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

[sbogovac]

I don't think so. When someone grants you a consession then you need to be polite and play by their rules. Maxwell could have easily just moved the whole thread and left it at that. All of that extraneous shit doesn't need to be there to get the message across to newbies that BFL=BAD. If you are discovering new information that truly can assist in a court case against them then contact the FTC, FBI or someone else. Rehashing the same shit for 700+ pages won't help a newbie figure out BFL is a crook.

I know everyone in that thread is passionate about seeing justice, as you should be, but you still need to think about the reason for that thread and who is letting you do it.

So you, like some, don't want to discuss anything. Why are you here?

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 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!

At this point:

[...If you are discovering new information that truly can assist in a court case against them then contact the FTC, FBI or someone else. [...]

A forum is - by its very definition - a meeting point to discuss different viewpoint on a subject. If you want to condens it into a (peer reviewed / white-) paper, by all means go ahead. But don't suppress a healthy discussion because of it...

EDITED: suppress instead of the autocorrected surprise... 

[Gleb Gamow]

This just got deleted by a mod. in the "BFL fucked us over again" thread:

This is actually a rather quite relevant and nice little find (of Bruno's) that I thought adds to the topic right here too:

(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....

Or, maybe via their BBS days which overlap.

http://markmail.org/message/azp6mfi7mrsfuqje

- Steve
  - Systems Manager
  - Community Internet Access, Inc.
  - Gallup and Grants, New Mexico

At that time Josh administered BBSs (plural) outta TN.

And there it is, people!

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

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.

[...]If I was a practicing professional in any field I think the last place on earth I would hang out is on an antigovernment militia forum, a terrorist forum or this forum. He must have some sort of developmental disability.

Why?!?

I am a lecturer in Economic Law at several universities. I have never hidden that fact. Actually, the only reason why I'm involved in Bitcoin is because I got tired having to answer my student's questions about BTC with: "I don't know enough about the subject to comment on that...". I even do not use an "complicated" alias...

Regards,
Drs. Slobodan Bogovac MBA

You say you are Drs.... Oh wait, somebody already went there. [...]

Haha, yes but please don't start that again...  

Drs. is basically the Dutch equivalent of people holding the Anglo-Saxon "Master" title; in the Netherlands only the students of Law are granted the Mr. title, Engineers the Ir. title and all other "masters" get Drs. it means Doctorandus and basically translates into "almost a Doctor" which I always find hilarious cause you're basically saying: I'm to lazy to finish my studies and become a full-blown Doctor...  

[Leeroy Jenkins]

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 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!

At this point:

[...If you are discovering new information that truly can assist in a court case against them then contact the FTC, FBI or someone else. [...]

A forum is - by its very definition - a meeting point to discuss different viewpoint on a subject. If you want to condens it into a (peer reviewed / white-) paper, by all means go ahead. But don't surprise a healthy discussion because of it...

Thank you, sbogovac, for making what was implicitly clear explicitly clear for some who cannot read properly or even understand their own words (even if unintentional). For someone by the name of "QuestionAuthority", I'd say he's doing a terrible job of living up to that moniker right about now.

[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 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!

At this point:

[...If you are discovering new information that truly can assist in a court case against them then contact the FTC, FBI or someone else. [...]

A forum is - by its very definition - a meeting point to discuss different viewpoint on a subject. If you want to condens it into a (peer reviewed / white-) paper, by all means go ahead. But don't surprise a healthy discussion because of it...

Thank you, sbogovac, for making what was implicitly clear explicitly clear for some who cannot read properly. For someone by the name of "QuestionAuthority", I'd say he's doing a terrible job of living up to that moniker right about now.

You are both misunderstanding MY point. The best and fastest way to get info to the people that can use it is to contact them directly. Take it to the FTC or whoever directly. Rehashing it here isn't going to get it to them as fast a phone call. If you need to brainstorm and all that that should be done here but the mods (you remember them, right? The people letting you have a thread in the wrong section) demanding it stay on topic and accidentally deleting a few on topics while wading through the mountain of shit shouldn't piss you off. <- this bit here is my point. Not all that other crap you're talking about.

Edit: if you want to yell at me some more I'll be back later. I have to run out for a while.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

You are both misunderstanding MY point. The best and fastest way to get info to the people that can use it is to contact them directly. Take it to the FTC or whoever directly. Rehashing it here isn't going to get it to them as fast a phone call. If you need to brainstorm and all that that should be done here but the mods (you remember them, right? The people letting you have a thread in the wrong section) demanding it stay on topic and accidentally deleting a few on topics while wading through the mountain of shit shouldn't piss you off. <- this bit here is my point. Not all that other crap you're talking about.

Edit: if you want to yell at me some more I'll be back later. I have to run out for a while.

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.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I'd like to invite some moderators to read the following material and that they seriously consider its contents:

http://www.communityspark.com/the-real-purpose-of-forum-moderators-revealed/

Forum moderators are not police officers

The biggest mistake forum owners make when taking on forum moderators is expecting them to police the community. Many see the main role of moderators as enforcers of the site rules, as people who delete posts they don’t like and lock topics the moment they run off-course. If these are the priorities of your moderators, you are doing it all wrong.

