Pages:
Author

Topic: [Archive] BFL trolling museum - page 47. (Read 69394 times)

legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
January 12, 2013, 06:32:32 PM
It's only a violation if he didn't contact his probation officer about this, and no one has proven that he hasn't contacted his probation officer about this.

Except the onus is on him to prove he has in fact contacted his PO and he has in fact obtained (written) permission. Not on "anybody" to show that he "hasn't". Seriously, logic. Let's all use it.
Why does he have to prove anything to anybody?  You're the one making the claim that he hasn't contacted his parole officer, or has otherwise somehow violated his parole, when you have zero proof that he has done so.  Why should I believe your claim when you fail to provide proof?  And why do you think it is on him to prove to everyone that he has contacted his parole officer?  Your logic isn't making much sense.  Last I checked, it was innocent until proven guilty, but you're demanding the opposite.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
January 12, 2013, 06:25:38 PM
In BTC, I'm the authority. Who are you?

He is a pool leader and a good one as i remember. So he should be considered an "BTC authority" to?!

That's entirely up to you, obviously.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
January 12, 2013, 06:12:07 PM
In BTC, I'm the authority. Who are you?

He is a pool leader and a good one as i remember. So he should be considered an "BTC authority" to?!
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
January 12, 2013, 05:23:40 PM
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
January 12, 2013, 04:53:46 PM

@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

If you call that sad display logic, simple or otherwise, I'll just call you an idiot and we can part ways.

Masterfull attempt at dealing with tough questions!
Just call them idiots and turn around.
Brilliant and very convincing.
Bravo, I say, Bravo!

Are you serious?!

It's only a violation if he didn't contact his probation officer about this, and no one has proven that he hasn't contacted his probation officer about this.

Except the onus is on him to prove he has in fact contacted his PO and he has in fact obtained (written) permission. Not on "anybody" to show that he "hasn't". Seriously, logic. Let's all use it.

Ok... you do know that I asked for proof right?  What you've provided is you restating the same statements you've already made.

A little more complicated than that: you demand proof for things that are widely known and amply documented. If the OP presents you that proof you claim they "repeat the same information in the vain hope that if you say it enough times it might be believable". If the OP doesn't bother with your retarded ass you claim they "slink off in silence". It's right there in this latest installment of nonsense, he's pretty much saying it outright.

You're wasting your time posting that sort of nonsense, it won't buy you anything. The idiot that was correcting my "grammer" was doing a much better job.

Proof requires an outside authority qualified to speak on the matter.

In BTC, I'm the authority. Who are you?
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
January 12, 2013, 04:26:53 PM
Ok... you do know that I asked for proof right?  What you've provided is you restating the same statements you've already made.  Proof requires an outside authority qualified to speak on the matter.  You are neither qualified to speak on any of the above matters (I doubt you're qualified to speak on most matters, come to that) nor are you an authority on anything, except perhaps babbling and poor math skills.  But I digress.

See, I asked you to provide proof of your allegations and you have failed to do so.  Lets take just one example:

Quote
Violated probation:

Quote
The defendant shall not engage, as whole or partial owner, employee or otherwise, in any business involving loan programs, gambling or gaming activities, telemarketing activities, investment programs or any other business involving the solicitation of funds or cold-calls to customers without the express approval of the Probation Officer prior to engagement in such employment.

Where is your proof of this?  What you provided here is not proof by any definition of the word.  What you did provide, however, is a statement from a document that expressly gives someone permission to engage in those activities with the express approval of a probation officer.  Are those activities being engaged in?  Please provide proof if you believe they are.  Furthermore, is there express approval?  Please provide proof if you believe there is not.  See, proof is you providing fact based evidence to support your claims.  You have provided none, ergo you have not provided proof.  

And you have the unmitigated gall to call me a spineless piece of shit.  The only piece of shit here is the one sitting on your chest that your boss left you.  I know it's hard to be a company whore, doing whatever your boss wants to do to you so that you maintain your sham writing "career", but lets try to at least live up to the bare minimum of journalism standards.  By the way, when was the last time you wrote anything of import?  Poorly written soft-core Scifi fan fiction doesn't count, honey.

