Topic: [Archive] BFL trolling museum - page 48. (Read 69394 times)

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

http://codinginmysleep.com/interview-with-sonny-vleisides/

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

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hi-my-name-is-sonny-vleisides-110868

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.

Speaking of which, are you guys meeting your targets?

Did the chip packer confirm things are looking good on your end? (Within spec)

0/10

Exactly, but someone quoted a post solely about the chip as evidence of "fraud". If they had intended to say "the specs were downgraded" then they should just say that, not (effectively) "herp derp chip fraud".


Agreed.

For any arbitrary values of "xc6slx150 computation board" such as "BFL Single" and "xc6slx150" such as "BFL"?


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

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 :/

You are missing the part where their advertised specification and released product was different. this has nothing to do with what chip they used. They did not meet their initial advertised speed of power consumption, which is why many, including knowledgeable people comment it on being a scam or a fraud initially.

I have no doubt BFL will eventually ship, although I highly doubt they will meet their 1W per 1GH/s rate though. History will repeat themselves, people just don't learn. Time will tell.

I just went back and skimmed some posts about the BFL single....stopped when the deja vu kicked in, which was pretty much immediately. Exactly the same "omg it's a scam", "omg they will never deliver"...

None of the mining FPGA vendors "developed" their own FPGAs. They all designed boards, picked an FPGA and developed a bitstream. BFL designed boards, picked an FPGA and developed a bitstream.

How exactly does using recycled FPGAs make it a "fraud"?

You may be confusing it with the practice of sanding off a chip and printing a different and wrong label on it in order to falsely sell it as a different or new chip, similar to taking a 1GB sd card but labelling it as 16GB for sale. You're effectively complaining about (the equivalent of) an android phone, sold as having 16GB capacity, having a real 16GB card inside it, but with the label sanded off so that you can't see that it's a Sandisk, not a Kingston, even though the brand of the card was never mentioned in the phone specs. Oh noes! Fraud!

If the BFL single was called "xc6slx150 computation board" and had a chip with xc6slx150 printed on it (but was the Altera chip), then yes, that would be fraud.

About Bryan Micon and his recent Youtube video at CES, how stupid can one person get?

So Bryan created a counterfeit CES credentials most likely using a computer. Guess what, that is computer fraud. In many states stealing something of value greater then $50 is a felony. Sense entering a paid event with out paying is theft and trespassing, and trespassing while in the commission of a felony, that is felony trespassing. Bryan could be looking at a multi-year jail term all because he wanted to troll Josh and BFL. That's what I call a committed troll.

If Bryan thinks that his gambling/poker website will be legal it shows just how ignorant of the law he is. SecondLife was forced by the US government to stop all in game gambling activities or be shutdown. SecondLife Lindens are no different then Bitcions in the aspect of functioning as a monetary instrument. It seams to me like Bryan has a desire to break any law to get what ever he wants. Now there is someone you can trust and hold up as a beacon of light, if you are like minded.

And how stupid does one have to be to post their felonious exploits online to seek glory? Ask Bryan for the answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaFcSU6fLwo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATHhP2lPrZc


@ 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?

Colourless green ideas etc.

I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hara-Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!

Your used you wrong pronoun therefore monkey is invalid potato 7

Personally I laughed more at the "fallicy" of writing a wall on correct grammar laden with errors.

He obviously calls everyone liars even when they aren't.

The truth is....he can't handle the truth.

I recall he has stated that he comes on here "to defend" against "the lies" and protect the gullible. (or something like that?)

IMO, it seems he goes after the gullible and attacks people when they actually do say something factual which is brutally inconvenient. I also saw him (Inaba/Josh) claim that he comes to bitcointalk when their sales go down.

Unless there are alot of gullible folks out there who actually think he is being honest half the time....well...there is a sucker for every minute I guess.

Nope but I am the person that will actually uses the subject before referencing it in a sentance. Besides being expected that a subject will come up before the pronoun that is supposed to reference it the subject should come up about every paragraph. Missing that YOU should refer to anyone reading the post not whomever MPOE-PR assumes she is talking about.

As far as pleaded it is used as a verb. It means that someone is begging or at least that is the connotation. On The Other Hand plead is related to Plea more directly in a legal sense. People Enter a PLEA. After the fact you need a past version and Legal wise that is Plead. The Defendant Plead guilty. The Defendant entered a plea of guilty. The whiny little girl pleaded with me to stop correcting her.

If you notice I have a subject "whiny little girl" that her refers to. MPOE-PR try rewriting your questionable statements missing the overused pronouns and possibly you would find a way to actually have a provable point. YOU can and usually refers to the reader missing a proper subject. As in "You take out the trash." or "You should watch how you say things.". Also in the case of YOU it can be Omitted (that's a fancy word for left out) and frequently is as the subject of you is Understood (the person being talked to or reading the statement).

Personally I dislike pronouns as anyone past a young age tends to use them when they believe that they know the subject. This is a common fallicy as the subject being known to you the writer is irrelivant. The reader (Anyone who reads it) should know who the sentance is about. 

Possibly Inaba would use your questionable wording to prove that He didn't say those things as most happened long before he was hired. On the other hand if you say Inaba/Josh and BFL as seperate entitties (Legally BFL is subject as an LLC to being a person in the US where you failed to prove it wasn't incorporated). Inaba or Josh is a person and not BFL since they are two different entities. Being realistic here MPOE-PR refers to BFL and Josh/Inaba as You. So on a given statment or paragraph what you did MPOE-PR refer to? It is possible to guess but as the implication is Inaba (the one she replies to) and he isn't incoporated as far as I have seen, hasn't been properly proven to have stolen or borrowed web images for his site, did not say anything time wise about the BFL single, was not employed by BFL when that happened and as far as I am aware Inabas mysterious corporation that he started (still don't know what one but by all means show me his filing) was startd by a felon. Is MPOE-PR saying Inaba is a Felon? Doubtful but the way she says it to Inaba should refer to it precisely that way.

PRONOUNS suck. Even if you the writer has a good point and thinks they are smart a much less smart person only needs to prove that the writer has failed to state whom the writer refers to and the witer is wrong as the reader can quite easily state that You or he or they or whatever other pronoun you failed to provide a subject to and/or altered the subject during the writers many statements was either not the one the writer replied to or that it had to include the one the writer was replying to. Being specific is very important. State your subject clearly as a writer. Leave no questionable wording as that gives others a very simple way to discredit you.

Edit: Whoops the writer was the subject. Wow even when I use pronouns I sometimes confuse myself.