Super High IQ BenCodie vs Low IQ forum posters about gambling.

[BenCodie]

Reminder:

I called one or two members low IQ because of the logic they used. I do not think that the whole forum has low IQ nor do I think that my IQ is superior to the majority of the forum

Also:
Here's an excerpt of some campaign rules:

CAMPAIGN RULES
▶️ Wear the appropriate signature, avatar and personal text during the campaign
▶️ Maximum of 20 posts on local boards will be considered however I can make exception if you can give me a good reason.
▶️ Posts should be minimum of 200 characters long and MUST BE constructive
▶️ Posts in the following boards/sections are not eligible: "Off-Topic", "Archival, Games & Rounds", "Investor-Based Games", "Wall Observers", "Serious Discussion", "Altcoin Discussion", "Lending", "Press", "Politics & Society", other signature campaign threads, including this one, any ANN threads (except Mixero ANN and ANN posted on the "Gambling" board are allowed), and areas where the signature is not visible
▶️ No valid negative from DT network unless per-approved by me
▶️ Multi-account (alts) can apply but will need to give up all except only one if accepted more than one.
▶️ You must have minimum 50 merits in the last 120 days
▶️ Join my Telegram group: snip

No where does it say this:

▶️ You must condone the industry that the service is in, and the service, in order to be eligible to participate

Additionally:

Since there is so much talk about my "moral principles", here is what I am able to articulate to you all about my moral principles, relevant to recent topics of discussion.

I think that gambling is exploitative to the end user, and they do usually end up being a scam because of mismanagement and greed. However, I will not hesitate to take the money that casinos are giving out for me to post on a forum that I mostly enjoy, as it takes no effort nor does it require my personal endorsement to wear their signature and avatar. I also think the coins are better in my hands than to that of a gambler, or a casino operator. It will go to better use than these activities.

This is not hypocrisy in my opinion. This is the general nature of a non-corrupt community.

If only people who only expressed 100% belief in the services that were promoted, it is fair to say that people would compromise their morals and values for the sake of opportunity - this would fit under the definition of corruption

I am not one of those people. I will take opportunity, however I will not corrupt myself for the sake of the opportunity.

So why do I have moneypot in my signature if I think gambling as a whole is devolved?

To answer; A question with a question and answer:

Do I believe that Moneypot is a sure-fire way to gamble Bitcoin and that it will sustain for a long period of time?
No.
It means that I'm comfortable with Moneypot's history and business model to at least consider it somewhat sustainable as long as they continue to manage well (not scam til scam).

That does not mean in the slightest that I endorse moneypot, it just means that they carry less weight of unjust toward users to-date (at least, from what I know).
Recently, I applied to Mixero. And have had them in my signature before. Why if I think centralized/custodial mixers are devolved?

For those who don't know, Mixero is a middleman for using Monero, a proven privacy protocol, to achieve privacy. Monero hold minimal custody and have a viable model. It does not use centralized exchanges and the only trust that you put into the service, is with the middleman.

Again, question with question:

Q: Do I believe Mixero is a sure-fire and safe way to gain privacy for Bitcoin and will sustain for a long period of time?
A: No. It means that I'm currently comfortable with Mixero's history and business model to at least consider it somewhat sustainable as long as they continue to manage well (not scam til scam).


This post leads to a very important note relating to recent discussions on other threads.

Signature campaigns are not buying people, they are buying their avatar and signature space. Pixels on a screen.
No where does it state in signature campaign requirements that we are believing in, endorsing or are responsible for the services in our signatures, as I highlighted in the existing campaign rules of most campaigns, at the top of this thread.

If you think that your morals must align with the signature campaign to be able to get paid for them taking your digital pixel space, you are not informed about signature campaign requirements or about what a corrupt/non-corrupt community looks like.

