Deleted posts in the Hardware BFL Thread, Double Standards, and Hypocrisy

[QuestionAuthority]

At what point did I say that? It's good to bring up new things that help. I want you to do it and I want you to do it in any part of the forum that makes sense. I just see a lot of crap being restated in a new way post after post that's even hard for me to follow and I've watched the story from the beginning. Do you expect someone that doesn't know the story to be able to weed through all that and understand what's going on? I bet the real info there could be condensed into about 30 pages. Dree condensed the entire scam, hack and fraud history of Bitcoin into fewer pages than that!

Now now, QuestionAuthority, you're making the same points I have. Soon, very soon, that will irritate someone, an' dey will teechify you da lessan!!

You aren't going to answer every question in this whole thread, are you? That's kind of making you look a little kooky. Stop worrying about what people here think about you. They don't really matter anyway.

[brush242]

You're ignoring the larger point and why this thread was created by Xian01. If you don't like discussion or the fact that such discussion might help the authorities as well as the general public, then that is your prerogative. But do not make the mistake of assuming that discussion is mutually exclusive with informing the relevant regulatory bodies or agencies. I mean, gimme a break, bruh. Implying that such discussion takes away from reporting to relevant agencies or whatever is just insane. Unilateral post deletion does not bode well and will likely drive away posts that encourage further scrutiny and investigatory work.

Edit: if you ask me, the only effect and purpose of such unilateral deletion is to push out further scrutinizing, since the cover story that the #1 criterion that posts should be "on-topic" was violated in a number of cases.

And leeroyjenkins, given your post above, especially the part you placed in italics, it is a guarantee that doxxing unrelated participants does not bode well and will likely drive away people that may provide further scrutiny and investigatory work.

Do I need to explain why?

[brush242]

At what point did I say that? It's good to bring up new things that help. I want you to do it and I want you to do it in any part of the forum that makes sense. I just see a lot of crap being restated in a new way post after post that's even hard for me to follow and I've watched the story from the beginning. Do you expect someone that doesn't know the story to be able to weed through all that and understand what's going on? I bet the real info there could be condensed into about 30 pages. Dree condensed the entire scam, hack and fraud history of Bitcoin into fewer pages than that!

Now now, QuestionAuthority, you're making the same points I have. Soon, very soon, that will irritate someone, an' dey will teechify you da lessan!!

You aren't going to answer every question in this whole thread, are you? That's kind of making you look a little kooky. Stop worrying about what people here think about you. They don't really matter anyway.

Meh. You're right. I'm just bored right now after a few days of lots of activity. Thank you for the reality check.

I certainly don't care what people think about me, and I am well aware of how little they matter.

'Nuff said.

[sbogovac]

Wow, someone's on a rant...

[...] I asked the mods to pull that BS down [...]

So that was it. You can dish it out but can't handle the receiving end... What, is tortureinterrogation more your thing?

Cry-baby.

[sbogovac]

(Xian01 tells me that this thread was created because of messages I removed in a thread about BFL)

I don't know and don't care about "dox".  I removed a ton of posts that have absolutely nothing, not even any claim, of having to do with BFL, that were basically making it impossible to find the one in ten posts that were actually about BFL.

For the abstract question ... harassing people is not okay, but there are limits to what can be done about it.

A load of bull-menure! The guy was deliberaty derailing the topic and deserved whatever he got.

Which, of course, is simply untrue. The overwhelming percentage of my posts in that thread concerned either a) the idiocy of burying good information under torrents of BS, 2) the idiocy of thus ruining one's credibility such that those that matter (sc.: da gov't) tend to dismiss your points, and d) how TROs work.

That isn't derailing the topic. More accurately, it was an attempt to get the thread to be of much greater value.

Wow, how noble of you. You must think you are quite the benefactor.

[sbogovac]

Bitcointalk is putting itself in a very bad light by the apparent conflict of interest and favouring BFL in this.

Let me get this straight, you think BCT is putting itself in a bad light over a few deleted posts in an abortion of a thread that no one reads, followed by posts in this thread that even fewer people will read?

Oh, wow... 581061 (and counting) views considered "no one"...

If that is what you believe, then you can understand that credibility matters. If you can understand that, you can understand why one's credibility matters.

That thread, and generally those that post the parade of garbage (not, necessarily, reposts of pertinent information (though, if you realize why that needs to be done, you understand that the thread is an abortion: no one will search for the nuggets)), have a net negative affect on any proceedings against BFL.

That doesn't make any sense.

Really, generally it doesn't matter if there's 7 or 700 pages in a topic. A newcomer won't read them all and either search or ask...

[sbogovac]

[...]
Ah. I see. I "poked the bear" how exactly?

[...]

I would gladly show you, but you got the posts deleted. Remember?

