Request to have michaeladair removed from BadBears trust list

[michaeladair]

I'm not a scammer, and I haven't been since day one where I posted my free to use bot for peerbet.
I don't know what else I can tell you to get through to you that I have nothing to do with those scams.

It was mentioned before that you could produce PM's between yourself and the bitcoin-stocks guy showing actual communication

I already told you before that those were deleted because I was afraid any link at all to those accounts would make it seem like I had the ability to persuade him. I mean, dude... even though Badbear wouldn't pull through with an IP test, you can still see that I wouldn't consent to it had I actually been an alt to those accounts.

You left up the posts that connected you to him which gives more evidence that you are connected then your PM's (aka private messages). I don't see how having any PM's in your inbox would connect you to them anyway.

You would consent to an IP check because you logged in from different computers that connected to the forum via different VPNs/IP addresses it really wouldn't be hard to do. Like I said before it is more likely that you are partners with them, not the same person.

I don't want to put words in BadBears mouth however I would say that he believes the evidence shows you are associated with them.

I could see how anyone would believe the evidence that you put against me because there is nothing that I have to show you that I am not connected to him. It's as simple as that.

Theoretically, if you were to support some random exchange, say that you trade there all the time and suggest to many people to use it. It's a pretty great exchange. Then one day, boom... all goes to hell, the exchange runs with the money. You find yourself trapped in the same situation that I am in, with some ass on your back about you being in cahoots with them. You're fucked, you have no evidence proving that you aren't with them and all the opposition has is a bunch of posts of you supporting them because you utilized their services.

I already told you how you could prove you are not connected to him but you gave a very flimsy explanation as to why you cannot.

As mentioned above you were staking your reputation by supporting that scam

You did a lot more then advertise that you used their services. You were answering questions and deflecting fears that they were not a scam.

I answered questions made by other people because I have looked into them and their actions quite a bit... I answered the people's questions because I did not feel it necessary for those to look for answers that took me quite a while and a little bit of work to figure out.

I was deflecting fears and false accusations because they were paying out and I believed that they work actually doing what they said they were. (Investing in altcoins, trading and whatnot...)

[1713966960]

1713966960

[1713966960]

1713966960

[1713966960]

1713966960

[1713966960]

1713966960

[Quickseller]

I'm not a scammer, and I haven't been since day one where I posted my free to use bot for peerbet.
I don't know what else I can tell you to get through to you that I have nothing to do with those scams.

It was mentioned before that you could produce PM's between yourself and the bitcoin-stocks guy showing actual communication

I already told you before that those were deleted because I was afraid any link at all to those accounts would make it seem like I had the ability to persuade him. I mean, dude... even though Badbear wouldn't pull through with an IP test, you can still see that I wouldn't consent to it had I actually been an alt to those accounts.

You left up the posts that connected you to him which gives more evidence that you are connected then your PM's (aka private messages). I don't see how having any PM's in your inbox would connect you to them anyway.

You would consent to an IP check because you logged in from different computers that connected to the forum via different VPNs/IP addresses it really wouldn't be hard to do. Like I said before it is more likely that you are partners with them, not the same person.

I don't want to put words in BadBears mouth however I would say that he believes the evidence shows you are associated with them.

I could see how anyone would believe the evidence that you put against me because there is nothing that I have to show you that I am not connected to him. It's as simple as that.

Theoretically, if you were to support some random exchange, say that you trade there all the time and suggest to many people to use it. It's a pretty great exchange. Then one day, boom... all goes to hell, the exchange runs with the money. You find yourself trapped in the same situation that I am in, with some ass on your back about you being in cahoots with them. You're fucked, you have no evidence proving that you aren't with them and all the opposition has is a bunch of posts of you supporting them because you utilized their services.

I already told you how you could prove you are not connected to him but you gave a very flimsy explanation as to why you cannot.

As mentioned above you were staking your reputation by supporting that scam

You did a lot more then advertise that you used their services. You were answering questions and deflecting fears that they were not a scam.