One thing I will not do, is go out of my to slander any specific service unless they have been proven to be a scam or have valid complaints though I will point out red flags in the event that people are unaware, and for them to discuss just like I did in the whirlwind review thread about their mixing process in the posts following my review.

People are saying I am a bad person for not posting about Whirlwind.money's red flags? The fact is that it would have made no difference and would have required a lot of effort for me to be able to justify the red flags - and all of these red flags did not include evidence about it being a scam, until it was a scam.

I think that custodial/service-based mixing is devolved, as they usually end up doing wrong by the user or face issues because of their centralized, custodial nature. My comment on centralized casinos are similar, they are devolved. They exploit human nature, they are centralized and they are commonly using the law to scam users. Therefore, a lot of these services inherently have red flags due to their industry past and present. However, they aren't a scam, til they are, so there is no point in anyone commenting on the services seriously unless they are up for a endless debate which finally ends with "well, until they scam, they're legit".

BenCodie has made a series of unacceptable posts in the Whirlwind thread therefore he seems to have a very high opinion of himself. It is probably that narcissistic attitude that has made him become noticed recently, when he most probably would have stayed unnoticed. He seems highly opinionated on matters of gambling and mixers but is willing to push sentiments aside if it means participating in signature campaigns.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5446575.msg62744027#msg62744027
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5446575.msg62746026#msg62746026
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5446575.msg62746469#msg62746469

My only comment

Care to post here BenCodie:

BenCodie, please review your last few posts (including the ones where you have insulted respected members of the forum) and ask yourself if you have achieved anything constructive by using profanities and insults. I doubt it will help you when you put forward any argument to debate any matter in any walk of life therefore it should not help you here.

Also, would you like to re-think your post about you saying in your opinion you knew Whirlwind was a scam but you did two very interesting things. First, you did not post warnings about it (because you said you were not obliged to) and second, even though in your opinion it was a scam from the very beginning you did not hesitate to apply to join their signature campaign and you would have no problem with participating if you were selected.

That sort of conduct is shocking to say the least if you are stating you believed it was a scam but had no problem wanting to be part of their signature campaign.

Are you BitcoinTalk's AI? You literally respond to everyone with the idea that everyone must be appropriate as possible, just like AI would.

Are we now a profanity and minor insult-free forum? Can someone please point me to the memo that I missed about this?

If I want to hurl very minor insults to someone who is being silly, I have a right to. Is it bullying? Maybe. If we are children under 18. Otherwise, it's expression, unless it's seriously something that would effect someones mental health (anyone who reviews ANY of my posts, could not possibly conclude that I'm hurting someones mental health).

I have never given serious personal and major/disgusting abuse to anyone on this forum. I think if it's based on what someone said about a relevant topic, then it's fine. Maybe not conventional, but definitely not worth being complained about.

I'll continue to be this way; and I'll now be the same way to you JollyGood

You need to take that giant stick that is in your ass, out.

I have refrained from saying anything to you in the past, but you need to hear that.

If you don't understand it, read this.

It's a very valid insult based on who you are and how you are on this forum. It definitely should not effect your mental health. If it does, ask yourself, if you were the same on the forum as you were in real life, would people tell you the same thing? I think you take this forum wayyyyyy to seriously and this insult is my best way of expressing that truth.

[1714529663]

1714529663

[JollyGood]

As I have said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Pushing that opinion on others is where you go wrong, otherwise he is allowed to feel a certain way, be a hypocrite, and even be a dick.

If people do not like it, there is that ignore button, if managers do not like his controversial statements, they can fire and exclude him.

I know he has been ruffling too many feathers with his hypocritical posts and his claims of superior intellect which resulted in the OP creating this thread but the primary problem from my perspective is related to BenCodie stating he had enough information and belief (with 5 flags) to conclude that Whirlwind was a scam. Yet with that certainty he did not raise his concerns with anybody nor did he have a problem with trying to join their signature campaign as long as he was paid on time.