As I have said before, you must never repress your community. You must ensure that you moderate your forum effectively – this means adopting a laissez-faire approach and allowing your members a large amount of freedom. If you or your moderators crack down on members the second they step out of line, you will be sending a negative signal to your community that free speech is not tolerated on your site. You will make people nervous and discourage them from getting involved – hardly the ingredients for a successful community!

Forum moderators should promote interaction

The primary role of a forum moderator should be to promote interaction. A forum moderator should be posting new threads and adding new content to the site. They should be helping out members with their queries and they should be keeping threads alive by asking questions.

I am not saying that forum moderators shouldn’t be allowed to delete or lock threads that are inappropriate – of course this should be one of their roles. What I am saying is this should never be their primary role.

When you take on forum moderators you need to make it clear exactly what you expect from them. Most moderators see themselves as forum police officers and will only edit/delete/lock content without creating any themselves. This is a mistake – make sure your moderators know that their primary role is to encourage interaction, to encourage member involvement, and to encourage a sense of community within your forum.

[gmaxwell]

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

Because, it's lunacy:  The allegation being made (which was after I initially removed the posts, FWIW, when I started removing them there wasn't even that much) is that some decades ago some BFL person ran a BBS in one state, and some BCT user ran some BBS(es) in another state, an activity tens of thousands of people engaged in. And somehow this makes them connected. This just seems like a desperate attempt to draw any connection at all; and it makes the forum dumber for it, because some people have no clue what the words mean, and act like its significant (and as a result makes everyone there look like fools).

I administered BBSes (in Florida, in my case) in the mid 90s. Am I suddenly Josh?!

Sbogovac, you've drank water before, haven't you?!?!?  We all know that Sonny Vleisides was seen drinking water in court.  The connection is CLEAR (I suppose I should go full gauge here and use red text?)!!!!

Witches also drink water. Clearly you are both Sonny _and_ a witch!   Everyone, grab the torches!

[darkmule]

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

He was discussing the standards for a preliminary injunction, which were directly relevant to the exact legal issues of the thread.  Some people didn't like the legal standards and, having no actual argument to the contrary, started spewing insults.  Then they spent pages doxing him for literally no fucking reason at all.

The derail was entirely on the people who insisted vociferously on being wrong and getting angry at anyone who actually discussed the topics based on facts and law.

[sbogovac]

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

Because, it's lunacy:  The allegation being made (which was after I initially removed the posts, FWIW, when I started removing them there wasn't even that much) is that some decades ago some BFL person ran a BBS in one state, and some BCT user ran some BBS(es) in another state, an activity tens of thousands of people engaged in. And somehow this makes them connected. This just seems like a desperate attempt to draw any connection at all; and it makes the forum dumber for it, because some people have no clue what the words mean, and act like its significant (and as a result makes everyone there look like fools).

I administered BBSes (in Florida, in my case) in the mid 90s. Am I suddenly Josh?!

Sbogovac, you've drank water before, haven't you?!?!?  We all know that Sonny Vleisides was seen drinking water in court.  The connection is CLEAR (I suppose I should go full gauge here and use red text?)!!!!

Witches also drink water. Clearly you are both Sonny _and_ a witch!   Everyone, grab the torches!

Sorry Gregory to read your "argumentum ad absurdum", nice try but no fly...

I am not "on trial" here (there, here is the meta-discussion), but BFL is. So yes, people defending BFL publicly are open to scrutiny (hell, everybody is as far as I'm concerned). That having been said...

Your simple black and white logic may work in your programming zero's and one's environment but does not work well in the real world with real people. In the real world you deduct information bit by bit (pun intended). By scratching the surface and going deeper and deeper a lot of relevant information gets discovered eventually. Information that at first might have seemed irrelevant. But yes, people "network". That's natural. Decades? Yes, I still do business even with friends I met in elementary school (and believe me, that's a lot (30-40) of years ago.

So sorry Gregory, you might be a great programmer. I don't know. but it is seeming more and more you are not capable/willing to understand how people interact (like in a forum) where "simple rules" do not apply (but more complicated do). To be quite honest, I don't have the confidence in you to bring this to a positive outcome...

Sorry,
Slobodan

[sbogovac]

[...]

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...

[ABitNut]

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

Because, it's lunacy:  The allegation being made (which was after I initially removed the posts, FWIW, when I started removing them there wasn't even that much) is that some decades ago some BFL person ran a BBS in one state, and some BCT user ran some BBS(es) in another state, an activity tens of thousands of people engaged in. And somehow this makes them connected. This just seems like a desperate attempt to draw any connection at all; and it makes the forum dumber for it, because some people have no clue what the words mean, and act like its significant (and as a result makes everyone there look like fools).

I administered BBSes (in Florida, in my case) in the mid 90s. Am I suddenly Josh?!