Lets look at another example, just for shits and giggles:

Quote
Your first singles were delivered in late February / early March 2012 (three months late). They work ~800 Mh, and not 832 Mh, which was your revised spec. Scumbags that you are you claim that 800 is "within the advertised 10% tolerance" conveniently forgetting to point out that said tolerance applies to 1050 Mh, which you never met. In reality, you are 23.8% under spec. They draw 80 Watts. That puts you 304% over spec for power consumption.

And yet, inexplicably, you have the gall to call my statement false. How do you go through life without a spine, you piece of shit?

Oh noes!  BFL made a mistake and corrected that information and reduced the price!  It's a conspiracy!  See, there's a thing called "Good faith."  BFL believed, at the time, it was offering a product with certain specifications in good faith.  When it became clear that it could not meet that, BFL reduced the price and posted accurate specs.  But hey, if you want to consider a mistake as "Proof" that "promises wern't kept" then I will accept your definition.  However, please be advised that if we do use that definition, the fact that you made a promise to provide proof of violation of probation and now have failed to do so, you are also a lying piece of shit who doesn't keep her promises.  So pot, meet kettle.  

Lets take a look at another one, since it's representative of the rest of your "proof" and we only have to examine this one as the same conditions apply to the rest:

Quote
There you go. For the record, the guy was supposedly going to "answer" at some point in September. It's been four months.

And yet, inexplicably, you have the gall to call my statement false. How do you go through life without a spine, you piece of shit?

Again, I asked for proof.  You provided a reference to your own post.  That's not proof, honey.  You can't cite yourself as an authority in this matter.  You are not qualified to speak on the matter and you are not an authority, outside or otherwise.  You need an outside authority qualified to speak on the matter.  You failed to provide one.  The rest of your "proof" is you citing your own posts again and again.  You are a lying, spineless piece of shit who has the unmitigated gall to call me a liar.  When I make a claim, I have outside sources that I can and do cite.  You have none.  Ever.  You are pathetic.

Quote
Fully documented by ngzhang.

And yet, inexplicably, you have the gall to call my statement false. How do you go through life without a spine, you piece of shit?

This is an interesting one, while you don't cite yourself, you cite another person, who is qualified to speak with regards to the type of chips, certainly.  But he is most definitely not qualified to make statements on what the source or disposition of the chips were.  I mean, how could he be?  Was he somehow secretly privy to BFL's business dealings at the time?  Not to my knowledge.  However, if you believe this to be the case, please provide some proof or evidence.

An yet, inexplicably, you have the gall to call my statement false.  How do you go through life being unable to even accomplish simple tasks like understanding the definition of "proof," you worthless piece of shit?  Pathetic.

Quote
So here it is: every claim I made is entirely and univocally backed by facts, pretty much everything you say is either stupid, a lie or both. And yet, inexplicably, you have the gall to call my statement false. How do you go through life without a spine, you piece of shit?

So here it is:  Please point out where you provided a single fact.  Pretty much everything you say is either stupid, a lie or both.  I have provided you with the task of providing proof to back up your claims and you have failed to do so, repeatedly.  Sorry sister, but the only piece of shit here is you.

Quote
Not the case. Last time we met twas you who slunk off into silence, which makes me wonder why exactly you think this one's going to be different, Rakim?

I'm sorry if you think I "slunk off."  I repeatedly asked you to provide proof of your claims.  You came back to me with random numbers (again, these are not proof or facts, they are numbers manufactured randomly, or quasi-randomly).  You literally valued the company you work for at 500,000 BTC!  Seriously, you valued MPEX at $5 million dollars!  You then went on to claim that the valuation of MPEX dwarfed BFL... and now here you and your boss are claiming that BFL's net worth is somewhere above the 500,000 BTC mark.  So which is it you lying piece of shit?  Oh... I'm sorry... did I just catch you in a blatant lie?