I asked him have a period of self-reflection on his recent conduct but rather than offer somewhat of even a half-hearted apology to those he insulted, he has gone on the offensive.

My first question to this user was why he thinks that the gambling board is an unethical board which is why he does not support the merit source application. He believes there is no need for merit sources for the unethical board while he himself wearing a casino signature and promoting it. Isn't it ironic? He might have a different point of view but how is it when you say dealing drugs is unethical and you promote it through a billboard you own just because someone pays you money for that?

I noticed whoever says something against his opinion, he starts talking to them aggressively and he believes they have low IQ and this user is the only person with super High IQ. I do not see any reason for insulting reputed members just because they shared their opinion about him and yet he expects everyone to accept his opinion (whoever does not agree with his opinion = Low IQ). Isn't it Ironic?

BenCodie is a complete and utter narcissist. After he was confronted for his unacceptable conduct in the Whirlwind thread, he refused to post there. It is not as though he has contributed anything to the forum yet he goes around lecturing members on matters that portray himself as a hypocrite, which is self-defeating. He wants to give the impression of superior intellect yet fails spectacularly because he comes across as nothing more than someone who has a bloated opinion of self-importance.

[BenCodie]

As I have said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Pushing that opinion on others is where you go wrong, otherwise he is allowed to feel a certain way, be a hypocrite, and even be a dick.

If people do not like it, there is that ignore button, if managers do not like his controversial statements, they can fire and exclude him.

I know he has been ruffling too many feathers with his hypocritical posts and his claims of superior intellect which resulted in the OP creating this thread but the primary problem from my perspective is related to BenCodie stating he had enough information and belief (with 5 flags) to conclude that Whirlwind was a scam. Yet with that certainty he did not raise his concerns with anybody nor did he have a problem joining their signature campaign as long as he was paid on time.

I asked him have a period of self-reflection on his recent conduct but rather than offer somewhat of even a half-hearted apology to those he insulted, he has gone on the offensive.

My first question to this user was why he thinks that the gambling board is an unethical board which is why he does not support the merit source application. He believes there is no need for merit sources for the unethical board while he himself wearing a casino signature and promoting it. Isn't it ironic? He might have a different point of view but how is it when you say dealing drugs is unethical and you promote it through a billboard you own just because someone pays you money for that?

I noticed whoever says something against his opinion, he starts talking to them aggressively and he believes they have low IQ and this user is the only person with super High IQ. I do not see any reason for insulting reputed members just because they shared their opinion about him and yet he expects everyone to accept his opinion (whoever does not agree with his opinion = Low IQ). Isn't it Ironic?

BenCodie is a complete and utter narcissist. After he was confronted for his unacceptable conduct in the Whirlwind thread, he refused to post there. It is not as though he has contributed anything to the forum yet he goes around lecturing members on matters that portray himself as a hypocrite, which is self-defeating. He wants to give the impression of superior intellect yet fails spectacularly because he comes across as nothing more than someone who has a bloated opinion of self-importance.

Whatever you say JollyGood. You are god. The only thing I'll do, is once again is quote this post:

I called one or two members low IQ because of the logic they used. I do not think that the whole forum has low IQ nor do I think that my IQ is superior to the majority of the forum

Which still can not be refuted - because I never said or claimed that I had a higher IQ than everyone else on this forum - only one or two dimwits who were misconstruing what I was saying while calling me a hypocrite, completely unreasonably.

As for the WW thread, I simply haven't had time to go back there and respond. Responding to this thread was first priority, I responded, I have nothing else to say. I'll go back to the WW thread when I can be bothered. This forum is no where near my top priority for time, let alone when there is drama. Not everyone sits here, like yourself, for hours and hours and hours on end and can respond to things instantaneously.

As for saying that I knew WW was a scam BEFORE it was a scam. Yes, there were several red flags - however none had conclusive evidence Whirlwind was a scam UNTIL Whirlwind was a scam. So it's BS to say that I "held back this information" and even more BS to act as if I am worse than the perpetrators.

If I had 100% proof that WW was a scam, I would have posted it with no hesitation and with nothing holding me back. However, that is not the case. Stop making out as if it is, that's utter nonsense and lies.

Oh and claiming that I feel self-important and narcissistic, is very ironic coming from yourself. I completely disagree that's how I am, but whatever you say. Once again Jolly - you are god - whatever you say is correct, and you are never wrong.

That stick must really feel good since you decided to push it further in than pull it out like I suggested

[Stalker22]

@BenCodie, I am genuinely curious here. Is it you who gets to hand out the "High IQ" label to your own posts and toss the "Low IQ" badge onto someone else's? Or is there a committee for that? Just trying to get a handle on this prestigious ranking system! 

Yup, that's textbook narcissism, in case you missed the memo. Might wanna grab yourself a freaking dictionary or something!




And by the way, going on a rant about the gambling industry while simultaneously promoting a crypto casino in your signature? Well, that is some top-notch hypocrisy, at least in my book. Looks like you have a track record of that too, right after your two-year forum break. 

[BenCodie]

@BenCodie, I am genuinely curious here. Is it you who gets to hand out the "High IQ" label to your own posts and toss the "Low IQ" badge onto someone else's? Or is there a committee for that? Just trying to get a handle on this prestigious ranking system! 

Yup, that's textbook narcissism, in case you missed the memo. Might wanna grab yourself a freaking dictionary or something!




And by the way, going on a rant about the gambling industry while simultaneously promoting a crypto casino in your signature? Well, that is some top-notch hypocrisy, at least in my book. Looks like you have a track record of that too, right after your two-year forum break. 

No, though I am able to give my opinion on people's IQ if I would like to, as I did to two/three users who blatantly disregarded 90% of my post, and skewed my post into something that it did not mean. Which in my opinion, is a low IQ act. My opinion means nothing, I am just exercising free speech. I never inflated the value of my opinion though I am definitely entitled to it. I never said I was a part of a committee that makes judgement on every persons IQ either. I saw low intelligence, I pointed it out, so what? Now I'm a narcissist and apparently judged everyone's IQ (so untrue, once again, not sure how it is being blown into this proportion).

As for the gambling signature space + my opinion on the gambling industry. Would you rather me change my long-standing opinion on the gambling industry because I have a signature for a gambling site in my signature? That's a genuine question.

Or are you telling me that I don't qualify to get paid to post because of my opinion on the gambling industry? That's another genuine question.

In my opinion, when I explained myself at the top of this page, I think I already made it clear of my rationale and I think that it's reasonable. No one has really directly addressed it.

If you guys want to call me a narcissist, you can do that. You're all using very few posts to come to that assumption, and you are completely disregarding my rationale - so once again, I could not care less about your skewed opinion. When you want to take into account all data about me, my past posts, etc, then I'm sure narcissism is not the correct label. I know me, I know I'm not that. I've met many narcissists in my life to know that I do not exude that energy.

Being a hypocrite for being paid to post by a gambling company, but not sharing a positive opinion about the gambling industry? I'm happy to get paid $65 a week for that hypocrisy, if that's even what it is. I don't believe it is, I believe it is taking opportunity while being true to self/not corrupt by the company renting my signature space. If that is hypocrisy, then it doesn't bother me at all, nor is it against the rules. That fact alone definitely does not make me a narcissist, nor do my other posts IMO.

All in all, the company gets promotion, I stay true to myself and my opinion, I see no issue with it. If others do, that's their opinion. I honestly don't care, because the fact that gambling is exploitative is true. It's not debatable. I know I'm on the right side of the fence in terms of opinion - apparent hypocrisy aside.

Is there is anything else to say other than "you're a hypocrite for judging the gambling industry while having a signature for a gambling side" and the unreasonable "you're a narcissist" comments which are all of a sudden being made (after I insulted JollyGod?)