[sbogovac]

(Xian01 tells me that this thread was created because of messages I removed in a thread about BFL)

I don't know and don't care about "dox".  I removed a ton of posts that have absolutely nothing, not even any claim, of having to do with BFL, that were basically making it impossible to find the one in ten posts that were actually about BFL.

For the abstract question ... harassing people is not okay, but there are limits to what can be done about it.

I sent you a PM, bud.

You know what would be interesting to know Bruno; whether the service of Stephen M. Reid as an army interrogator crossed paths with the service of a certain Korean army linguist aka Inaba aka BFL_Josh aka Joshua Ryan Zerlan...

That would certainly shed some light on the entanglement of these here "actors" on BCT....

Here, I'll give you the answer right now: no. We didn't cross paths. If I remember correctly, I was off of active duty two or three years before he even started.

Did you find that interesting? Did it shed any "...light on the entanglement of these here 'actors' on BCT...."?

No it didn't. You lost all credibility in my eyes Stephen Mark Reid. Sorry.

[sbogovac]

I am not an attorney but did a little bit of research. Is Stephen Reid acting against section 7.3 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_7_3_direct_contact_with_prospective_clients.html by soliciting his business here.

Feel free to discuss. 

Well I be a butterfly! It sure does look like Stephen M. Reid was acting against section 7.3 of the model rules of professional conduct of the American Bar association by soliciting his business here on BCT. (Not surprising as he advocated BFL's lawyers were acting professionally too.) It's a good thing then (for him) that he deleted those posts and got the remainder of these incriminating posts deleted by the moderator...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=492749.0

What is even funnier that Stephen Mark Reid (Brush242) is having a legal signature attached to his pseudonym. 

Funny? Why is it funny?

It's a standard disclaimer such that people realize the limit of what comprises legal representation and legal advice.

In fact, directly below my disclaimer is BCT's disclaimer.

Followed thereafter by someone who thinks it's odd that casinos would have legal representation.

The question was whether you - Stephen Mark Reid - acted against section 7.3 of the model rules of professional conduct of the American Bar association by soliciting your business here online at BCT...

[sbogovac]

There is more to that. Brush242 did not manage to hush people up; ""It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt" --Some Guy, Late 1800s

I didn't offer anonymous service, or even pseudo-anonymous service. I would not be anonymous. Any client will be able to confirm my legitimacy in the jurisdictions where I am admitted to practice law.

Depending on the extent of the services needed for legal representation, clients and I will enter into a written representation agreement that covers fees, costs, scope of service, et cetera. For other services, a standard business agreement."

See for yourself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=492749.msg10050629#msg10050629

So then comes a force majeure and caboom... everyone's posts are gone. A very interesting coincidence  

Not a coincidence at all. I asked the mods to do it.

Why should that surprise anyone?

Further, why should any of you think that is acceptable behavior? It doesn't have any relevance and makes you look petty:

"Welp, I ain't got no reel agruments 'bout TROs but here's Stevie's name, oh, an' lookee hyah, I put up sumtin else stupid that is unreelayted."

The reason someone did it was what? "To change my tone?" Won't happen, I didn't set the tone here. "Teech me a lessun?" Nope. If anything I was trying to teach some of you how the US legal system actually works.

There is NOTHING I have posted that I would have hesitated to say to anyone's face. And when I have met people from on line, I have done exactly that. Oh, right, but now I'm doxxed. That'll show me, eh?

Get real.

Could you - Stephen Mark Reid - please ask the American Bar association "in their face" (and in your own name) whether you acted against section 7.3 of the model rules of professional conduct of the American Bar association by soliciting your business here online at BCT...?

[sbogovac]

[...] like I removed something to the betterment of BFL, which I think cannot be sanely alleged.[...]

Well Gregory: Sorry, but it can; "lawyer-dude" Stephen M. Reid showed up as this community was posting more and more evidence of BFL/Bitpay's fraud/money laundering and started derailing that. Since no mod was anywhere near to putting that dude in his place the community acted itself (thank you, Bruno et al.) and doxed him. By your blunt actions this context has been totally lost while his (lawyer-dude's) prior derailments still stand.

So sorry, but: yes, your "aggressive" actions actually led "to the betterment of BFL"... 

And to put insult to injury you then start threatening that very community

I "showed up" because I was curious about the status and I was appalled at the state of that thread. If I "derailed" anything, it was stupid and unfounded opinions. Not, of course that people aren't allowed to have them. They can have them no matter how wrong they are. But providing good information helps mitigate bad information.

Doxxing? Oh yeah. They sure showed me.

What, precisely, do you think that accomplished? You feel as if somehow I've been punished?

