Appeal of Ban Appeal: “hacker1001101001” spammer-sockpuppet menagerie

[bonesjonesreturns]

This hacker1001101001 was still proclaiming his innocence even though he was active in his pay-me-for-bump-services as recent as November 2019 (that we know of) yet he still tries to pull the wool over the eyes of onlookers.

What does this say about TECSHARE and bonesjonesreturns who are defending a known bump-for-hire service operated by hacker1001101001 just because they are suffering from an attention seeking disorder?

I have stated multiple times I was involved in it before I was aware about the core working of the forum,

Here we go again.

Ok, hacker, you claim you are not in this business for years. Not only that "600 days ago" become "300 days ago", can you explain bumps which happened in November 2019., a month prior to creation of this topic?

I was/am pretty much against spamming on the forum and even discourage working of such misleading services.

Are you trying to imply ban as some 3rd degree torture treatment so that I would spill out... ?

No; but your most strident defender on this thread has attested that I am everywhere, and I see all.  Well, perhaps it may be not quite so; but at least, I am capable of simple logic, as demonstrated above.

Says the king of double standards fake scam hunter.

Racing after small time scammers but teaming up scammers on DT.
Busting a scammer then says nothing to his DT buddies that are willing to facilitate that same scammers acceptance  back on the forum for a fee
Rushing to tag anyone working with yobit but then just allowing other DT members to work with yobit

It is almost like you are saying scamming is okay so long as you and your pals can financially benefit from it.
Bit like when suchmoon ( who was well aware of it for months but didn't choose to mention it until he called him fat) that mozprognoz was doing the same thing ( another pal of lauda or his alt)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5207250.msg53296788#msg53296788
That entire thread is worth a read.

So just to make it easy

Jollygood, nullius double standards scammer supporters defending and excusing scammers and trust abusers  who they support on DT and are not currently punished at all.

bonesjones - not defending hacker aka saying we should pretend it did not happen or was not wrong or saying there should be no punishment.
But rather saying let's present and compare all of their wrong doing and ensure we are not employing double standards and make sure that are giving each member fair and consistent treatment.

Try to read it over jollygood until you get it.

I'm ready for the full comparison.  Everyone else is running away from it.
That tells you they are terrified of a blow by blow breakdown and comparison.

Hacker is already red tagged and been temp banned and on a 2 year sig ban.   So let's get on with looking at the histories of all these et unpunished members some on positions of trust and see who needs more urgent attention.

Asking for fair and consistent treatment is obviously something you don't want to see.

[Harlot]

Fighting scam but spreading spam? I am not convince that hacker1001101001 deserves to even have a chance to even be here in the forum. It's pretty ironic that he is cleaning the forum from scams yet he is something doing against the rules by being involve in a bumping service.

I have stated multiple times I was involved in it before I was aware about the core working of the forum, I was/am pretty much against spamming on the forum and even discourage working of such misleading services.

He might not even stop it in his own will since the bumping system in the ANN section of Altcoins have been change that's why he is claiming that he is no longer part of it. However if hacker1001101001 still wants to receive a temp ban I think it would be enough for him to spill out all the names part of this bumping service (with proof) in order to come out clean.

Are you trying to imply ban as some 3rd degree torture treatment so that I would spill out... ? I don't have any internal knowledge about those services and the user's behind it. I am sure there are many people's around the forum anonymously offering such services which is out of anyone's reach, not even mine.

So are you claiming that you have been involved in a bumping service where dozens of accounts are involved in the service itself yet you only know your name? From what you have previously posted and expressed before it seems like you aren't willing to share their names because it would be "unethical" on your part, you cannot just simply take back some statements just for your own convenience. No, I don't consider this as some kind of torture and I think you should too since if your life and connections from these bumping service are really over I think this will be a good time to mention their names by now if you really have "discourage working of such services" .

[Lauda]

So are you claiming that you have been involved in a bumping service where dozens on accounts are involved in the service itself yet you only know your name? From what you have previously posted and expressed before it seems like you aren't willing to share their names because it would be "unethical" on your part, you cannot just simply take back some statements just for your own convenience. No, I don't consider this as some kind of torture and I think you should too since if your life and connections from these bumping service are really over I think this will be a good time to mention their names by now if you really have "discourage working of such services" .

For a thief it is unethical to disclose the names of his accomplices or his subordinates from his perspective. Evil protecting evil, nothing unusual.

[TECSHARE]

What does this say about TECSHARE and bonesjonesreturns who are defending a known bump-for-hire service operated by hacker1001101001 just because they are suffering from an attention seeking disorder?

Taking a look at who is posting in multiple threads daily about this "imminent threat" it is pretty clear who is desperately seeking attention.

For a thief it is unethical to disclose the names of his accomplices or his subordinates from his perspective. Evil protecting evil, nothing unusual.

Could you POSSIBLY be any more melodramatic and hyperbolic? You have made it very clear you and your floppy shoe wearing toadies use the trust system and forum enforcement mechanisms designed to protect the user base as a tool for retribution against anyone who criticizes your behavior. There is no threat here, except for you.