[stompix]

Oh, here we go again, the hero who wanted to save everyone from gambling is here again!

I know that I'm not a scammer, a gambler, a scumbag, or anyone who contributes negatively to this community.

Would you rather me change my long-standing opinion on the gambling industry because I have a signature for a gambling site in my signature?

So, you are not a gambler, and if you weren't a gambler in a previous life, just how long is this long-standing opinion on gambling you have?
Just asking, you know, because it really feels weird, really....weird!

As for saying that I knew WW was a scam BEFORE it was a scam. Yes, there were several red flags - however none had conclusive evidence Whirlwind was a scam UNTIL Whirlwind was a scam. So it's BS to say that I "held back this information" and even more BS to act as if I am worse than the perpetrators.

You're actually still withholding information since you claimed you know more about WW and the buys behind the whole scheme than everyone, yet, you refused to show any info.

Further down the road, I'm curious about one more thing, you say you don't care about a campaign, you don't care what that is about as long as you get paid, all this feels weird when I look at your trust :

bbc.reporter   2023-07-19      Promoting scam casino BC.Game in signature.

you've tagged bbc.reporter for promoting a scam, which alone would be strange seeing how you defend your right to promote everything as long as you get paid but far more interesting, you haven't tagged the casino itself for being a scam. Why?
You see, you're full of contradictions, and this is quite ironic, since the whole thing started with you claiming to have a higher IQ, and high IQ gamblers such as yourself aren't known for doing stupid things as you do right here right now.

[BenCodie]

Oh, here we go again, the hero who wanted to save everyone from gambling is here again!

I know that I'm not a scammer, a gambler, a scumbag, or anyone who contributes negatively to this community.

Would you rather me change my long-standing opinion on the gambling industry because I have a signature for a gambling site in my signature?

So, you are not a gambler, and if you weren't a gambler in a previous life, just how long is this long-standing opinion on gambling you have?
Just asking, you know, because it really feels weird, really....weird!

As for saying that I knew WW was a scam BEFORE it was a scam. Yes, there were several red flags - however none had conclusive evidence Whirlwind was a scam UNTIL Whirlwind was a scam. So it's BS to say that I "held back this information" and even more BS to act as if I am worse than the perpetrators.

You're actually still withholding information since you claimed you know more about WW and the buys behind the whole scheme than everyone, yet, you refused to show any info.

Further down the road, I'm curious about one more thing, you say you don't care about a campaign, you don't care what that is about as long as you get paid, all this feels weird when I look at your trust :

bbc.reporter   2023-07-19      Promoting scam casino BC.Game in signature.

you've tagged bbc.reporter for promoting a scam, which alone would be strange seeing how you defend your right to promote everything as long as you get paid but far more interesting, you haven't tagged the casino itself for being a scam. Why?
You see, you're full of contradictions, and this is quite ironic, since the whole thing started with you claiming to have a higher IQ, and high IQ gamblers such as yourself aren't known for doing stupid things as you do right here right now.

- My gambling view has been formed by seeing people lose their lives to gambling. It is exploitative. Do I gamble? Rarely. If I were to ball park yearly gambling, it would extremely low volume. Responsible, for fun. Not daily, or weekly, no near that. Do I think it deserves promotion? Not really, there's better services to promote. But that and mixers seem to be what the forum thrive on in terms of advertising. I can speak out about it, I don't see a problem with that.

- I detailed my red flags on the thread about WW. I already said multiple times that they are red flags, not indicative of the service being a scam until it's a scam. It wouldn't have wavered anyone's usage, IMO. I simply don't have enough time to be a guardian of the forum, nor argue with WW administration while they were operating.

- I tagged BBC reporter because BC Game has multiple valid allegations against them. I have never promoted a service, nor will I ever promote a service, that has valid accusations against them (which I have reviewed and concluded my own judgement on). WW was not a scam when I applied. It was brand new, and somewhat promising. Until further viewing and research was done, much later down the track.