I answered questions made by other people because I have looked into them and their actions quite a bit... I answered the people's questions because I did not feel it necessary for those to look for answers that took me quite a while and a little bit of work to figure out.

I was deflecting fears and false accusations because they were paying out and I believed that they work actually doing what they said they were. (Investing in altcoins, trading and whatnot...)

You were promoting a scam. There should have been evidence that you were in actual communication with them if they were not your partner. Your explanation is flimsy at best and more likely is a lie

[michaeladair]

I'm not a scammer, and I haven't been since day one where I posted my free to use bot for peerbet.
I don't know what else I can tell you to get through to you that I have nothing to do with those scams.

It was mentioned before that you could produce PM's between yourself and the bitcoin-stocks guy showing actual communication

I already told you before that those were deleted because I was afraid any link at all to those accounts would make it seem like I had the ability to persuade him. I mean, dude... even though Badbear wouldn't pull through with an IP test, you can still see that I wouldn't consent to it had I actually been an alt to those accounts.

You left up the posts that connected you to him which gives more evidence that you are connected then your PM's (aka private messages). I don't see how having any PM's in your inbox would connect you to them anyway.

You would consent to an IP check because you logged in from different computers that connected to the forum via different VPNs/IP addresses it really wouldn't be hard to do. Like I said before it is more likely that you are partners with them, not the same person.

I don't want to put words in BadBears mouth however I would say that he believes the evidence shows you are associated with them.

I could see how anyone would believe the evidence that you put against me because there is nothing that I have to show you that I am not connected to him. It's as simple as that.

Theoretically, if you were to support some random exchange, say that you trade there all the time and suggest to many people to use it. It's a pretty great exchange. Then one day, boom... all goes to hell, the exchange runs with the money. You find yourself trapped in the same situation that I am in, with some ass on your back about you being in cahoots with them. You're fucked, you have no evidence proving that you aren't with them and all the opposition has is a bunch of posts of you supporting them because you utilized their services.

I already told you how you could prove you are not connected to him but you gave a very flimsy explanation as to why you cannot.

As mentioned above you were staking your reputation by supporting that scam

You did a lot more then advertise that you used their services. You were answering questions and deflecting fears that they were not a scam.

I answered questions made by other people because I have looked into them and their actions quite a bit... I answered the people's questions because I did not feel it necessary for those to look for answers that took me quite a while and a little bit of work to figure out.

I was deflecting fears and false accusations because they were paying out and I believed that they work actually doing what they said they were. (Investing in altcoins, trading and whatnot...)

You were promoting a scam. There should have been evidence that you were in actual communication with them if they were not your partner. Your explanation is flimsy at best and more likely is a lie

You do realize all you have against me is an opinion on how you see things. There is nothing there to prove that I did anything, so I don't see why you can't just leave it as neutral trust and keep the "Extortionist" as negative.

[Quickseller]

You do realize all you have against me is an opinion on how you see things. There is nothing there to prove that I did anything, so I don't see why you can't just leave it as neutral trust and keep the "Extortionist" as negative.

Any reasonable person would make the same conclusion that you are likely partners with bitcoin-stocks et el.

The fact that the 2nd rating is negative or neutral will not have any impact on your overall trust score as one negative rating counts the same way as 20 negative ratings as long as they are from the same person.

[michaeladair]

You do realize all you have against me is an opinion on how you see things. There is nothing there to prove that I did anything, so I don't see why you can't just leave it as neutral trust and keep the "Extortionist" as negative.

Any reasonable person would make the same conclusion that you are likely partners with bitcoin-stocks et el.

The fact that the 2nd rating is negative or neutral will not have any impact on your overall trust score as one negative rating counts the same way as 20 negative ratings as long as they are from the same person.

But the fact still remains that the second is only an accusation so it should be considered more as neutral trust (comment) rather than negative.

[Quickseller]

You do realize all you have against me is an opinion on how you see things. There is nothing there to prove that I did anything, so I don't see why you can't just leave it as neutral trust and keep the "Extortionist" as negative.

Any reasonable person would make the same conclusion that you are likely partners with bitcoin-stocks et el.