Your statement that MPEX is worth 497170 BTC:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124441.msg1340625#msg1340625
Your claim that MPEX is the "Largest Bitcoin Business in existence (provedly [sic] *Authors note: Provedly isn't a word*)":  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124441.msg1340273#msg1340273

So which is it baby?  Which claim are you going with, because they both can't be true (or are you seriously calling your boss a liar?):  http://polimedia.us/trilema/2013/preemptive-strike-to-have-on-hand-for-when-butterfly-labs-gets-hauled-off-to-jail-in-corpore/

What's that?  Did I see you throwing around the Micon $25 million estimate somewhere?  That would put it at 1,784,000 BTC valuation, 3 times that of your claim for MPEX!  But maybe you don't agree with the math challenged Micon and we'll just stick with your boss's numbers, which exceed 500,000 BTC.  Oh ouch, that must be painful... now you have to choose which false story you want to back, sorry about that.

Quote
A little more complicated than that: you demand proof for things that are widely known and amply documented. If the OP presents you that proof you claim they "repeat the same information in the vain hope that if you say it enough times it might be believable". If the OP doesn't bother with your retarded ass you claim they "slink off in silence". It's right there in this latest installment of nonsense, he's pretty much saying it outright.

Dang, I called that one.  So lets see if you continue to repeat the same stuff over and over without citing any authorities or providing proof... or if you just slink off in silence like usual.



hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
January 12, 2013, 04:08:42 PM
Just how do you think Sonny is able to tell his parole office he is going to be investing in a startup, when his "finances had dwindled to zero" and "does not have the ability to pay a fine"? Possible, but extremely unlikely.

You do realise that in many start-ups not all of the equity owners invest capital and that even if they do it's often a token amount like $1.

Likewise, the consequences of violating a parole condition vary by jurisdiction as does whether or not parole can be terminated early.
legendary
Activity: 3878
Merit: 1193
January 12, 2013, 03:57:07 PM
It's only a violation if he didn't contact his probation officer about this, and no one has proven that he hasn't contacted his probation officer about this.

Just how do you think Sonny is able to tell his parole office he is going to be investing in a startup, when his "finances had dwindled to zero" and "does not have the ability to pay a fine"? Possible, but extremely unlikely.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 1000
January 12, 2013, 03:44:25 PM
@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

Err... You quite sure about that? Was anyone ever in touch?

Three quick questions:
2: What is the contact information of his parole probation officer?
2: You have got to be joking, right?

From what I can tell, the probation period is over. (September, 15 2010 + 26 months = November 2012.)

Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

While being in clear violation of his SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR PROBATION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE for most of the 26 month duration of that supervised release.
It's only a violation if he didn't contact his probation officer about this, and no one has proven that he hasn't contacted his probation officer about this.

Enough digging and enough money could probably get that dug up. If not, just getting the identity of the probation officer would allow someone to drop him/her a line.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
January 12, 2013, 03:41:50 PM
@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

Err... You quite sure about that? Was anyone ever in touch?

Three quick questions:
2: What is the contact information of his parole probation officer?
2: You have got to be joking, right?

From what I can tell, the probation period is over. (September, 15 2010 + 26 months = November 2012.)

Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

While being in clear violation of his SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR PROBATION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE for most of the 26 month duration of that supervised release.
It's only a violation if he didn't contact his probation officer about this, and no one has proven that he hasn't contacted his probation officer about this.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
January 12, 2013, 03:04:31 PM
Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

What about the ~$20m he scammed from his mail fraud victims that was never recovered?  I doubt that's been repaid.

Here's why:



Quote from: United States vs. Vleisides
All fines are waived as it is found that the defendant does not have the ability to pay a fine.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3), restitution is not ordered because (1) the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable [3663A(c)(3)(A)]; and

(2) determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process [3663A(c)(3)(B)].

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: It is further ordered defendant shall pay to the United States a special assessment fee of $100, which is due immediately to the Clerk of the Court.

LOL  Grin
So, according to U.S. law, BFL also can steal money with impunity.
If you  robbed someone and steal his money you're screwed, but if you find a lot of stupid people who give you money (of their own accord) you can sleep peacefully Wink Just make sure to transfer all the money to the bank somewhere in the world,  or the best way ,convert $ into BTC.
legendary
Activity: 1458
Merit: 1006
January 12, 2013, 02:40:13 PM
Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

What about the ~$20m he scammed from his mail fraud victims that was never recovered?  I doubt that's been repaid.

