact. This is also known as operant conditioning, a primary technique used in propaganda and marketing. If you are so concerned about doxing, why is it you still have Vod on your trust list? Like I said before, you have a habit of picking a target then arranging facts around them to manipulate a certain narrative rather than following the facts themselves. The primary purpose of the trust system is to protect the community. Your use of it is an implicit claim of doing so with your action.

You are clearly demonstrating this pattern of behavior regardless if it was a neutral or not. You started the accusations, then a bunch of people who have disputes with Quickseller repeated them, you pretend like the accusations just popped out of nowhere and are just accepted fact. This is what is called information laundering and the media does it all the time to push bullshit stories. Oh, Joe Bob tweeted it, we can report it as he stated it. All it is is a thin legal protection from being culpable for spreading malicious lies. In your case a thin pretext for taking responsibility for claiming some one else made the claims and referencing back to them as justification for your current accusations.

[suchmoon]

Yeah the part where you start the accusations, then refer to them later as if some one else started them. You then claim that prior accusations exist, you swear it, except you can't produce them.

I said that public accusations (yes, started by someone else) existed prior to this thread. I did produce examples. Which part of this are you disputing?

[nutildah]

if quickseller had ever stolen money or actually achieved a long con, these low standards for evidence might be acceptable. in truth, people are only taking that line because quickseller showed himself to be an unhinged, sociopathic pain in the fucking ass (which is the true reason he fell from grace, not "forensic linguistics" or "self-escrow")---not because there is truly any moral justification. they are transparently just lynch mobbing because they hate quickseller. as TECSHARE notes, "scambusting" is the perfect veneer to engage in such behavior:

It seems to me like you're purposefully overlooking the obvious (that PN7 is the same person as QS) in order to play lawyer and cast a shadow of a doubt. That's fine, and I do appreciate dissenting opinions, but as I said in the beginning this isn't a court of law. We're not convicting anybody of anything here, and no sentences are being handed out. Therefore, I don't need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. If you continue to insist they are not the same person, feel free to leave him a neutral or positive feedback or whatever you need to do to let other forum members know that I am wrong.

I stand by my initial assertion:

Each piece of evidence on its own does not mean anything, but when all are taken together as a whole (everything, not just the linguistic comparisons), anybody should be able to reasonably conclude that QS and PN7 are the same person.

If you disagree, that's fine, and I can live with that.

[TECSHARE]

Yeah the part where you start the accusations, then refer to them later as if some one else started them. You then claim that prior accusations exist, you swear it, except you can't produce them.

I said that public accusations (yes, started by someone else) existed prior to this thread. I did produce examples. Which part of this are you disputing?

Both of which occurred AFTER your July 2nd 2019 accusation. As I said previously, you were the source of the accusation, a bunch of people who also hold grudges against Quickseller repeat it, you reference your own accusations as if they came from no where and are just accepted fact. This is basic "information laundering".

[figmentofmyass]

It seems to me like you're purposefully overlooking the obvious (that PN7 is the same person as QS) in order to play lawyer and cast a shadow of a doubt. That's fine, and I do appreciate dissenting opinions, but as I said in the beginning this isn't a court of law.

of course not. it's a kangaroo court:

noun: an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.

i don't give a shit about quickseller. i'm concerned about the next person brought before this kangaroo court and the next one after that. my problem is with this general process of trumping up unproven accusations and encouraging mob justice.

TECSHARE asserted the accusation against PrimeNumber7 originated with you (and insinuated this thread is part of a personal ongoing effort to smear him). you denied that assertion, but AFAICT the earliest public accusation does appear to come from you. please correct me if i'm wrong.

Why did you omit your own post from the fake quote pyramid?

i didn't misquote or misorder anything, so the characterization as "fake" seems pretty dishonest. my post came before your entire exchange with TECSHARE and had nothing to do it. why would i include it, to confuse people? here is the full quote for context:

in fact just to be clear---i don't give a shit about quickseller. what i'm obviously bothered about is this lynch mob culture, and the tendency to throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. the OP admitted he lacked proof but wanted to make the accusation anyway, just to see if it would develop into the downfall of PrimeNumber7. and truthfully we all know: you don't need proof if you get the right people on your side. the danger of mob mentality is ever present....