[nullius]

Boldface is “hacker’s” (!):

Are you trying to imply ban as some 3rd degree torture treatment so that I would spill out... ? I don't have any internal knowledge about those services and the user's behind it. I am sure there are many people's around the forum anonymously offering such services which is out of anyone's reach, not even mine.

So are you claiming that you have been involved in a bumping service where dozens on accounts are involved in the service itself yet you only know your name?

Sharp eyes there.  Within the four corners of the same post, the n00b s’kiddie “hacker” simultaneously said in substantial essence:  “I don’t know, and I won’t spill what I know!”

For a thief it is unethical to disclose the names of his accomplices or his subordinates from his perspective.

You know what is said about honour among thieves—or the lack thereof, which police always find useful for cracking down on ordinary crime (in contradistinction to high-level organized crime, which basically does counterintelligence cat-and-mouse games with the police; and unlike ideologically motivated dissidents driven by high ideals, who are obviously not criminals at all).  “hacker’s” hypocritical gab about ethics is just blowing smoke.

The balance of probabilities is that “hacker” would rat out his allegedly extant buddies in about three seconds, if he thought it paid for him to do so.  That he does not, indicates that probably either (H) there are no such third parties—they are all his alts, or (T) he is still doing business with them—not making a clean break from that underworld.

I mark those scenarios (H) and (T) respectively, because I am pretty much considering them to have coin-flip probabilities at this point.  What is improbable and implausible is that he is Doing The Right Thing in any way.

Moreover, at the very least, the self-styled “hacker” obviously knows at least some past and/or current information on who was/is paying him upstream.  If he had even a scintilla of sincerity in this:

I was/am pretty much against spamming on the forum and even discourage working of such misleading services.

...then his ethical concern would be to coöperate with investigations of parties who use spam to advertise, and worse, typically use spam to pump-and-dump scam “investments”!

pushing double standards and fake concern for the forum whilst scamming and milking it for every satoshi they can get

Can you say double standards?

I was/am pretty much against spamming on the forum and even discourage working of such misleading services.

Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service.

Are you trying to imply ban as some 3rd degree torture treatment so that I would spill out... ?

Says the king of double standards fake

How much more double standards crap [...] do we have to listen to.

Now, where are the people who are so obsessed with “double standards” and hypocrisy?

[—more dumb rote insistence that staying on topic is “running away from” off-topic discussions, all of which have been anyway repeatedly rehashed myriad times in Reputation—]

I see that “bonesjones” is no longer interested in the personal life of the Phantom.  What a pity.

When will they learn to stop trying to mess with me?

[bonesjonesreturns]

Bait and switch pic .

via Imgflip Meme Generator


Byron meets Casinova here obviously isn't  familiar with the simply " changing his mind " excuse that immediately " nullifies " all scamming and double standards. You just change your mind about what you believe as and when it suits you. That is nullius excuse for what lauda does detailed below. The nullian nullification defence for all scamming ... just changed my mind..simple as that.

Like lauda just changed his mind from knowing and confirming there was no premine because he was on the launch ( and was holding bags of the scam coins at the time ) Which he claimed the project certainly not premined  at all many time, when others were trying to warn investors with the truth that it was indeed a proven premined coin. He was busy defending it and actively promoting and defending it.

Then when he dumped his bags he says oh yeah it is a premined scam ..


Knowingly pushing a scam. Lying for his own personal gain is scamming.
Scamming others into investing into something he knew was a scam.
Defending a scam and trying to discredit and punish others who were trying to warn others and tell them the truth
Then gives red tags to the person that first started forcing the scam project devs to admit it and offer a compensation air drop worth 20M or 2 billion at peak. Red tags them for saying they would encourage others to investigate his history to see for themselves what he was really like.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231720.0

Hacker0101000101 has.not done anything near and intentionally malicious and dirty as that.
That's if we leave the extortion and trust abusing and escrowing irregularities and greed.

Hacker already been temp banned and have 2 year sig ban?
Lauda still sig spamming , offering services to other scammers for a fee , trust abusing
No punishment at all.

Byron / casinova here offering lauda their entire net worth 0.01btc just to know their gender lol

Yes alia did say you claimed to not even have 1.2 btc due to ....excuses
All you could offer was 0.01 btc
You were sent straight back to your pillow TPOTO.
That ship sailed as she said.

[JayJuanGee]

Hacker already been temp banned and have 2 year sig ban?
Lauda still sig spamming , offering services to other scammers for a fee , trust abusing
No punishment at all.

You seem to be trying to equate different kinds of activities. 

I did not know that there was a rule against wearing a signature.  There are a lot of members who wear signatures and they have rights to wear signatures.  I used to wear a signature and I was paid, but I discontinued because I found it to be too much of a hassle to keep up with it...   But, sure some members participate in signature campaigns and others promote themselves and other engage in some combination of promoting themselves and promoting some kind of business while getting  paid for that.  Signatures are part of forum culture (and privilege too).

Also, if you are accusing someone of abusing the trust system, then you have to go beyond merely making allegations that someone has been using that trust system to mark people with positive, negative and neutral ratings, and lauda's conduct is not even the topic of this thread in that regard,..... well you know that, but you want to make it part of the topic because of your stretch of an idea that there is one gang that is against another gang or some continued amorphous concept, and such theory seems to even start with very bad underlying theories of colluding and just great stretches of imagination as far as I can see as soon as I start to read some of your claims, they just go all over the place with lots of ongoing false equivalences and poor logic even if you might present a potentially damning fact or two that might be correct from time to time.