And if that was the plan, to punish me, or "get" me what I "deserved", then that's even more stupid. You don't have to agree with me, but taking the time to correct glaring errors and misconceptions about the case isn't wrong—even if you hate what I have to say. Doxxing me for it is even more stupid because it discourages other people from posting helpful information. Net result once again: harm for your case.

One of you please reply to this post and put my LinkedIn link here please? I don't have it handy.

That'll show me.

Are you really that self-obsessed  The doxxing was just to get the context of where you are posting from. It was quite enlightening too (especially the army interrogator experience part, for instance). And it was just a start, to see where this is leading... Especially in connection with other "players".

[sbogovac]

@maxwell. I understand your position. But this is not kindergarten. And you cannot ground people in the corner. People are gathering information and at times they make jokes. Keep in mind Maxwell that FTC has been referred to this list several times because many of us have gathered an enormous amount of information. We are trying to make their job easier too. It can very well be considered as tampering with evidence. Considering what happened last night, you can warn people from time to time not to overload the thread with too many pictures. But be careful with overzealous deletions.

Okay folks, raise your hands if you think anyone in the US legal system thinks that posts here "can very well be considered as tampering with evidence?"

Seriously, raise them up high, so's I can see'um.

Now, I could explain what the actual answer is such that those with their hands in their put them down (well, except for the few stubborn ones who *really* know what's going on), and why that is a stupid opinion to hold. But what's the point?

And, do you feel "better" now?

[sbogovac]

Props to Steven Reid for managing to erase his vomit though. He has poked the bear and then managed to get the zoo keeper to clean up the mess afterwards. We've seen that he's a idiotic piece of shit, yet he got that done.

More idiocy and conclusory accusations with zero evidence or reasoning. Try this "Steven(sic) Reid is an idiotic piece of shit and wrong about TROs because (then put whatever you think will support your statement here)" or, "Super Stephen the MahaRushie the idiotic piece of shit, the last few findings by the court are incorrect because the evidence at hand (you know what to put here)". Do you think people will take that more seriously or less seriously?

I think a lot of you simply don't understand that projecting your likely-justified anger about BFL on me, even if you really, really, REALLY, FOR REALZ hate what I have to say is of no value whatsoever.

Wow, it's a good thing then we have you here. The know-it-all with all the answers.... 

[sbogovac]

How is the connection between an active and disruptive forum participant and a BFL official considered OFF-TOPIC here

Welp, seein' as dere ain't one, Brainiac, of course it's off-topic.

Hey, I've got an idea!! See how many man-hours you guys can waste on that wild goose chase! That will certainly help!

There not being any connection would be a dead-end, not off-topic...

[sbogovac]

At what point did I say that? It's good to bring up new things that help. I want you to do it and I want you to do it in any part of the forum that makes sense. I just see a lot of crap being restated in a new way post after post that's even hard for me to follow and I've watched the story from the beginning. Do you expect someone that doesn't know the story to be able to weed through all that and understand what's going on? I bet the real info there could be condensed into about 30 pages. Dree condensed the entire scam, hack and fraud history of Bitcoin into fewer pages than that!

Now now, QuestionAuthority, you're making the same points I have. Soon, very soon, that will irritate someone, an' dey will teechify you da lessan!!

You aren't going to answer every question in this whole thread, are you? That's kind of making you look a little kooky. Stop worrying about what people here think about you. They don't really matter anyway.

Meh. You're right. I'm just bored right now after a few days of lots of activity. Thank you for the reality check.

I certainly don't care what people think about me, and I am well aware of how little they matter.

'Nuff said.

So Stephen Mark Reid, now you can run off and complain to the teacher moderator, cry-baby.

[Gleb Gamow]

[...]

The post above that got deleted was basically on-topic, whereupon the following post that was penned prior to it but after the Big Erase could easily be argued is off-topic, yet it remains.

[...]

Tattletale...

Did Max delete my clause "at the risk of being a tattletale"? 

[Gleb Gamow]

I would not be surprised if a lawyer sent a complaint to a moderator that included the words "or else" and several as per number dot number dot numbers.

I refrained to write this before, not wanting to expose the prudish side of my character: but I kept imagining Ms. Helen Wong or some other FTC official reading those #ASKFTC posts that reminded me so much of the bathroom walls at my junior high school.

Maybe, just maybe, those FTC officers were sufficiently annoyed by those posts to start thinking that BFL and their customers perhaps deserved each other after all, and they had better devote their resources and dramamine to the more meritorious case of those Neonazi ex-con bikers who did not get their pedo-themed KKK uniforms delivered in time by that North Korean army supplier.  So, while punctiliously defending the FTC case with her mouth, Ms. Wong blinked three times to the Judge, who got the message and ordered that his desk be cleared of that pile of unsavory attachments as quickly as possible.