The accusation was floating around for a long time and PN7 got red tagged before this thread even existed. As you can see it didn't change many opinions, which is pretty much what I would have expected. Most people simply don't care but for those that do (e.g. people attacked by Quickseller) it's good to know which users they should avoid dealing with.

The accusation was floating around? Like just in the ether? The beginnings of those accusations couldn't have been you couldn't it and you are simply laundering your own past accusations as if they were just "floating around" as if materializing out of the ether and from no one in particular? The really dumb thing about all of this is, even if you are right, who gives a fuck? Quickseller is a huge pain in the ass and has a history of making false accusations, along with a relatively minor impropriety were the damage was minimal if anything. What exactly are you protecting the community from here? I wouldn't trust Quickseller but I don't consider him a threat. All of this is self serving mobbing over nothing.

It originated with you claiming that this thread made the PN7 == QS accusation but that's clearly false.

just......no. why are you trying to project weird false shit onto me?

i suggested here that the first publicly known accusation against PrimeNumber7 was your trust feedback posted in july 2019. i understand now that you are trying to paint that as "not an accusation" but it's what i (and i assume TECSHARE) were referring to. "Likely a well-known scammer evading red trust" is definitely an accusation, and i think it's insulting to everyone's intelligence to act like you weren't talking about quickseller.

So why don't you dispense with the pretzels and state exactly what it is you're trying to pin on me. Posting a neutral rating based on a suspicion? Guilty as charged. Anything else?

tbh, i'm really only here at this point because you made some obvious mischaracterizations about things i said/did, so i felt compelled to respond.

but since you asked: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53678431#msg53678431

at first i dismissed the idea but AFAICT it's true: you were the first to publicly accuse PrimeNumber7, and now you are here perpetuating that accusation. that makes it difficult to dismiss what TECSHARE is saying.

Yeah the part where you start the accusations, then refer to them later as if some one else started them. You then claim that prior accusations exist, you swear it, except you can't produce them.

I said that public accusations (yes, started by someone else) existed prior to this thread. I did produce examples. Which part of this are you disputing?

that's a blatant straw man. the argument was never about whether public accusations existed prior to this thread (which was created 3 days ago ). the point of contention was always this:

the first public mention of this link didn't come from me or from anyone I may have told about it.

anyway, i need to bow out of this discussion. 100% not worth it. i've not seen so much intellectual dishonesty in one place in a very, very long time. from deflection to fallacy to mischaracterization, etc rinse repeat---it is exhausting. i feel dirty just participating. the reputation board is a cesspool.

keep fighting the good fight, TECSHARE. i honestly don't know how you keep it up around here.

later guys. i hope i didn't fuck up your witch burning. i'll stay out of the next one....

[nutildah]

as I said in the beginning this isn't a court of law.

of course not. it's a kangaroo court:

noun: an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.

It's not even that. What "crime" are we "trying" him for?

i've not seen so much intellectual dishonesty in one place in a very, very long time.

You keep insisting we are trying him for a crime when we are not. That's not intellectually dishonest?

You came in here mischaracterizing what I was doing from the get go and then continued to focus on trivial aspects instead of attempting to visualize the bigger picture. I never said what I was doing was scientific or amounted to "linguistic forensics", but then you criticized me for not satisfying your standards for that field, which is also intellectually dishonest. It's as if I painted a picture of an iguana and you told me that it was a terrible cat. I thought maybe your misunderstanding was born out of confusion, but you insist that its not, so indeed there's not much left to be said at this point.

the reputation board is a cesspool.

It's not for everybody, that's for certain.

later guys. i hope i didn't fuck up your witch burning. i'll stay out of the next one....

You're always welcome to participate in the discussions here.