[suchmoon]

I don't have any internal knowledge about those services and the user's behind it.

Really, you don't know who was running the spam group? How exactly did you get told which threads to shitbump? A dead drop under a park bench?

Just when I think your excuses can't get any more cringy.

[bonesjonesreturns]

Hacker already been temp banned and have 2 year sig ban?
Lauda still sig spamming , offering services to other scammers for a fee , trust abusing
No punishment at all.

You seem to be trying to equate different kinds of activities.  

I did not know that there was a rule against wearing a signature.  There are a lot of members who wear signatures and they have rights to wear signatures.  I used to wear a signature and I was paid, but I discontinued because I found it to be too much of a hassle to keep up with it...   But, sure some members participate in signature campaigns and others promote themselves and other engage in some combination of promoting themselves and promoting some kind of business while getting  paid for that.  Signatures are part of forum culture (and privilege too).

Also, if you are accusing someone of abusing the trust system, then you have to go beyond merely making allegations that someone has been using that trust system to mark people with positive, negative and neutral ratings, and lauda's conduct is not even the topic of this thread in that regard,..... well you know that, but you want to make it part of the topic because of your stretch of an idea that there is one gang that is against another gang or some continued amorphous concept, and such theory seems to even start with very bad underlying theories of colluding and just great stretches of imagination as far as I can see as soon as I start to read some of your claims, they just go all over the place with lots of ongoing false equivalences and poor logic even if you might present a potentially damning fact or two that might be correct from time to time.

Specific examples are required.

Start presenting specific examples.

Even 1 damning fact of scamming or financially motivated wrong doing is enough.

I will ask for specific examples and you will not provide any that will hold up to scrutiny.
You have different opinions that lead you incorrectly to assume that I am making weak arguments
Without providing the specifics I am continually requesting it appears to me you are deliberately not providing them due to suspecting your claims are not solid.



I don't yet know if you truly believe what you say or you are just saying that to remain popular with these corrupt colluding scammers that via the broken and poor designs here have seized hold of some power to crush free speech and milk the board dry for themselves.

I don't yet say you are supporting this behavior but I find your one way criticism with no specifics very suspicious. I suspect you wish to remain popular. That is understandable but still I can not permit this unfair sided attacks on my arguments without requesting specific examples.  

If they do not relate to this appraisal of fair and consistent punishment for hacker then as I have said many times I am more than willing to debate this all with you in an open and transparent manner.

I don't think any member with directly financially motivated wrong doing should be

1 allowed into a position of trust
2 earn further from the forum

I think we must ensure all members are treated equally.

Certainly no scammers and their supporters colluding to punish others for lesser crimes whilst rewarding each other with trust includes and all milking the best sig spots

Nope.

Hacker has been punished...if they want more punishment let them demonstrate in the context of their own behaviour it is fair and consistent and in the forums best interest not just their own.

I at least say clearly hacker has done wrong.  Nobody says shit about these bunch of scammers and cheaters all allowing each other a free pass and a nice clap on the back.

Hacker has also at least had some quite tough punishment
Give these real scammers a 2 yr sig ban. Let's hear them squeal. They are only here to milk the bitcoin from their posts.
They likely never post again after a few weeks.  

In the context of lauda,  nutildah,  tman et al
Hacker is a lesser evil and a far lower priority threat.

They have all shown to be on the next level up of ruthless deliberate scamming or willing to facilitate scamming for a fee
And trust abuse aka giving red to those that mention their wrongdoing
Crushing free speech and totally perverting the intended use of red tags
They should be given as a warning to avoid scammers,  not for scammers to deter members from warning others about their scamming.

Disgraceful.

[JayJuanGee]

Hacker already been temp banned and have 2 year sig ban?
Lauda still sig spamming , offering services to other scammers for a fee , trust abusing
No punishment at all.

You seem to be trying to equate different kinds of activities.  

I did not know that there was a rule against wearing a signature.  There are a lot of members who wear signatures and they have rights to wear signatures.  I used to wear a signature and I was paid, but I discontinued because I found it to be too much of a hassle to keep up with it...   But, sure some members participate in signature campaigns and others promote themselves and other engage in some combination of promoting themselves and promoting some kind of business while getting  paid for that.  Signatures are part of forum culture (and privilege too).

Also, if you are accusing someone of abusing the trust system, then you have to go beyond merely making allegations that someone has been using that trust system to mark people with positive, negative and neutral ratings, and lauda's conduct is not even the topic of this thread in that regard,..... well you know that, but you want to make it part of the topic because of your stretch of an idea that there is one gang that is against another gang or some continued amorphous concept, and such theory seems to even start with very bad underlying theories of colluding and just great stretches of imagination as far as I can see as soon as I start to read some of your claims, they just go all over the place with lots of ongoing false equivalences and poor logic even if you might present a potentially damning fact or two that might be correct from time to time.

Specific examples are required.

Start presenting specific examples.

Even 1 damning fact of scamming or financially motivated wrong doing is enough.