I never watched Blues Clues, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn - ONCE!

1. Steve Reid practices law in New York.
2. Yesterday was the 5th.
3. Somebody didn't post yesterday.
4. Zmínil jsem se , že jsem studoval češtinu pro americkou armádu ? (Czech --> English)
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSgqrrWyF0Y

[ABitNut]

Props to Steven Reid for managing to erase his vomit though. He has poked the bear and then managed to get the zoo keeper to clean up the mess afterwards. We've seen that he's a idiotic piece of shit, yet he got that done.

More idiocy and conclusory accusations with zero evidence or reasoning. Try this "Steven(sic) Reid is an idiotic piece of shit and wrong about TROs because (then put whatever you think will support your statement here)" or, "Super Stephen the MahaRushie the idiotic piece of shit, the last few findings by the court are incorrect because the evidence at hand (you know what to put here)". Do you think people will take that more seriously or less seriously?

I think a lot of you simply don't understand that projecting your likely-justified anger about BFL on me, even if you really, really, REALLY, FOR REALZ hate what I have to say is of no value whatsoever.

If you put your reproductive organ into a beehive expect to get stung. That's what you did. I call that poking the bear. You should have read the quote in my signature, it also applies. If you really think you didn't do that then I don't know what to say...

Also as a lawyer you should realise how malleable people and their impressions are. I reckon that is why you wanted the whole episode erased. I agree with you that the whole thread is a mess. The related content is not readily available anymore so I can't go and quote you specifically. You - regardless if you were right or wrong - were the catalyst of a whole new load bullshit in it. Maybe I should rephrase my statement: "Props to Steven Reid for managing to erase a load of vomit that he caused. He has poked the bear and then managed to get the zoo keeper to clean up the mess afterwards."

And it was not proper to end with name calling. But hey, IANAL and it was a knee-jerk reaction to the seemingly random moderation (If only gmaxwell had just stated his cleanup was triggered by a request from you). I am after all a typical BCT armchair anarchist so I get upset at trivial shit like that. You did handle the situation poorly at best. And now you are here and your demeanor is again aggravating.

[Gleb Gamow]

Props to Steven Reid for managing to erase his vomit though. He has poked the bear and then managed to get the zoo keeper to clean up the mess afterwards. We've seen that he's a idiotic piece of shit, yet he got that done.

More idiocy and conclusory accusations with zero evidence or reasoning. Try this "Steven(sic) Reid is an idiotic piece of shit and wrong about TROs because (then put whatever you think will support your statement here)" or, "Super Stephen the MahaRushie the idiotic piece of shit, the last few findings by the court are incorrect because the evidence at hand (you know what to put here)". Do you think people will take that more seriously or less seriously?

I think a lot of you simply don't understand that projecting your likely-justified anger about BFL on me, even if you really, really, REALLY, FOR REALZ hate what I have to say is of no value whatsoever.

If you put your reproductive organ into a beehive expect to get stung. That's what you did. I call that poking the bear. You should have read the quote in my signature, it also applies. If you really think you didn't do that then I don't know what to say...

Also as a lawyer you should realise how malleable people and their impressions are. I reckon that is why you wanted the whole episode erased. I agree with you that the whole thread is a mess. The related content is not readily available anymore so I can't go and quote you specifically. You - regardless if you were right or wrong - were the catalyst of a whole new load bullshit in it. Maybe I should rephrase my statement: "Props to Steven Reid for managing to erase a load of vomit that he caused. He has poked the bear and then managed to get the zoo keeper to clean up the mess afterwards."

And it was not proper to end with name calling. But hey, IANAL and it was a knee-jerk reaction to the seemingly random moderation (If only gmaxwell had just stated his cleanup was triggered by a request from you). I am after all a typical BCT armchair anarchist so I get upset at trivial shit like that. You did handle the situation poorly at best. And now you are here and your demeanor is again aggravating.

Do you recall when another mod came along and expunged ~30 posts and banned the offender, only to have Maxwell come along and reinstate the posts declaring that the issue had been resolved and the mod in question is no longer a mod? That said, I'm gettin' a fresh cup of coffee and puttin' Dylan on the turntable.

[ABitNut]

Do you recall when another mod came along and expunged ~30 posts and banned the offender, only to have Maxwell come along and reinstate the posts declaring that the issue had been resolved and the mod in question is no longer a mod? That said, I'm gettin' a fresh cup of coffee and puttin' Dylan on the turntable.

I remember that. I guess gmaxwell handled that well enough. It seems harsh to me to remove a mod for one (presumebly big) mistake, but I don't no any context. There may or may not have other issues with that ex-mod which would warrant removal. That's all water under the bridge now though. Enjoy your ground up bean water.