Sbogovac, you've drank water before, haven't you?!?!?  We all know that Sonny Vleisides was seen drinking water in court.  The connection is CLEAR (I suppose I should go full gauge here and use red text?)!!!!

Witches also drink water. Clearly you are both Sonny _and_ a witch!   Everyone, grab the torches!

Sorry Gregory to read your "argumentum ad absurdum", nice try but no fly...

I am not "on trial" here (there, here is the meta-discussion), but BFL is. So yes, people defending BFL publicly are open to scrutiny (hell, everybody is as far as I'm concerned). That having been said...

Your simple black and white logic may work in your programming zero's and one's environment but does not work well in the real world with real people. In the real world you deduct information bit by bit (pun intended). By scratching the surface and going deeper and deeper a lot of relevant information gets discovered eventually. Information that at first might have seemed irrelevant. But yes, people "network". That's natural. Decades? Yes, I still do business even with friends I met in elementary school (and believe me, that's a lot (30-40) of years ago.

So sorry Gregory, you might be a great programmer. I don't know. but it is seeming more and more you are not capable/willing to understand how people interact (like in a forum) where "simple rules" do not apply (but more complicated do). To be quite honest, I don't have the confidence in you to bring this to a positive outcome...

Sorry,
Slobodan

I am as sure that gmaxwell acted appropriately for the situation as I am that it was not a spontaneous clean up operation.

[sbogovac]

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

He was discussing the standards for a preliminary injunction, which were directly relevant to the exact legal issues of the thread.  Some people didn't like the legal standards and, having no actual argument to the contrary, started spewing insults.  Then they spent pages doxing him for literally no fucking reason at all.

The derail was entirely on the people who insisted vociferously on being wrong and getting angry at anyone who actually discussed the topics based on facts and law.

No Sorry, you're missing the point (again): As far as the discussion between him and PuertoLibre is concerned you're right (and I was actually learning a lot about US Law thanks to him). But as far as his discussion with me, Bruno (Gleb Gamow) and others is concerned, no... But unfortunately - as Gregory Maxwell has deleted the posts so ferociously - we'll never know anymore... That was what I was talking about, and you can read back in this forum.

[sbogovac]

[...]

I am as sure that gmaxwell acted appropriately for the situation as I am that it was not a spontaneous clean up operation.

Why? (Evidence/arguments for both statements please.)

[ABitNut]

[...]

I am as sure that gmaxwell acted appropriately for the situation as I am that it was not a spontaneous clean up operation.

Why? (Evidence/arguments please.)

All circumstantial I am afraid. I have seen no evidence that gmaxwell is acting maliciously. He's most likely acting in the best interest of bitcointalk.org. Maybe brush242 made a reasonable request to have the entire clusterfuck around him removed. Maybe something else triggered the "clean up". I find it hard to believe it was spontaneous. I also find it hard to believe that gmaxwell is covering up for BFL.

Or maybe he really just made a new years resolution to finally reign in the mess that is the "BFL fucked us over again" thread (I'm not buying that, but it is actually in the realm of the possible).

[JorgeStolfi]

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.

[sbogovac]

[...]

I am as sure that gmaxwell acted appropriately for the situation as I am that it was not a spontaneous clean up operation.

Why? (Evidence/arguments please.)

All circumstantial I am afraid. I have seen no evidence that gmaxwell is acting maliciously.

I have neither...

He's most likely acting in the best interest of bitcointalk.org.

I truly believe so too. He's just a bit single minded in his ways... (black/white; 0/1)

Maybe brush242 made a reasonable request to have the entire clusterfuck around him removed.

Maybe, but then just say so. Then we'll know brush242 is just a big cry-baby that can dish it out but is incapable of taking it. No problem, we move on...

Maybe something else triggered the "clean up". I find it hard to believe it was spontaneous.

Also quite possible. But again, just say so instead of defending an indefensible black/white argument.

I also find it hard to believe that gmaxwell is covering up for BFL.

Definitely, I can not imagine someone who's so concerned with BTC (and I really appreciate his work in that respect) "covering up for BFL" that has done this community such harm...

Or maybe he really just made a new years resolution to finally reign in the mess that is the "BFL fucked us over again" thread (I'm not buying that, but it is actually in the realm of the possible).

Obviously...  

[brush242]

(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.

[brush242]

"It's relevant because I harassed someone and had a fun time" is not an argument.

You are essentially backing and supporting Josh Zerlan of Butterfly Lab's doxing of myself, Bick, and PL with this argument, and you are saying "That's relevant and acceptable" but a user being doxed for derailing a Butterfly Labs thread gets COMPLETELY whitewashed ?

Is this a correct read on your argument ?

Read: "The good guys/customers get punished, and the bad guys are allowed to continue with their bad behavior preying on their marks and derailing threads"

This is all incorrect as well.

If my so-called bad behavior hadn't been replied to with even ~more~ idiocy, it would still be there.

[brush242]

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?

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.

[VenusFlyTrap]

(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.

Stephen Mark Reid you still did not tell us who you work for. For an attorney you seem to have a lot of time on your hands.