I will ask for specific examples and you will not provide any that will hold up to scrutiny.
You have different opinions that lead you incorrectly to assume that I am making weak arguments
Without providing the specifics I am continually requesting it appears to me you are deliberately not providing them due to suspecting your claims are not solid.

I am not the one making the claims, you diptwat.  You are making claims, for example, about lauda being abusive blah blah blah. which one is not on topic and two is not substantiated, anyhow... not that I am inviting you to go further off topic by substantiating your claims.. but when you make claims, you should be substantiating them, which you do not tend to do.

I don't yet know if you truly believe what you say or you are just saying that to remain popular with these corrupt colluding scammers that via the broken and poor designs here have seized hold of some power to crush free speech and milk the board dry for themselves.

Why would I not believe what I say?  Just because I am largely saying that you are full of shit does not mean that I am taking sides with others... You have problems, sometimes and then you go back to what seems to be one of your only tools which is to devolve into senseless stream of conscious personal attacks.

I don't yet say you are supporting this behavior but I find your one way criticism with no specifics very suspicious. I suspect you wish to remain popular. That is understandable

Repeating yourself....

but still I can not permit this unfair sided attacks on my arguments without requesting specific examples.

I don't need to give any examples.  All I am saying is that you are not backing up your claims.  I cannot teach you how to better argue your points and to stay focused... that is up to you.. but the essence of the matter is that you suck, and likely you are doing it on purpose because you do not seem to be that dumb.

If they do not relate to this appraisal of fair and consistent punishment for hacker then as I have said many times I am more than willing to debate this all with you in an open and transparent manner.

I hardly even know what you are talking about.  Some members have put forth arguments and questions of hackers behavior and accused him of being dodgy and inconsistent in his responses and explanations.  There is no need for me to attempt to bolster any of the claims or to compare and contrast the strength of the claims or if the persons making such claims might have their own negative issues, is where you seem to want to go with your ongoing distracting and off topic rants.

I don't think any member with directly financially motivated wrong doing should be

1 allowed into a position of trust
2 earn further from the forum

Good for you and your beliefs.  Those kinds of things happen, and sometimes punishments are complete banning and sometimes punishments are temporary. 

You seem to be referring to past behaviors of Lauda, and you are saying that lauda should not have a signature and/or should not be able to post trust...   Well, she does have a signature and she is able to post trust... so get the fuck over it and if you are so fucking worried about it, create some threads about it or contact various moderators (which yeah, you likely have already done those things... good for you... )..

Otherwise, just fuck off with your continuing to go down into that off topic distractions, even if there might possibly be some scintilla of truth in what you might be claiming, you are off topic.  We are not talking about those matters here, except for your constantly bringing up those nonsense distractions, you diptwat. 


Can you focus on the topic of the thread?

I think we must ensure all members are treated equally.

Good for you... Anyhow the world is not equal, and if someone is a fucktwat or if they are a scammer or if they have some questionable evidence then they are not likely to be treated equally... and sure in the end, the ultimate decisions are admins and moderators to decide.. even though members will engage in posts talking about these things, giving trust ratings and sending merits.

Certainly no scammers and their supporters colluding to punish others for lesser crimes whilst rewarding each other with trust includes and all milking the best sig spots

Nope.

Off topic, even if true... which I am not even conceding that it is true.

Hacker has been punished...if they want more punishment let them demonstrate in the context of their own behaviour it is fair and consistent and in the forums best interest not just their own.

I doubt that the world works like that, but you can continue to argue for that.

I at least say clearly hacker has done wrong.

Finally, you said something that is on topic.  Great.

 Nobody says shit about these bunch of scammers and cheaters all allowing each other a free pass and a nice clap on the back.

There are all kinds of threads about other members, so you can build your case in those threads or start a new one.

Hacker has also at least had some quite tough punishment

I heard that he had some punishment.  Some members believe it is not enough, other members believe that he needs to provide some evidence or change his behavior and to come clean and other members (such as you) seem to believe that either he has been punished enough or overly harsh.  Great.. members seem to have differing opinions and that seems to be part of the topic of this thread to attempt to address those matters.

Give these real scammers a 2 yr sig ban. Let's hear them squeal.

Of course, if anyone is using a signature, and gets banned from using the signature, then they might not like it, unless they deserve to lose such privilege because of some kind of bad or abusive conduct.  Hopefully, the punishment fits the crime for any member who were to receive that punishment.

They are only here to milk the bitcoin from their posts.
They likely never post again after a few weeks.  

In the context of lauda,  nutildah,  tman et al
Hacker is a lesser evil and a far lower priority threat.

This particular thread is about hacker.

This is not a thread about compare and contrast.

They have all shown to be on the next level up of ruthless deliberate scamming or willing to facilitate scamming for a fee
And trust abuse aka giving red to those that mention their wrongdoing
Crushing free speech and totally perverting the intended use of red tags
They should be given as a warning to avoid scammers,  not for scammers to deter members from warning others about their scamming.

Disgraceful.

Off topic (as you already know)

[nullius]

Done yet with glorifying me to the point of cult worship?  I see that you are not, Mr “bonesjones”.  Thanks.

Nicht durch Zorn, sondern durch Lachen tödtet man.

Forking hell, Jay.  You are not “objective”:

I did not know that there was a rule against wearing a signature.

The rule applies only to Lauda, Lauda’s friends, anybody who does not dislike Lauda, and people who dislike Lauda but also dislike persons approved by the forum’s resident troll-guild.  Anything else is “double standards”.

Also, if you are accusing someone of abusing the trust system, then you have to go beyond merely making allegations that someone has been using that trust system to mark people with positive, negative and neutral ratings

It is ipso facto trust abuse for Lauda to leave positive, negative, and neutral ratings.  If you disagree, then you have “double standards”.

And this applies only to real or imaginary wrongdoing by Lauda and/or anybody who does not hate Lauda with extreme prejudice:

Even 1 damning fact of scamming or financially motivated wrong doing is enough.

To apply that to n00b s’kiddie spammer-plagiarist “hacker” is to have “double standards”.

I at least say clearly hacker has done wrong.

Got it?

Disgraceful.

and lauda's conduct is not even the topic of this thread in that regard,..... well you know that, but you want to make it part of the topic because of your stretch of an idea that there is one gang that is against another gang or some continued amorphous concept, and such theory seems to even start with very bad underlying theories of colluding and just great stretches of imagination as far as I can see as soon as I start to read some of your claims, they just go all over the place with lots of ongoing false equivalences and poor logic even if you might present a potentially damning fact or two that might be correct from time to time.

Only yesterday, I glanced through one of “bonesjones’” prolific self-moderated smear-attack threads that I had been ignoring.  This fairly exemplifies “very bad underlying theories of colluding and just great stretches of imagination”:

Nullius this alt of lauda

Any proofs to back up this statement?

~

So no proof?

As I have said there is nò proof

Ok, so baseless accusation.

You seem to be referring to past behaviors of Lauda,  [...] if you are so fucking worried about it, create some threads about it or contact various moderators (which yeah, you likely have already done those things... good for you... )..

[...]

There are all kinds of threads about other members, so you can build your case in those threads or start a new one.

He is, of course, way ahead of you here. 

I don't have any internal knowledge about those services and the user's behind it.

Really, you don't know who was running the spam group? How exactly did you get told which threads to shitbump? A dead drop under a park bench?

No, that’s the dead drop where he picks up the brown paper bags full of blockchain-traceable shitcoin payments from sources whose other payments probably could in turn be traced to payments to other spam bumpers.  The dead drop for spam orders is, of course, under a table at the Green Midget Cafe.

Just when I think your excuses can't get any more cringy.

[JollyGood]

Did anybody discover the real identity of bonesjonesreturns ?

His account was created just two months ago but he seems to be doing his best to ruffle a few feathers here even though he failed miserably

[nullius]

Did anybody discover the real identity of bonesjonesreturns ?

His account was created just two months ago but he seems to be doing his best to ruffle a few feathers here [...]

I agree with this:

It is detrimental to immediate jump to accusatory remarks when it comes to users you disagree with and the constant barrage of "you're an alt of X" is tiring.

That was stated as to one of three troll accounts that I noticed suddenly show up in the same time period.  This was stated as to another:

~

His posts are relatively to the point, there aren't any randomly capitalized words, and he has gone more than 2 posts without throwing out any childish insults. He's obviously an alt, but I don't think it's CH/TOAA on this occasion.

“bonesjonesreturns” is the third of those three (speaking only as to the three that I myself significantly analysed).  Although this one is closer to the CH/TOAA style, it is a style that is relatively easy to mimic:  Spew out stream-of-consciousness drivel based on paranoid fixations, use bad casing and grammar, and add an abundance of crude insults.  With the assistance of psychotropic drugs, anybody could do it!

I think that the advice in this post is useful for pragmatically handling reputational attacks big and small, without jumping to conclusions of any kind.

[...] even though he failed miserably

C’mon, JollyGood!  Be not so discouraging.  Boned-Jones’ handiwork has not resulted in failure for others; and it does not make me miserable at all.  To the contrary—I did not know that Sarah Brightman is so hot for me:

Responsive.  Whereupon I decided to check out what else she has been up to.

Well, no wonder I have been so busy that I currently have the whole forum on ignore, except for this one thread!

Methinks Mr Bones Jones’ secret plan is to get me so many new girlfriends that I will have no forum time at all.  From my perspective, that is a jolly good plan.

Back to the topic:

With a whole harem full of different Christines, I could keep this up all day—and all night.

Read her lips:

[blurryeyed]

Did anybody discover the real identity of bonesjonesreturns ?

Judging by the clownish comments & verbal diarrhea, I think it's an alt of D Trump......

[nullius]

Did anybody discover the real identity of bonesjonesreturns ?

Judging by the clownish comments & verbal diarrhea, I think it's an alt of D Trump......

Just don’t tell him about my Persian friend, lest he try to murder me with a drone strike.  Perhaps he may even threaten to bomb the Paris Opera as an Iranian cultural site.  Per his usual knowledge of both culture and geography, that’s close enough, right?

For to protect myself, I had better finish coding my new anonymization technology, which is so much more elegant than that Guy Fawkes mask with its expression of perpetual constipation.  My mask even comes with roses!  I love roses.

Found on the Internet, attributed to “stephantom53”.

