Spineless cowards making posts

[TECSHARE]

~

All this shows that you're reading entirely between the lines instead of what I actually said. I can't help you with that.

Really? Of this whole forum, I am the problem am I? I have exhibited EXORBITANT amounts of restraint in my use of the trust system. Your accusations of hypocrisy are again nothing more than projection to deflect from the behavior you excuse from your friends. You say you respect me for speaking out under my "main" (only) account, but yet you refuse to exclude those who use the trust system as a tool to punish me for doing so. Then in the same breath you accuse me of manipulating the trust system. No, you and your friends and their systematic abuse aren't the worst problem, it is me and my nebulous and undefined "hypocrisy".

I didn't say you're the sole or even the worst problem, but you're certainly a good example of hypocrisy. I did exclude some users in no small part due to how they treated you but you've shown that you wouldn't do that for someone who disagrees with you - nothing nebulous about it. Quite ironic when you consider that I'm not raving about "standards" and sure as shit I don't pretend to be some forum justice warrior slash martyr. I do what I think is right, I'm certain I make mistakes along the way, and I expect other users will hold me accountable.

Don't you think this is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black?

I take it you're talking about yourself. When I have something to say I say it without hiding behind sockpuppets, Mr. Kettle.

grow a backbone,

What plan do you suggest to acheive it?

No need for elaborate plans. Do what your conscience tells you to do and let the chips fall where they may.

or just exclude the loudmouths and build sane trust networks.

This sounds very wrong. Out of frustration?

Excluding hypocritical loud assholes is not wrong. I wish this - along with "Ignore" - was used far more often instead of endless bickering and trying to impose opinions on each other and using red trust for differences of opinion.

Yet you are de facto implying I am a worse problem than the regular and systematic abuse perpetrated by the people you support by deflecting attention away from their activities and redirecting it at me as if it is priority.

Very nice example, thank you. As you can see here you expect me to hold me to standards I am advocating for while simultaneously excusing yourself and others from those standards. That is not hypocrisy on my part, that is me refusing to let you dictate the letter of the law to me in order to find reasons to excuse your friends so you can continue ignoring those same laws. This is the constant pattern with you and nearly your only argument:



Nutilduhh tried to sell their account. Nutilduuuh negative rates others for account sales. Nutilduhhh doesn't get to punish others for something they do themselves, then complain when they are held to their own standards. Me not excluding that user is in no way hypocritical. Would you like to talk about hypocritical? Lets talk about your inclusion of Vod even though you know very well his claims have no substantiation and are a pathetic attempt at retaliation. Nah, that's not important, what is important is that I refused to cave to your demands that one time over something Nutilda deems unacceptable by their own standards.

What were we talking about again? Oh right, we got deflected from the topic of default trust users abusing the trust system to punish people for speaking. Coincidence I am sure.

[suchmoon]

~

Again, I'm not the "standards" troll here nor do I have an obligation to exclude anyone whom you have a squabble with. But if what I do or don't do looks like bad judgement to someone then I would encourage them to exclude me from their trust lists. If more people used that option instead of expecting a top-down standard then many problems would go away, including the topic of this thread.

[marlboroza]

This was posted in another thread, another reason why someone should use newbie account.

If you publicly share your opinion, you will be accused of being "petty and vindictive", "dishonest" and so on. Users are just afraid that someone will accuse them if they speak truth. Thanks @figmentofmyass for proving me right.

[TECSHARE]

This was posted in another thread, another reason why someone should use newbie account.

If you publicly share your opinion, you will be accused of being "petty and vindictive", "dishonest" and so on. Users are just afraid that someone will accuse them if they speak truth. Thanks @figmentofmyass for proving me right.

Funny, that sounds exactly like the point he was trying to make. Your transparent refractory semantic games to try to appropriate his argument, as if it was what you were saying all along, is quite pathetic.

~

Again, I'm not the "standards" troll here nor do I have an obligation to exclude anyone whom you have a squabble with. But if what I do or don't do looks like bad judgement to someone then I would encourage them to exclude me from their trust lists. If more people used that option instead of expecting a top-down standard then many problems would go away, including the topic of this thread.

Who said anything about a squabble? He is objectively abusing the trust system, and he refuses to substantiate any of his ratings, and you use any excuse you can to make justifications for the abuse of your friends while condemning it in others, yet I am the hypocrite.

What, you mean the top down standard of requiring evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating? That seems unreasonable to you does it? Is that perhaps because you and your friends would then not be able to keep control of the default trust among your small group of nepotistic abusers using ambiguously and selectively enforced rules? Funny, you are free to make judgements about who you include and exclude, but when I do it I am a hypocrite and abusing the trusts system.

[marlboroza]

This was posted in another thread, another reason why someone should use newbie account.

If you publicly share your opinion, you will be accused of being "petty and vindictive", "dishonest" and so on. Users are just afraid that someone will accuse them if they speak truth. Thanks @figmentofmyass for proving me right.

Funny, that sounds exactly like the point he was trying to make. Your transparent refractory semantic games to try to appropriate his argument, as if it was what you were saying all along, is quite pathetic.

I don't see why is it funny? Have you read this thread? I really said something like figmentofmyass did!

I am only using your words to beat yahoo's argument here! WTH dude? Crossposting from another thread:

It doesn't matter. You think he is. You people are pathetic little people who need to push everyone else around to feel better about yourselves.

Users should use new accounts because other users will call them "pathetic little people". Better post something from new account, you don't want to risk "real account" and users calling you "pathetic".

[TECSHARE]

It doesn't matter. You think he is. You people are pathetic little people who need to push everyone else around to feel better about yourselves.

Users should use new accounts because other users will call them "pathetic little people". Better post something from new account, you don't want to risk "real account" and users calling you "pathetic".

Except we aren't talking about getting your feels hurt with words you don't like, are we? We are talking about the fact that the default trust abuses their authority to punish people for speaking when their own feels are hurt, thus making using alts perfectly logical.

This is yet another endless example of the kind of the intellectually disingenuous arguments, topic sliding, projection, hypocrisy, and semantics pushed by everyone trying to excuse the abuse of the default trust system for personal interests, or at the very least confuse the situation so much people give up trying to look at it in order to maintain the status quo.

[marlboroza]

Except we aren't talking about getting your feels hurt with words you don't like, are we? We are talking about the fact that the default trust abuses their authority to punish people for speaking when their own feels are hurt, thus making using alts perfectly logical.

I am sorry, but yahoo said be a man/woman and post from real account(please read topic again) and:

"if i post this with my main account, i'll be attacked" is total bullshit.

I am only proving him wrong and it is not just simple as "you might get tagged". I posted factual info, you two literally attacked me because I posted it from "main account".

This is yet another endless example of the kind of the intellectually disingenuous arguments, topic sliding, projection, hypocrisy, and semantics pushed by everyone trying to excuse the abuse of the default trust system for personal interests, or at the very least confuse the situation so much people give up trying to look at it in order to maintain the status quo.

Why are you attacking me again?

[suchmoon]

Who said anything about a squabble? He is objectively abusing the trust system, and he refuses to substantiate any of his ratings, and you use any excuse you can to make justifications for the abuse of your friends while condemning it in others, yet I am the hypocrite.

I don't think I'm justifying abuse by not doing what you're demanding me to do in your conflict with another user. On the other hand you explicitly said that your "standards" don't apply to someone you disagree with (nutildah). I think that's a big difference but let's continue this... uhmmm.... squabble elsewhere as it's veering way off topic.

What, you mean the top down standard of requiring evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating? That seems unreasonable to you does it? Is that perhaps because you and your friends would then not be able to keep control of the default trust among your small group of nepotistic abusers using ambiguously and selectively enforced rules? Funny, you are free to make judgements about who you include and exclude, but when I do it I am a hypocrite and abusing the trusts system.

Anyone is free to include or exclude whoever they want. I'm also pretty sure I'm free to consider your reciprocal/retaliatory actions in my decision process and I'll definitely make fun of it because it's cringy AF.

[TECSHARE]

Except we aren't talking about getting your feels hurt with words you don't like, are we? We are talking about the fact that the default trust abuses their authority to punish people for speaking when their own feels are hurt, thus making using alts perfectly logical.

I am sorry, but yahoo said be a man/woman and post from real account(please read topic again) and:

"if i post this with my main account, i'll be attacked" is total bullshit.

I am only proving him wrong and it is not just simple as "you might get tagged". I posted factual info, you two literally attacked me because I posted it from "main account".

This is yet another endless example of the kind of the intellectually disingenuous arguments, topic sliding, projection, hypocrisy, and semantics pushed by everyone trying to excuse the abuse of the default trust system for personal interests, or at the very least confuse the situation so much people give up trying to look at it in order to maintain the status quo.

Why are you attacking me again?

More intellectually dishonest projection and attempts to confuse the situation in order to deflect repercussions from the trust system abuse of your friends.

Who said anything about a squabble? He is objectively abusing the trust system, and he refuses to substantiate any of his ratings, and you use any excuse you can to make justifications for the abuse of your friends while condemning it in others, yet I am the hypocrite.

I don't think I'm justifying abuse by not doing what you're demanding me to do in your conflict with another user. On the other hand you explicitly said that your "standards" don't apply to someone you disagree with (nutildah). I think that's a big difference but let's continue this... uhmmm.... squabble elsewhere as it's veering way off topic.

What, you mean the top down standard of requiring evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating? That seems unreasonable to you does it? Is that perhaps because you and your friends would then not be able to keep control of the default trust among your small group of nepotistic abusers using ambiguously and selectively enforced rules? Funny, you are free to make judgements about who you include and exclude, but when I do it I am a hypocrite and abusing the trusts system.

Anyone is free to include or exclude whoever they want. I'm also pretty sure I'm free to consider your reciprocal/retaliatory actions in my decision process and I'll definitely make fun of it because it's cringy AF.

More "NO U!". Are you sure you don't want to tell me " YOU MOM GAY!" too just to top it off?

You are justifying abuse by including people abusing the trust system. It has nothing to do with what I demand. That is not at all what I said. Now you need to resort to making straw man arguments as if I was the one to make them, then act as if I should defend myself from your own words. Everyone is free to include and exclude who they like, but if you and your friends don't like who I exclude or include then it is acceptable to negative rate me for "trust system abuse". Meanwhile you toss out a few more "NO U!s"' in the hope no one thinks too hard about the fact that you only want people you choose to be held to their own standards, and that you yourself don't even observe your own standards.

[figmentofmyass]

This was posted in another thread, another reason why someone should use newbie account.

If you publicly share your opinion, you will be accused of being "petty and vindictive", "dishonest" and so on. Users are just afraid that someone will accuse them if they speak truth. Thanks @figmentofmyass for proving me right.

um, all i did was defend myself against your meritless public accusations. are people no longer allowed to defend themselves or confront their accusers?

you publicly attacked me, claiming everything i say "is extremely likely opposite the truth" and you based that on the fact that i told a joke 2 years ago! all you've done is make meritless accusations against me. please refrain from referring to that as "truth".

and what did i do? i responded by pointing out how you dug through years of my post history in a pathetic attempt to discredit me. sorry to break it to you, but that was obviously "petty and vindictive" of you.  i pointed out how you purposefully misconstrued a joke as a serious judge of character. and yes, that was obviously "dishonest" of you.

my accusations towards you are 100% factual and logic-based. i invite everyone to read the post you linked to see that. the same cannot be said of your accusations against me.

and please remember, you publicly accused me first. i merely responded to your accusations by 1. utterly discrediting them and 2. showing that if anyone engaged in immoral behavior, it was you. you are the one who is constantly digging through peoples' post histories to try to publicly malign them. you are the one initiating baseless public accusations. not me.

your public attacks show you obviously have a bone to pick with me, but tbh the feeling is not reciprocal. i am merely reacting to your attacks.

[marlboroza]

and what did i do? i responded by pointing out how you dug through years of my post history in a pathetic attempt to discredit me.

This is not true, I edited post, you can read it, accept it or continue with your false agenda.

sorry to break it to you, but that was obviously "petty and vindictive" of you.  i pointed out how you purposefully misconstrued a joke as a serious judge of character. and yes, that was obviously "dishonest" of you.

I see exactly what you did there with that joke, don't worry  

my accusations towards you are 100% factual and logic-based. i invite everyone to read the post you linked to see that. the same cannot be said of your accusations against me.

So is my, 100% factual and logic-based.

and please remember, you publicly accused me first.

That is also not true, you accused me that I am tagging people for spamming.

You accusing me == OK
Me accusing you == NOT OK

Ok, got it  

i merely responded to your accusations by 1. utterly discrediting them and 2. showing that if anyone engaged in immoral behavior, it was you. you are the one who is constantly digging through peoples' post histories to try to publicly malign them. you are the one initiating baseless public accusations. not me.

How is quoting your reply to ME digging trough your post history? Are you now accusing me that I don't remember what you have told me?
I went trough MY post history to find this post. WTH, are you now saying that users are not allowed to read and quote other peoples posts?

This just proves that yahoo is wrong, people should be afraid to post from their real accounts.

[figmentofmyass]

and what did i do? i responded by pointing out how you dug through years of my post history in a pathetic attempt to discredit me.

This is not true, I edited post, you can read it, accept it or continue with your false agenda.

right, so i was just imagining this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853002#msg53853002

my accusations towards you are 100% factual and logic-based. i invite everyone to read the post you linked to see that. the same cannot be said of your accusations against me.

So is my, 100% factual and logic-based.

no. you've misconstrued the facts and made totally illogical conclusions. i ripped apart your accusations here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853263#msg53853263

i merely responded to your accusations by 1. utterly discrediting them and 2. showing that if anyone engaged in immoral behavior, it was you. you are the one who is constantly digging through peoples' post histories to try to publicly malign them. you are the one initiating baseless public accusations. not me.

How is quoting your reply to ME digging trough your post history? Are you now accusing me that I don't remember what you have told me?

you literally just pulled a post of mine from may 2018 and used it to publicly discredit me. this happened today!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853002#msg53853002

why are you playing dumb?

[suchmoon]

Everyone is free to include and exclude who they like, but if you and your friends don't like who I exclude or include then it is acceptable to negative rate me for "trust system abuse".

I don't think I said that.

Meanwhile you toss out a few more "NO U!s"' in the hope no one thinks too hard about the fact that you only want people you choose to be held to their own standards, and that you yourself don't even observe your own standards.

Again, not what I said or implied. I don't proclaim any standards that I would expect you to adhere to, and you are free to ignore your own standards. All I'm saying is that your posturing is worthless and hypocritical. If that's your intent - who am I to argue. Carry on.

[marlboroza]

and what did i do? i responded by pointing out how you dug through years of my post history in a pathetic attempt to discredit me.

This is not true, I edited post, you can read it, accept it or continue with your false agenda.

right, so i was just imagining this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853002#msg53853002

I thought you were talking about that other post. Misunderstanding

my accusations towards you are 100% factual and logic-based. i invite everyone to read the post you linked to see that. the same cannot be said of your accusations against me.

So is my, 100% factual and logic-based.

no. you've misconstrued the facts and made totally illogical conclusions. i ripped apart your accusations here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853263#msg53853263

No, you didn't.  

i merely responded to your accusations by 1. utterly discrediting them and 2. showing that if anyone engaged in immoral behavior, it was you. you are the one who is constantly digging through peoples' post histories to try to publicly malign them. you are the one initiating baseless public accusations. not me.

How is quoting your reply to ME digging trough your post history? Are you now accusing me that I don't remember what you have told me?
I went trough MY post history to find this post. WTH, are you now saying that users are not allowed to read and quote other peoples posts?

you literally just pulled a post of mine from may 2018 and used it to publicly discredit me. this happened today!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853002#msg53853002

Why are you cherripicking quotes again? I pulled post of yours because I have find it in post history of my. Are you trying to say that users are now not allowed to quote your posts???

Are you now accusing me of digging trough my own post history? 

why are you playing dumb?

Another one for yahoo.

If you say something someone doesn't like, they will accuse you of "playing dumb". Ok, I will stop now proving yahoo that he is wrong about people "should not be afraid to speak up", I believe he has more than enough proofs.

/I am out of this thread.

[yahoo62278]

Another one for yahoo.

If you say something someone doesn't like, they will accuse you of "playing dumb". Ok, I will stop now proving yahoo that he is wrong about people "should not be afraid to speak up", I believe he has more than enough proofs.

/I am out of this thread.

You aren't really proving me wrong but proving others right. I appreciate you demonstrating how issues can be blown up and how users shouldn't handle things.

Instead of everyone trying to fight with each other, use that ignore button as it was intended.

It's obvious that rather then solve an issue between yourselves and coming to a conclusion, youd rather argue and both feel you are right.

There's no need for the fighting period. I'm sure most of us could keep an argument going and prove points thus increasing the size of our cocks, but what's that helping?

If you don't like a persons opinion move on right? If you're not interested in resolving differences, don't post.

My opinion obviously isn't always gonna be right and neither is anyone else's. The point is people should be able to speak without being attacked. Maybe there are times that call for an alt account, on that I can agree, but the bs attacks on a persons character or business are not those times.

Instead of fighting all the time, let's find a way to prevent petty wars with each other and solve our issues.

Can that be done, probably not the way this is looking,  but 1 can hope.