The fact that the 2nd rating is negative or neutral will not have any impact on your overall trust score as one negative rating counts the same way as 20 negative ratings as long as they are from the same person.

But the fact still remains that the second is only an accusation so it should be considered more as neutral trust (comment) rather than negative.

It is an accusation supported by proof. Proof that you have been unable to refute. If you want to refute such evidence against you then I will reconsider the rating I gave you. You have the same MO of another confirmed scammer that happened to post here.

Until you are willing/able to present evidence that refutes the evidence that I have against you I am considering this to be closed and will most likely not be responding further.

[michaeladair]

You do realize all you have against me is an opinion on how you see things. There is nothing there to prove that I did anything, so I don't see why you can't just leave it as neutral trust and keep the "Extortionist" as negative.

Any reasonable person would make the same conclusion that you are likely partners with bitcoin-stocks et el.

The fact that the 2nd rating is negative or neutral will not have any impact on your overall trust score as one negative rating counts the same way as 20 negative ratings as long as they are from the same person.

But the fact still remains that the second is only an accusation so it should be considered more as neutral trust (comment) rather than negative.

It is an accusation supported by proof. Proof that you have been unable to refute. If you want to refute such evidence against you then I will reconsider the rating I gave you. You have the same MO of another confirmed scammer that happened to post here.

Until you are willing/able to present evidence that refutes the evidence that I have against you I am considering this to be closed and will most likely not be responding further.

Your asking me to give you evidence that I can't supply, I don't know what else I can do. What other way do I have?

I would also like to request Theymos or Badbear to lookup in the Database for the messages between me and Plutonium that ask him to remove the negative trust given to Quickseller... Please consider this, as it is the only way that Quickseller will believe my innocence.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Where the hell do you get off saying that I hack accounts now, and why would I hack redsnows account... I admire him as an escrow even though he messed up a little.

Both you and Spodermen were actively pushing/promoting bitcoin-stocks. This makes me believe that you are either one and the same or are partners with him. It is confirmed that Spodermen was selling hacked accounts.

I do not know for sure that was your rationale behind blackmailing me into removing my trust left for Redsn0w, however I am fairly confident that it was more then "he is your friend"

If you were to hack his account you would likely use it the same way every other recently hacked account was used for - to try to scam - since it has a decent amount of trust it probably could get a pretty large take

I am Spodermen, thought I should let you know, and I want to express I didn't sell the account. I was reselling the default trust account you were selling.

Stop spreading bullshit because your so called proof meant jack shit.

You fail as "scam detector" with false evidence, i'm going to be working my ass off to prove all of your cases wrong, and when I do i'll be putting you to shame in front of this whole section.

I am glad that I am able to piss off scammers. I am not sure why you aren't posting from your Spodermen account, however you admitting to be one and the same only confirms that you are either the same as michaledair or are partners with him as you both were pushing bitcoin-stocks very hard.

How is posting my investments pushing it hard.

How many sockpuppets do you have??

[Quickseller]

Where the hell do you get off saying that I hack accounts now, and why would I hack redsnows account... I admire him as an escrow even though he messed up a little.

Both you and Spodermen were actively pushing/promoting bitcoin-stocks. This makes me believe that you are either one and the same or are partners with him. It is confirmed that Spodermen was selling hacked accounts.

I do not know for sure that was your rationale behind blackmailing me into removing my trust left for Redsn0w, however I am fairly confident that it was more then "he is your friend"

If you were to hack his account you would likely use it the same way every other recently hacked account was used for - to try to scam - since it has a decent amount of trust it probably could get a pretty large take

I am Spodermen, thought I should let you know, and I want to express I didn't sell the account. I was reselling the default trust account you were selling.

Stop spreading bullshit because your so called proof meant jack shit.

You fail as "scam detector" with false evidence, i'm going to be working my ass off to prove all of your cases wrong, and when I do i'll be putting you to shame in front of this whole section.