Unluckily, phantom-0.0.1-alpha has an exploitable security bug:

⚠ SPOILER: Christine is an NSA TAO implant.

Watch arXiv^* for my forthcoming paper, “Deanonymization Attacks by Soprano Honeypots”.  Meanwhile, the security bug herself is delightfully exploitable.

* arXiv, formerly known as xxx.lanl.gov (LOL), is so spelt with at least a visually sensible substitute for the Greek letter χ.  Whereas the abbreviation “TPOTO” is, of course, as nonsensical as would be abbreviating philosophiae doctor as “P.D.” instead of “Ph.D.”  The proper abbreviation would be “TPhOTO”, which even has a special glow to it.

Fans of popular culture disappoint their idol.  Surely, the ingenious Phantom himself knows how properly to abbreviate a Latin digraph for Greek Φ!

Not that I would expect any better from the same fool whose very name mutilates the Latin digraph representing X/χ (chi) from τέχνη.  Spelling “tech” as “tec” is as stupid as would be, mutatis mutandis, abbreviating “philosophiae doctor” as “P.D.” instead of “Ph.D.”, thus breaking the digraph for Greek Φ/φ (phi).  Cf. [confer, ‘compare’] Ψ/ψ (psi), as seen in English pseudonym (< ψευδώνυμoς).

* nullius condemns and contemns the award of so-called “Ph.D.” degrees to anybody who cannot spell philosophiae doctor without looking it up in a dictionary—or who cannot readily explain the origins and meaning of the term.

Ceterum censeo...

[bonesjonesreturns]

Let's sum up the 2 text walls above

Juanjaygee is making 2 claims

1. That my claim "that full context is fundamental to determining fair and consistent punishment " is bogus

2. He then claims that my statements based on irrefutable independently verifiable of scamming and willing scam facilitating for several members are nothing but the convoluted reasoning of a confused madman. That do not demonstrate any wrongdoing by his pals lauda, tman, nutildah et al. At all.


I ask him to provide specific instances or examples where he can demonstrate  clearly the evidence is weak and he can debunk.

Jayjuangee refuses to back up his statements and provide even 1 example which he can debunk

Why? Because he knows he can not debunk any of it. It is documented independently verifiable evidence of clear scamming by his friends that is way more ruthless and viscous than paid ico bumping.

Take the example I presented above and linked to for him? Totally avoid trying to debunk that or excuse laudas behavior. Why? Because there is no excuse that will stand up to scrutiny.

He then says something even more crazy.

He says well of course a scammer not be treated the same as an honest member as if that somehow debunks my claim that all members must be treated fairly and consistently aka the same. This demonstrates he does not understand the concept even.

Of course a scammer will not be treated the same as honest member.

Let's make this clear. If jayjuangee was confident he could demonstrate lauda nutildah and tman histories were of honest members with no scamming or financially motivated wrongdoing then of course he would not hesitate to debunk my claims that in the full context of their behaviors then hacker can be a higher priority for some " further punishment " assessment.

You only run away from comparisons that will debunk your claims

You don't run away from comparisons that will help debunk your opponents arguments

Lol at these people.

Like if I said to nullius my cock would make alia squeal with pleasure whilst your old micro penis would be laughed at and ridiculed by her.
Nullius says ..in maximis meis coles lilliputian terminorum. Aka my penis is huge in lilliputian terms.
I flop out the 9inch by 7inch girth flaccid snake
Nullius says .. off topic, irrelevant, my trouser zipper has gone mouldy and I cant compare atm.


Scared to compare is usually due to fear.  
Lord byron eat your heart out bozo.

They dont want to compare all of hackers history to the dirt that can be shown to be lurking in the histories of these scumbags.
Want hacker banned? Ban the more dangerous first and their complicit supporters and excusers
How can it be so hard to find a handful of old trusted members with no histories of scamming or willing scam facilitating for pay to put in our trust system .. we are not this desperate are we?
This newbie zoo of DT scammers is an embarrassment.
Also I try to treat others and be civil. They start swearing and childish name calling first or attack me in an uncivilized manner. Then will start saying that I am unable to conduct myself in an uncivilized  manner if I return the same towards them.

[JollyGood]

I like this post but rather than risk bonesjonesreturns getting overtly pulled in to the screen thus risking an electric shock as a result of giving in to the ever so alluring and charming Ms Brightman, I have decided to not repost those images  

As for the bonesjonesreturns, until his real account emerges we should all let him play the court jester here, at least it provides some form of semi-amusement.

Did anybody discover the real identity of bonesjonesreturns ?

His account was created just two months ago but he seems to be doing his best to ruffle a few feathers here [...]

I agree with this:

It is detrimental to immediate jump to accusatory remarks when it comes to users you disagree with and the constant barrage of "you're an alt of X" is tiring.

That was stated as to one of three troll accounts that I noticed suddenly show up in the same time period.  This was stated as to another:

~

His posts are relatively to the point, there aren't any randomly capitalized words, and he has gone more than 2 posts without throwing out any childish insults. He's obviously an alt, but I don't think it's CH/TOAA on this occasion.