- The whole thing started with 3 gamblers giving skewed and uninformed opinions, that, IMO, is low IQ behaviour. If you aren't capable of taking all information into account before posting, the post is skewed, therefore IQ is seemingly lower in that instance.

Once again, I never claimed or compared my IQ to the entirety of the forum. Just 3 gamblers who expressed skewed opinions from my post (opinions that did not take all information into account)

[ScamViruS]

Everyone has their own point of view, and all members have freedom of expression. Now if you don't like any member or his opinion is not acceptable to you then you can ignore him here is easy option available for you. On the other hand, if there is a complaint about his post, then you can also complain to the campaign manager about the member that what he is posting is going against the industry. Then that manager would take the appropriate decision against this participant and remove him from the campaign.

[holydarkness]

[...]
Also:
Here's an excerpt of some campaign rules:

CAMPAIGN RULES
▶️ Wear the appropriate signature, avatar and personal text during the campaign
▶️ Maximum of 20 posts on local boards will be considered however I can make exception if you can give me a good reason.
▶️ Posts should be minimum of 200 characters long and MUST BE constructive
▶️ Posts in the following boards/sections are not eligible: "Off-Topic", "Archival, Games & Rounds", "Investor-Based Games", "Wall Observers", "Serious Discussion", "Altcoin Discussion", "Lending", "Press", "Politics & Society", other signature campaign threads, including this one, any ANN threads (except Mixero ANN and ANN posted on the "Gambling" board are allowed), and areas where the signature is not visible
▶️ No valid negative from DT network unless per-approved by me
▶️ Multi-account (alts) can apply but will need to give up all except only one if accepted more than one.
▶️ You must have minimum 50 merits in the last 120 days
▶️ Join my Telegram group: snip

No where does it say this:

▶️ You must condone the industry that the service is in, and the service, in order to be eligible to participate

[...]

I am ready to bow down from this thread and take the spectators seat, but just two questions, where do you snip that rules from? And are you deliberately falsifying information? Because I got curios of it and take a look at it, here's the screenshot of the real rules [screenshot taken instead of a quote to prove it's an original text and not being tampered like what seems to happen with yours].

[BenCodie]

[...]
Also:
Here's an excerpt of some campaign rules:

CAMPAIGN RULES
▶️ Wear the appropriate signature, avatar and personal text during the campaign
▶️ Maximum of 20 posts on local boards will be considered however I can make exception if you can give me a good reason.
▶️ Posts should be minimum of 200 characters long and MUST BE constructive
▶️ Posts in the following boards/sections are not eligible: "Off-Topic", "Archival, Games & Rounds", "Investor-Based Games", "Wall Observers", "Serious Discussion", "Altcoin Discussion", "Lending", "Press", "Politics & Society", other signature campaign threads, including this one, any ANN threads (except Mixero ANN and ANN posted on the "Gambling" board are allowed), and areas where the signature is not visible
▶️ No valid negative from DT network unless per-approved by me
▶️ Multi-account (alts) can apply but will need to give up all except only one if accepted more than one.
▶️ You must have minimum 50 merits in the last 120 days
▶️ Join my Telegram group: snip

No where does it say this:

▶️ You must condone the industry that the service is in, and the service, in order to be eligible to participate

[...]

I am ready to bow down from this thread and take the spectators seat, but just two questions, where do you snip that rules from? And are you deliberately falsifying information? Because I got curios of it and take a look at it, here's the screenshot of the real rules [screenshot taken instead of a quote to prove it's an original text and not being tampered like what seems to happen with yours].

You can go to the Mixero thread yourself and see that I did not edit anything from those rules.

The point was that there is no rule saying that you must condone or endorse the industry/service in order to participate in a campaign.