[TECSHARE]

~

Yes, everyone move along. Nothing to see here. Lets all maintain the status quo where we are in charge and continually excuse abuse of the trust system. No reason to argue about it when we can just keep things how I like them, and fuck anyone who has legitimate grievances. Unless they are one of the chosen of course, then burn the witch.

Everyone is free to include and exclude who they like, but if you and your friends don't like who I exclude or include then it is acceptable to negative rate me for "trust system abuse".

I don't think I said that.

Meanwhile you toss out a few more "NO U!s"' in the hope no one thinks too hard about the fact that you only want people you choose to be held to their own standards, and that you yourself don't even observe your own standards.

Again, not what I said or implied. I don't proclaim any standards that I would expect you to adhere to, and you are free to ignore your own standards. All I'm saying is that your posturing is worthless and hypocritical. If that's your intent - who am I to argue. Carry on.

You don't need to say it. You implicitly support it by including those that regularly and willfully abuse the trust system by negative rating people for little more than speaking. Also, you did explicitly merit the accusation of trust system abuse against me, which is an implicit statement that you think the forum needs more posts like that. Like I said before, your role is to walk a fine line and maintain just enough legitimacy so you can leverage it to cover for the abuses of your friends.

Any principles regarding acceptable use of the trust system you enforce are calculated moves designed to give you the appearance of being reasonable while you ignore and cover for the self evident and regular abuse of the people in your inclusions, and make minimal compromises to maintain this image. You feel free to bring out more "NO U's" about that one time I did that thing you didn't like that happened a year ago. Maybe it will distract from the continual and current abuse you enable with your inclusions and cover for with your deflection and intellectually dishonest arguments. Tell me some more about how you don't proclaim to hold me to any standards, then in the same sentence do exactly that. You do not speak with candor.

[marlboroza]

The point is people should be able to speak without being attacked.

First of all, if you don't have the balls to attack someone with your main account, then don't make the post. You look like a big pussy and need to crawl back in your hole and hide. That's basically what you're doing by making the post anyways. Hiding behind the new account thinking, "if i post this with my main account, i'll be attacked" is total bullshit.[...]

I ask that the community not respond to any accusation such as this unless a person posts from their main account.

How does it work? Attacking someone and expecting not to be attacked?

[yahoo62278]

~

Yes, everyone move along. Nothing to see here. Lets all maintain the status quo where we are in charge and continually excuse abuse of the trust system. No reason to argue about it when we can just keep things how I like them, and fuck anyone who has legitimate grievances. Unless they are one of the chosen of course, then burn the witch.

Everyone is free to include and exclude who they like, but if you and your friends don't like who I exclude or include then it is acceptable to negative rate me for "trust system abuse".

I don't think I said that.

Meanwhile you toss out a few more "NO U!s"' in the hope no one thinks too hard about the fact that you only want people you choose to be held to their own standards, and that you yourself don't even observe your own standards.

Again, not what I said or implied. I don't proclaim any standards that I would expect you to adhere to, and you are free to ignore your own standards. All I'm saying is that your posturing is worthless and hypocritical. If that's your intent - who am I to argue. Carry on.

You don't need to say it. You implicitly support it by including those that regularly and willfully abuse the trust system by negative rating people for little more than speaking. Also, you did explicitly merit the accusation of trust system abuse against me, which is an implicit statement that you think the forum needs more posts like that. Like I said before, your role is to walk a fine line and maintain just enough legitimacy so you can leverage it to cover for the abuses of your friends.

Any principles regarding acceptable use of the trust system you enforce are calculated moves designed to give you the appearance of being reasonable while you ignore and cover for the self evident and regular abuse of the people in your inclusions, and make minimal compromises to maintain this image. You feel free to bring out more "NO U's" about that one time I did that thing you didn't like that happened a year ago. Maybe it will distract from the continual and current abuse you enable with your inclusions and cover for with your deflection and intellectually dishonest arguments. Tell me some more about how you don't proclaim to hold me to any standards, then in the same sentence do exactly that. You do not speak with candor.

The issue with you is, there is no arguing with you on anything. You do not see anyone's point except your own in a discussion.

Who wants to help someone who cannot and will not ever admit fault? Because DT doesn't explicitly listen to you and your demands, we are all corrupt right?

That's horseshit and you know it. I want the endless drama to end around here, but users that act like you make it nearly impossible to see that happen.

That's why users should use the ignore button and move on from a conversation with you.