“bonesjonesreturns” is the third of those three (speaking only as to the three that I myself significantly analysed).  Although this one is closer to the CH/TOAA style, it is a style that is relatively easy to mimic:  Spew out stream-of-consciousness drivel based on paranoid fixations, use bad casing and grammar, and add an abundance of crude insults.  With the assistance of psychotropic drugs, anybody could do it!

I think that the advice in this post is useful for pragmatically handling reputational attacks big and small, without jumping to conclusions of any kind.

[...] even though he failed miserably

C’mon, JollyGood!  Be not so discouraging.  Boned-Jones’ handiwork has not resulted in failure for others; and it does not make me miserable at all.  To the contrary—I did not know that Sarah Brightman is so hot for me:

Responsive.  Whereupon I decided to check out what else she has been up to.



Well, no wonder I have been so busy that I currently have the whole forum on ignore, except for this one thread!

Methinks Mr Bones Jones’ secret plan is to get me so many new girlfriends that I will have no forum time at all.  From my perspective, that is a jolly good plan.

[bonesjonesreturns]

I like this post but rather than risk bonesjonesreturns getting overtly pulled in to the screen thus risking an electric shock as a result of giving in to the ever so alluring and charming Ms Brightman, I have decided to not repost those images  

As for the bonesjonesreturns, until his real account emerges we should all let him play the court jester here, at least it provides some form of semi-amusement.

Did anybody discover the real identity of bonesjonesreturns ?

His account was created just two months ago but he seems to be doing his best to ruffle a few feathers here [...]

I agree with this:

It is detrimental to immediate jump to accusatory remarks when it comes to users you disagree with and the constant barrage of "you're an alt of X" is tiring.

That was stated as to one of three troll accounts that I noticed suddenly show up in the same time period.  This was stated as to another:

~

His posts are relatively to the point, there aren't any randomly capitalized words, and he has gone more than 2 posts without throwing out any childish insults. He's obviously an alt, but I don't think it's CH/TOAA on this occasion.

“bonesjonesreturns” is the third of those three (speaking only as to the three that I myself significantly analysed).  Although this one is closer to the CH/TOAA style, it is a style that is relatively easy to mimic:  Spew out stream-of-consciousness drivel based on paranoid fixations, use bad casing and grammar, and add an abundance of crude insults.  With the assistance of psychotropic drugs, anybody could do it!

I think that the advice in this post is useful for pragmatically handling reputational attacks big and small, without jumping to conclusions of any kind.

[...] even though he failed miserably

C’mon, JollyGood!  Be not so discouraging.  Boned-Jones’ handiwork has not resulted in failure for others; and it does not make me miserable at all.  To the contrary—I did not know that Sarah Brightman is so hot for me:

Responsive.  Whereupon I decided to check out what else she has been up to.



Well, no wonder I have been so busy that I currently have the whole forum on ignore, except for this one thread!

Methinks Mr Bones Jones’ secret plan is to get me so many new girlfriends that I will have no forum time at all.  From my perspective, that is a jolly good plan.

Jollygood don't be as jayjuangee says a diptwat.

You https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5229023.0

and your fake scam hunting as a guise for enabling your scamming pals to charge fee to assist the scammers you bust repatriation to the forum ?

Or

Busting every one working with yobit except your DT pals?

Your behaviors should be examined and investigated.

You appear to be more dangerous than hacker0101000101 to me.

Another one for the sig ban. I see you are trying to whore that sig.... no takers??

Greedy newbies say and do anything for bitcoin dust. Parasites.

[JayJuanGee]

Let's sum up the 2 text walls above

Juanjaygee is making 2 claims

1. That my claim "that full context is fundamental to determining fair and consistent punishment " is bogus

2. He then claims that my statements based on irrefutable independently verifiable of scamming and willing scam facilitating for several members are nothing but the convoluted reasoning of a confused madman. That do not demonstrate any wrongdoing by his pals lauda, tman, nutildah et al. At all.


I ask him to provide specific instances or examples where he can demonstrate  clearly the evidence is weak and he can debunk.

Jayjuangee refuses to back up his statements and provide even 1 example which he can debunk

I already backed up my assertions sufficiently, especially since they are conclusionary assertions about off-topic matters, therefore I do not need to back them up any more than I already have... otherwise we are just devolving into more nonsense than we already have.

Why? Because he knows he can not debunk any of it.

Why?  Because it is a BIG ASS waste of time.  If you do not know how to argue and present your arguments, then I am NOT going to waste my time trying to teach you better techniques.  You need to learn that on your own.  Maybe practice in some other thread or some other forum because here you are just cluttering with ever increasing tangles of nonsensical and difficult to follow assertions.

It is documented independently verifiable evidence of clear scamming by his friends that is way more ruthless and viscous than paid ico bumping.

I don't have any friends.  A few weeks ago, I tried to go through a kind of process of attempting to become your friend, and even when we were attempting to go through such process, you were not even willing to work with me on that in order that we could attempt to become closer, or at least better able to communicate about any potentially matters of mutual concerns and interests.

Take the example I presented above and linked to for him? Totally avoid trying to debunk that or excuse laudas behavior. Why? Because there is no excuse that will stand up to scrutiny.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  Lauda's behavior?  What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?  or the topic of this thread, for that matter?

He then says something even more crazy.