No, I don't "falsify information" when I am in the gambling section. The only difference between my participation in the gambling section is that I don't endorse services, I am very critical (rightfully so considering how many scams there are/have been, IMO) and if I am not either of these things, I'm participating normally. Just because I have my opinion about the gambling industry, it doesn't mean that it has to be expressed in every single post in that board. I won't compromise my opinion but I also won't express it at every chance, that would be annoying...and I'm not here to preach.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

You can go to the Mixero thread yourself and see that I did not edit anything from those rules.

LMAO. It seems Super High IQ BenCodie does not know which campaign he works for. Those are indeed Mixero thread rules.

He probably thinks he works for a mixer and therefore sees no contradiction in what he does.

 

[BenCodie]

You can go to the Mixero thread yourself and see that I did not edit anything from those rules.

LMAO. It seems Super High IQ BenCodie does not know which campaign he works for. Those are indeed Mixero thread rules.

He probably thinks he works for a mixer and therefore sees no contradiction in what he does.

 

I was merely quoting a general campaign rule set to explain that there is no requirement to endorse a service. Even if you quote the Moneypot campaign rules:

CAMPAIGN RULES

▶️ Wear the appropriate signature, avatar, personal text during the campaign
▶️ Wear personal text: Moneypot.com - Crash with the Lowest House Edge!
▶️ Minimum of five posts in the "Gambling" and "Gambling Discussion" sections
▶️ Posts must be minimum of 150 characters long and constructive
▶️ Posts in the following boards/sections are not eligible: "Off-Topic", "Archival, Games & Rounds", "Investor-Based Games", "Wall Observers", "Serious Discussion", "Altcoin Discussion", "Lending", "Press", "Politics & Society", other signature campaign threads, including this one, any ANN threads (ANN posted on the "Gambling" board are allowed), and areas where the signature is not visible
▶️ No valid negative from DT network unless prior approved by me
▶️ Multi-account (alts) can apply but will need to give up all except only one if accepted more than one.
▶️ You must have minimum five merits in the last 120 days
▶️ Join my Telegram group: snip

No where does it say this:

▶️ You must condone the industry that the service is in, and the service, in order to be eligible to participate

I was not specifying anything to do with the campaign that I'm enrolled in currently - I was generally stating that campaign rules don't require you to condone or endorse the service to be able to participate. I could have quoted any campaign rules and the point that I was making would have been exactly the same.

Great post Don. 10/10.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I was merely quoting a general campaign rule set to explain that there is no requirement to endorse a service. Even if you quote the Moneypot campaign rules:

<...>

Great post Don. 10/10.

It must be an IQ thing surely. It seems that we low IQ people can't understand the brilliance that you super high IQ people have in quoting the rules of another campaign that is not the one you currently participate in and that is not a gambling one in order to defend your contradictory moral principles.

I have had a good laugh with this but what I am going to do is add you in my ignore list because I think arguing with you is not going to do any good.

[Shishir99]

I was merely quoting a general campaign rule set to explain that there is no requirement to endorse a service. Even if you quote the Moneypot campaign rules:

<...>

Great post Don. 10/10.

It must be an IQ thing surely. It seems that we low IQ people can't understand the brilliance that you super high IQ people have in quoting the rules of another campaign that is not the one you currently participate in and that is not a gambling one to defend your contradictory moral principles.

I have had a good laugh with this but what I am going to do is add you to my ignore list because I think arguing with you is not going to do any good.

I guess it's already understandable that BenCodie does have Super IQ and even though he admits he called one or two people low IQ because of their arguments, indeed everyone has low IQ because they do not agree with what he says. He name calls Rikafip because Rikafip did not agree with him. While he says everyone has their own opinion, the irony is he cannot accept others' opinions and begin name-calling them.