No I'm not saying turn a blind eye and not pay attention to claims, but you cannot say you're 100% right in your claims or opinions. Well you cannot, but you will.

Look all over the reputation section man, you have a minimum of 3 reeeeeee threads claiming abuse by a DT member. Given enough time, I'm sure you'll have a separate thread on everyone who has given you a neg, untrusted you, or disagrees with you.

You want people to stand up and advocate with you, then chill out and admit fault and actually try to solve your issues calmly vs trying to make everyone look bad over a rating they gave you.

Let's say for a minute all your claims are correct. I would still likely ~you from DT due to the way your brain works. Your opinion is all that matters and that's NOT how to look at things. That's not having an unbiased opinion, that's not what a DT member should be.

The point is people should be able to speak without being attacked.

First of all, if you don't have the balls to attack someone with your main account, then don't make the post. You look like a big pussy and need to crawl back in your hole and hide. That's basically what you're doing by making the post anyways. Hiding behind the new account thinking, "if i post this with my main account, i'll be attacked" is total bullshit.[...]

I ask that the community not respond to any accusation such as this unless a person posts from their main account.

How does it work? Attacking someone and expecting not to be attacked?

If I knew the answer to that, we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

I think there are some pretty smart people in this community, including Quickseller and TECHSHARE. Just because I disagree with how they approach things doesn't mean I find them unintelligent. We as a community should be able to figure something different out vs the current shoot 1st and ask questions later system we are using.

[suchmoon]

~

I'm sorry that my actions (or lack thereof) don't meet your expectations. I will continue to argue that red-trusting you for your opinions is wrong and I hope one day you'll come around and start doing the same regarding people you dislike. I don't really know what the rest of your diatribe is supposed to mean since I never promised to be the enforcer of your standards, but it's veering off topic again so let's pick it back up somewhere else at some other time.

[figmentofmyass]

no. you've misconstrued the facts and made totally illogical conclusions. i ripped apart your accusations here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853263#msg53853263

No, you didn't.  

um, your conclusion still doesn't follow from your premise. you didn't bother to address that at all. sort of important in matters of logic.

merely posting a response doesn't change the fact that i showed your accusations to be completely baseless and meritless.

since marlboroza is trying to pass off baseless accusations as fact, i urge people to read why his accusations are complete and utter bullshit:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853263#msg53853263
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853648#msg53853648

How is quoting your reply to ME digging trough your post history? Are you now accusing me that I don't remember what you have told me?
I went trough MY post history to find this post. WTH, are you now saying that users are not allowed to read and quote other peoples posts?

you literally just pulled a post of mine from may 2018 and used it to publicly discredit me. this happened today!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853002#msg53853002

Why are you cherripicking quotes again?

lol! that's the best you can come up with? i'm "cherry picking"?

oh, you just happened to be randomly reviewing your own posts from 2018? and then you came across a joke i made and thought, "to the public-accusation-mobile!"

right, we all believe that, coming from someone whose entire forum existence seems to revolve around investigating other peoples' accounts.

the timing of your accusations was also interesting considering what i was in the middle of saying about DT2 trust abuse.

anyway, you're the one pathetically pulling my posts from years ago, desperately trying to contort them into wrongdoing so you can publicly malign me. you're the one initiating meritless public accusations out of nowhere, for no good reason, and with zero basis in reality.

what did i ever do to you to deserve that? what have i ever done to anybody on this forum to deserve that?

i may think you're a piece of shit marlboroza, but do you see me quoting years-old posts from you in an effort to smear your name---in an effort to convince people that everything you say is a lie? that's what you did to me.

i have done nothing dishonest and i have not shown poor judgment, but since i say things you disagree with, you will continue attacking me---this much i can gather.

If you say something someone doesn't like, they will accuse you of "playing dumb".

cool story. so you completely glossed over the fact that you---unprovoked---are investigating my account and trying to publicly discredit me. and, amazingly, you are now claiming to be the victim?

seriously---you publicly attack other people (pretty much constantly) and then you cry because one of them accused you of "playing dumb"?

i'd tell you to grow some thicker skin, but we both know you are putting on an act. what you did---publicly lob baseless and unprovoked accusations at me---is so much more deplorable than what i did---defend myself.

i hope your attempts at false equivalence will not go unnoticed.

edit:

this entire board is a waste of space. it's mostly DT members throwing around baseless accusations and engaging in flame wars against people they don't like.

amazing, it only took you 90 minutes to prove me right.