I am glad that I am able to piss off scammers. I am not sure why you aren't posting from your Spodermen account, however you admitting to be one and the same only confirms that you are either the same as michaledair or are partners with him as you both were pushing bitcoin-stocks very hard.

How is posting my investments pushing it hard.

You were encouraging others to invest (IIRC - all the posts have been deleted form their self moderated thread). You were one of only 3 non-newbie accounts posting (+ the OP of the thread)

[BadBear]

I don't want to put words in BadBears mouth however I would say that he believes the evidence shows you are associated with them.

Not at all what I was trying to say.

[Quickseller]

I don't want to put words in BadBears mouth however I would say that he believes the evidence shows you are associated with them.

Not at all what I was trying to say.

I guess that was my mistake.

[michaeladair]

I don't want to put words in BadBears mouth however I would say that he believes the evidence shows you are associated with them.

Not at all what I was trying to say.

I guess that was my mistake.

I do think that the current trust placed on me with the label of extortionist is completely fair. I did threaten Quickseller on two separate occasions using my trust and that was wrong. I however am deeply sorry and I accept the punishment of this label.

[legendster]

Like I have said many times, anyone who gives negative trust for "trust abuse" is not someone whose trust reports I value. That is exactly what you have now done twice.

None of my business this vigilantism of yours never bothered to look into your history either but now that I did and now that I am here reading this, I see you have taken up the task of fighting scammers here. Though that is a morally good thing to do and benefits the community immensely, it is also a blatant violation of what the trust system is all about.

You are leaving negative feedbacks on - probably scammer - profiles based on assumptions that you have fostered. You are simply leaving negative reps on people's profile who you have had no transactions with.

So if one doesnt trust in a vengeance report, why should one trust a vigilance report ?

I was openly considered a a scammer by Tomatocage, Crumbcake, Johnie, henchman, Vod and now only 1 of them actually still has a grudge with me, and everyone else, as far as my knowledge, have changed their viewpoints, so in the end it was me who was economically hurt by some assumptions that were made about me which were wildly inaccurate.

So you wanna be a forum superhero, all well and good, but dont contradict yourself else you'll become a joke.

[Quickseller]

Like I have said many times, anyone who gives negative trust for "trust abuse" is not someone whose trust reports I value. That is exactly what you have now done twice.

None of my business this vigilantism of yours never bothered to look into your history either but now that I did and now that I am here reading this, I see you have taken up the task of fighting scammers here. Though that is a morally good thing to do and benefits the community immensely, it is also a blatant violation of what the trust system is all about.

You are leaving negative feedbacks on - probably scammer - profiles based on assumptions that you have fostered. You are simply leaving negative reps on people's profile who you have had no transactions with.

So if one doesnt trust in a vengeance report, why should one trust a vigilance report ?

I was openly considered a a scammer by Tomatocage, Crumbcake, Johnie, henchman, Vod and now only 1 of them actually still has a grudge with me, and everyone else, as far as my knowledge, have changed their viewpoints, so in the end it was me who was economically hurt by some assumptions that were made about me which were wildly inaccurate.

So you wanna be a forum superhero, all well and good, but dont contradict yourself else you'll become a joke.

You are here no doubt because I called you out as a spammer when I saw that you had spammed your currency exchange link in 10 other threads (with a paid signature), and BTW reviewing the last 5 pages of your post history (roughly 10 days), I have noticed that you appear to have posted a link to one of your sales threads at least 17 times, plus you were violating the rules of the India marketplace section by cross posting in someone else's thread.

You are very wrong. If it was mandated that someone have conducted a trade with another person then it would be impossible to stop scammers like yourself from scamming less experienced users who do not know not to send first to people with spotty trade/trust histories, or even worse to warn people from using someone like yourself from acting as escrow.

I don't think you understand the point of this thread. I was being blackmailed into having a certain viewpoint within the forum while the negative trust that I give scammers is because they are almost certainly trying to scam. There is a big difference between the two, and there is a very big difference from that and giving negative trust to someone who probably is a scammer.

[michaeladair]

Why in God's name was this dug up? Can you guys fight somewhere else...