I do not understand in what sense people quote another campaign's rules to defend his morals. Maybe because I am a low low IQ guy around. A friendly question to BenCodie, If you cannot take healthy criticism, why are you on the internet? People might get criticized because of their opinions, but if you expect respect from others, you have to respect them as well. What do you receive by insulting and name-calling others?

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

After reading most of the responses in the topic I came to a conclusion.

Some of you proved that you are SUPER TROLLs [LOL] where BenCodie's real IQ is still in question.

As I have said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Pushing that opinion on others is where you go wrong, otherwise he is allowed to feel a certain way, be a hypocrite, and even be a dick.

It seems some members have already decided what he is.

He is simply a hypocrite

narcissistic attitude

BenCodie is a complete and utter narcissist

It is not as though he has contributed anything to the forum yet

that is some top-notch hypocrisy

When some people are constantly hurting a person and insulting his opinion as a group, what would we expect in return from him? Hate spread hates.

[Shishir99]

When some people are constantly hurting a person and insulting his opinion as a group, what would we expect in return from him? Hate spread hates.

This is a good point and it should apply to those who started it first. Did you see his argument in the Whirlwind ANN thread? Did you see his response in cryptofrka's merit source application thread? Both are different cases but in both places, this guy started insulting reputed guys and then some others wrote back to him. At first, the question was about whether it's ironic to call something unethical and then promote it for money. But, instead of giving his cool answer, he added some name-calling words to Rikafip and then whoever does not agree with him, he claims those guys have low IQ. Please see the quoted posts;

If you really think the gambling board is as ethical as other boards this forum contains, you're out of touch with basic ethics.

Lol, guy that is willing to promote something that he thinks is highly unethical and exploitative for a little bit of bitcoin will teach us about ethics.  

I'm not promoting shit, they're leasing my sig space. I take zero responsibility for the service nor do I endorse it for as long as it's not a proven scam.

Good job picking one thing out of all of the valid parts of what I said and using it to invalidate my post. Great job, actually. Very effective. Dumbass.

All of you have a common theme - low IQ.

[lovesmayfamilis]

When some people are constantly hurting a person and insulting his opinion as a group, what would we expect in return from him? Hate spread hates.

I agree. In this thread, which should not have been created, the OP got his way, his insulted ego was satisfied, and he added more enemies to BenCodie. OP, is that what you wanted to achieve?
Acting as a lawyer in defense of other people, there is always a second side (which is usually beneficial to the author), where someone becomes very good and someone becomes bad.


OP, close the topic and try using the ignore button.

This is a good point and it should apply to those who started it first.

The words "I didn't start" remind me of my little son fighting for a spatula in the sandbox.

[Rikafip]

But, instead of giving his cool answer, he added some name-calling words to Rikafip and then whoever does not agree with him, he claims those guys have low IQ.

Buddy, there's no need to defend me as I've been on forums for far too long to get offended by words of some random guy on the Internet. Those who get offended can always use ignore button (even though I suggest them to grow a thicker skin).

[NotATether]

@BenCodie, I see this whole incident about Whirlwind has you worked up. You should cool down and possibly take a few days off so that this whole thing passes by.

[AB de Royse777]

@Shishir99, learn to forgive people if anything from them hurts you. It does not lower your guard at all.

BenCodie may have some witty views to look into things, to write his words but that does not mean he deserves a warning in his trust page.

JollyGood

2023-08-27

Reference

"BenCodie" made remarkable statements he was trying to get selected on Whirlwind signature campaign when he was convinced it was a scam. He opted to not warn others who applied believing it was a genuine business. Reluctantly I am leaving neutral feedback rather than red because he semi-retracted the claim later.

There was an uncomfortable incident between me and BenCodie in a review campaign. I banned him from joining any of my review campaign (it's public) but as you can see I am more than happy to have him in signature campaigns I have. He is a good forum member, good forum poster, constructive in his wording, in cases to be honest better than some of you who are trying to lower his guard. Your opinion and his opinion do not need to be same. Respect is A two-lane expressway.