He says well of course a scammer not be treated the same as an honest member as if that somehow debunks my claim that all members must be treated fairly and consistently aka the same. This demonstrates he does not understand the concept even.

Probably, I do not understand the concept.  You are correct.

Of course a scammer will not be treated the same as honest member.

Great!!!!  We agree about something.  We might need to celebrate with a cyber hug, which will also meet our social distancing requirements.

Let's make this clear. If jayjuangee was confident he could demonstrate lauda nutildah and tman histories were of honest members with no scamming or financially motivated wrongdoing

How the fuck could I even demonstrate anything about the histories about these folks?  I am supposed to do some kind of research further than I already have experienced?  What is it that you would like me to do exactly?  Perform some kind of investigation into each of them in regards to some kind of theory that you have about them?   

O.k.  fair enough that you purportedly have done research into these three members and you have concluded that there are problems with them.  Great..  Good for you.

then of course he would not hesitate to debunk my claims that in the full context of their behaviors then hacker can be a higher priority for some " further punishment " assessment.

I am not even saying anything about what investigation has priority over another.  I happen to be involved in this thread, for some reason, that involves the conduct of hacker.  The purported conduct of lauda, nutildah and/or tman are not at issue in this particular thread... so why the fuck are you continuing to assert that I have some kind of obligation to look into the conduct of those three members in order for me to have been able to participate in this thread or in whatever other hacker related thread that I have participated in (to the extent that I have participated by posting, sending smerits and reading some of the materials to the extent that I believe that some of the materials are informative or interesting within my discretion)

You only run away from comparisons that will debunk your claims

I run away from homework assigned from members like you whether it is you or any other member.  Of course, I might give some members more benefit of the doubt if they do not abuse my trust in them, but ever since the beginning of my relationship with you, bonesjones, you have been abusing the fuck out of any attempt that I have made to give you any benefit of the doubt or to go down your multitude of dead ended bullshit rabbit holes.

You don't run away from comparisons that will help debunk your opponents arguments

Well, your assertion that I am purposefully running away seems to be another stretch that you are making.  There is only so much time that I can spend on any particular aspect of any of these conversations, and maybe you are successful in getting me to discuss whether I am running away or not, when it seems to not even really be true or even relevant if it were true.

Lol at these people.

Like if I said to nullius my cock would make alia squeal with pleasure whilst your old micro penis would be laughed at and ridiculed by her.
Nullius says ..in maximis meis coles lilliputian terminorum. Aka my penis is huge in lilliputian terms.
I flop out the 9inch by 7inch girth flaccid snake
Nullius says .. off topic, irrelevant, my trouser zipper has gone mouldy and I cant compare atm.

Just because you and nullius are exploring these kinds of speculative off topic meanderings does not mean that I should be involved in those kinds of discussions.

Scared to compare is usually due to fear.  
Lord byron eat your heart out bozo.

Without going into the applicability of phantom of the opera to our discussion, I did tend to get a lot of pleasure in the 90s from playing a lot of that music (on repeat) including some of the other Andrew Lloyd Weber musicals.  So in the sense that some of us might learn about that music could be a good thing, but I still doubt that it is very helpful to entertain the various allegations of OP and whether OP might be shedding light on new hacker conduct or merely just regurgitating conduct that has already been sufficiently considered and accounted for my admins and moderators.  I get the sense that even if Nullius has allowed you to distract him into these various areas of seeming irrelevance, the thread has ultimately been able to shed some light on hacker behavior and even caused some members to conclude both that hacker had been continuing to NOT come clean about his seeming pattern of scammy behavior.  Of course, personally, I don't really feel very qualified in making these kinds of judgements, but it does seem to me that several other members (besides just nullius) who have participated in this thread, have pointed out a variety of ways in which hacker does not really seem to be coming clean and hacker seems to be contradicting himself when he does try to make some kind of clarification that seemingly way the fuck less than showing him as someone who really wants to improve his reputation rather than just digging himself in and continuing to deny and obfuscate.. that is the sense I am getting regarding hacker and some of the light that is getting shed through some of the sometimes quasi-relevant discussions within this thread.

They dont want to compare all of hackers history to the dirt that can be shown to be lurking in the histories of these scumbags.
Want hacker banned? Ban the more dangerous first and their complicit supporters and excusers
How can it be so hard to find a handful of old trusted members with no histories of scamming or willing scam facilitating for pay to put in our trust system .. we are not this desperate are we?
This newbie zoo of DT scammers is an embarrassment.
Also I try to treat others and be civil. They start swearing and childish name calling first or attack me in an uncivilized manner. Then will start saying that I am unable to conduct myself in an uncivilized  manner if I return the same towards them.

You are not really saying anything new, in this part.

Seems that we are supposed to be talking about hacker, here, and you seem to be continuing to assert that for the most part all of the members who are influencing the criticizing of hacker are not sufficiently qualified to criticize hacker because their slates are not sufficiently clean.  Nothing new about those ongoingly irrelevant assertions, right?  Am I missing something in what you are saying in that above portion?

[JollyGood]

Where is hacker1001101001?

Though I have him on my IGNORE list it seems quite clear he is avoiding posting in this thread and the one where he was challenged with irrefutable evidence by marlboroza:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.0