Statement about the suspect of recent Bitcoinica hack

[dree12]

Oh so he didn't say friend, you're just adding that part yourself? And he didn't protect his identity either and basically told everyone here exactly who it was?

I guess your English is bad.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/associate_2



someone who is closely connected to another person as a companion, friend or business partner

Key word: OR.

or 1  (ôr; r when unstressed)
a. Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other.

Back to school?

Are you even fluent in English? How does that have anything to do with this?

The penultimate term means nothing. All terms are equal in an OR statement.

[vampire]

Are you even fluent in English? How does that have anything to do with this?

Better than you.

Why are you even replying if you have no clue?

[vampire]

Are you even fluent in English? How does that have anything to do with this?

The penultimate term means nothing. All terms are equal in an OR statement.

Bingo. EQUAL.

Therefore Chen is Zhou's friend/buddy/business partner/associate.
 

[Vod]

Chen = Zhou.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[vampire]

Chen = Zhou.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

I agree. Zhou refuses to file a police report.

[dree12]

Are you even fluent in English? How does that have anything to do with this?

The penultimate term means nothing. All terms are equal in an OR statement.

Bingo. EQUAL.

Therefore Chen is Zhou's friend/buddy/business partner/associate.
 

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

[Mike Jones]

Chen = Zhou.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

I agree. Zhou refuses to file a police report.

I don't blame him. The Chinese police suck.

[vampire]

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

[dree12]

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

What is your native language?

If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR.

You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition.

[aq]

Chen = Zhou.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

While I agree, one could also state

mlawrence = Zhou.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or even

mlawrence = phantomcircit.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or the most probable one

mlawrence = Chen.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[vampire]

Chen = Zhou.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

While I agree, one could also state

mlawrence = Zhou.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or even

mlawrence = phantomcircit.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or the most probable one

mlawrence = Chen.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Except none of their accounts were used. Zhou's account was used.

[vampire]

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

What is your native language?

If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR.

You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition.

What is your native language?

Your logic is keep failing you. If there is uncertainty then I can use any, especially if I believe that it was an imaginary friend.

[Vod]

Chen = Zhou.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

While I agree, one could also state

mlawrence = Zhou.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or even

mlawrence = phantomcircit.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or the most probable one

mlawrence = Chen.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Except none of their accounts were used. Zhou's account was used.

I exist on this forum - I have months of posts and a different writing style than Ryan Tong Zhou.

And there is no evidence linking mlawrence to the theft of half a million dollars either.  

[dree12]

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

What is your native language?

If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR.

You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition.

What is your native language?

Your logic is keep failing you. If there is uncertainty then I can use any, especially if I believe that it was an imaginary friend.

Vampire is the thief, a 37-year old, a male, a female, or something else. There is uncertainty here. Therefore I can assert that vampire is the thief.

That is fallacious logic at best.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I'm not talking about permission from Bitcoinica/Intersango, I'm talking about a legal warrant that allows him to do what would otherwise be considered a criminal act. On what legal authority is he operating?

BB.

None!

http://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmurck

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/william-murck/28/a57/637

5431 41ST PLACE NW, WASHINGTON DC 20015

http://www.trademarkia.com/correspondent-william-murck-1-165456

http://www.trademarks411.com/marks/75724378-cmnet

http://www.nwen.org/events/eiq-ideation-1

http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?domain=cmnet.com&prog_id=GoDaddy

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&item=140610305563&nma=true&rt=nc&si=mAWggEYKpH4g2H7aZLAFESK6gGA%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc#ht_3383wt_1185

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-hINvEsN9OMJ:brainopera.tumblr.com/page/2+&cd=28&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://dcurt.is/2011/10/03/3-point-5-inches/

I think you'll really love the last two links.

~Bruno~

[Vod]

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

What is your native language?

If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR.

You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition.

What is your native language?

Your logic is keep failing you. If there is uncertainty then I can use any, especially if I believe that it was an imaginary friend.

Vampire is the thief, a 37-year old, a male, a female, or something else. There is uncertainty here. Therefore I can assert that vampire is the thief.

That is fallacious logic at best.

Vampire also exists on this forum.  You are not comparing apples to apples.  Chen exists no where except in Zhou's mind.

[aq]

Chen = Zhou.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

While I agree, one could also state

mlawrence = Zhou.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or even

mlawrence = phantomcircit.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

or the most probable one

mlawrence = Chen.  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Except none of their accounts were used. Zhou's account was used.

And there is no evidence linking mlawrence to the theft of half a million dollars either.   

Actually there is. While ZT at least tries to pay back the funds, the overall impression from mlawrence (and a few others) is that he tries to prevent exactly this from happening. Now the only one in the world that does not like a payback to happen is the actually thief himself, so...

[vampire]

No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.

In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.

In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner.

What is your native language?

If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR.

You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition.

What is your native language?

Your logic is keep failing you. If there is uncertainty then I can use any, especially if I believe that it was an imaginary friend.

Vampire is the thief, a 37-year old, a male, a female, or something else. There is uncertainty here. Therefore I can assert that vampire is the thief.

That is fallacious logic at best.

You can make this assertion, but you cannot back it up. I am tried of catching you, it's fun and all - not the point of this thread.

[Vod]

Actually there is. While ZT at least tries to pay back the funds, the overall impression from mlawrence (and a few others) is that he tries to prevent exactly this from happening. Now the only one in the world that does not like a payback to happen is the actually thief himself, so...

... that's why ZT has only returned 15k of the 40k bitcoins he has stolen?

[Vod]

You can make this assertion, but you cannot back it up. I am tried of catching you, it's fun and all - not the point of this thread.

Agreed.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95738.0

Zhou Tong (or Chen) is the one who stole the coins.  All the word play and logic bombs in the world cannot change that, so it's not worth arguing over any more.  The discussion should be how to get the rest of the coins back from Zhou Tong, since he sent back 15k already.

He still owes 25,000 BTC - about $200,000 USD.