Here's why:



Quote from: United States vs. Vleisides
All fines are waived as it is found that the defendant does not have the ability to pay a fine.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3), restitution is not ordered because (1) the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable [3663A(c)(3)(A)]; and

(2) determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process [3663A(c)(3)(B)].

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: It is further ordered defendant shall pay to the United States a special assessment fee of $100, which is due immediately to the Clerk of the Court.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
January 12, 2013, 02:30:32 PM
Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

What about the ~$20m he scammed from his mail fraud victims that was never recovered?  I doubt that's been repaid.

He paid for this -  26 months - ~1 million $ per mounth - Viva America !!!   Wink
Am going to USA to start a ASIC (scam) business , I'll be rich Wink
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1026
In Cryptocoins I Trust
January 12, 2013, 02:25:22 PM
Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

What about the ~$20m he scammed from his mail fraud victims that was never recovered?  I doubt that's been repaid.

How do you think he got the funding to start this endeavor?

He probably only found out about bitcoin when he was looking for a place to stash the millions he scammed from his last business...

Now he has a kush scam setup going... all money is immediately in bitcoins meaning you don't have to go through the trouble of money laundering.

/speculation
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
January 12, 2013, 02:09:02 PM
Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

What about the ~$20m he scammed from his mail fraud victims that was never recovered?  I doubt that's been repaid.
legendary
Activity: 1458
Merit: 1006
January 12, 2013, 12:52:26 PM
@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

Err... You quite sure about that? Was anyone ever in touch?

Three quick questions:
2: What is the contact information of his parole probation officer?
2: You have got to be joking, right?

From what I can tell, the probation period is over. (September, 15 2010 + 26 months = November 2012.)

Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

While being in clear violation of his SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR PROBATION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE for most of the 26 month duration of that supervised release.
legendary
Activity: 3878
Merit: 1193
January 12, 2013, 12:35:44 PM
False. Large companies are often run by a Board of Directors, which have full control over the company and its direction. The owner may be a part of said Board, and may still be the official "owner", but they no longer have full control. The key here would be to obtain a controlling interest through 51% ownership of any company stock (public or private).

BFL is anything but a "large company". It is a privately owned small company. Sonny is a "high-level executive" and company owner. The odds of him having no control is about the same as finding a Bitcoin block with a cpu-miner.
hero member
Activity: 840
Merit: 1000
January 12, 2013, 12:06:26 PM

@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

If you call that sad display logic, simple or otherwise, I'll just call you an idiot and we can part ways.

Masterfull attempt at dealing with tough questions!
Just call them idiots and turn around.
Brilliant and very convincing.
Bravo, I say, Bravo!
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
January 12, 2013, 11:02:12 AM
Quote
@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

Maybe he's not in the picture of what they are dooing .....Not everybody is a finance or computer expert ... Words can do magic some times :/

Don't let the fact get in the way of your guessing.

http://codinginmysleep.com/interview-with-sonny-vleisides/
Quote
Sonny is an upper-level executive within the company

An "upper-level executive" would definitely be involved directly.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hi-my-name-is-sonny-vleisides-110868
Quote
With regards to BFL, I'm proud to have played a role in it's start up and focus on the current products, but I am not a majority owner.

Clearly he is directly involved. He's even an owner, just not a "majority" owner. No one has more control over the company than it's owners.

My Statement was for the Parole Officer Smiley I know that he (sunny) is a shady person.
legendary
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001
January 12, 2013, 10:47:12 AM
Clearly he is directly involved. He's even an owner, just not a "majority" owner. No one has more control over the company than it's owners.

False. Large companies are often run by a Board of Directors, which have full control over the company and its direction. The owner may be a part of said Board, and may still be the official "owner", but they no longer have full control. The key here would be to obtain a controlling interest through 51% ownership of any company stock (public or private).
Pages:
Jump to: