Topic: Ban request for user: franky1 - page 3. (Read 3088 times)

I have seen that a lot of your posts have been allowed to stay.. and of course, it could be problematic to be reposting items that have been deleted - unless they were deleted for being off-topic, so you remove them to a thread in which they are "on-topic".. and perhaps it would be acceptable for you to post a link to another thread in a topic in which you believe that your post is relevant, but it had already been deleted for possibly being off-topic... I am not sure.. I don't really want your voice to be snuffed out, even though sometimes I get confused about your points and then realize that maybe you were just talking gobbledy-gook.. but other times you seem to raise points that others had not been willing to raise or you raise it from an angle that had not been presented, and those kinds of presentations can be helpful to other members, even if some of us might not agree with some of your facts, logic and/or conclusions reached.


It seems to me that the forum is pretty liberal in terms of allowing posts to stand, and sure sometimes if posts are deleted it might be good to give a reason, especially if the post is off topic and might be raised in some other area.. but I do see that sometimes franky is bringing up bullshit political criticisms that end up fogging up technical ideas and even perverting facts, so sometimes in those kinds of cases, it should already be clear that there might not be any appropriate place for such posts.. except maybe a thread that allows franky to fantasize about whatever world that he wishes to exist with franky logic, franky facts and/or franky conclusions.. and surely it seems that the LoyceV thread had allowed for some of that.. and I am not sure if there might be some other threads in which some of the contents of the franky posts could be allowed to stand.... but I do agree with the idea that it is against the rules to post off topic, and some deviations are allowed, so it can be a slippery slope, sometimes to figure out if something should have been "on-topic" or not.


Sometimes the burden for "debunking" is on you to prove your case, and no one needs to debunk you.  If you are trying to overcome the status quo, then you have the burden of convincing folks of the strength of your facts, the validity of your logic and the soundness of your conclusions, and so if you cannot reach your burdens, then the burden does not shift to the status quo to "debunk" you.

Furthermore, if you merely just continue to present the same (or very similar) facts, logic, arguments and/or conclusions over and over, that does not necessarily make your arguments stronger and it does not necessarily shift the burden over to the status quo to "debunk" your claims.


I believe that I have not seen the relevant threads on the NFT topic, and I imagine that you are referring to ordinals in terms of some of the software implementations that were run by Casey Rodarmor or whatever the recent hub bub of NFTs on bitcoin is called.  So far, I am not against those or think that any kind of action needs to be taken or that it is an attack vector on bitcoin, but I see that there have been several prominent bitcoin members who have been against them.. such as Adam Back. .and maybe some others, so maybe I am thinking that Franky might be for ordinals.. I am not sure.. .. but overall I think that the topic has been raising quite a bit of disagreement about whether it is a problem and whether anything should be done or can be done in such a way that does not end up being problematic for bitcoin. .for example, if there were some kind of a software fix, that in itself might be considered an attack on bitcoin... or maybe result in a hardfork rather than a softfork.. whatever, maybe I am getting off topic, because we are supposed to be talking about how bad franky is, no?  

Let me get back on topic.... Franky.. you suck.. hahahahhaha not all of the time, but a decently large amount of the time.    Accordingly, it seems to me that you also seem to have misinterpreted who was claiming who to be a dictator.. you said that the mods were dictators *such as achow..., and then some folks rebutted you by saying that they were not dictators, then you said that members were calling you a dictator.. .. whatever, seems like you were twisting and/or misinterpreting the ideas on that issue that you raised in the first place... although I can see why some folks might want to call you a dictator if you are continuing to push the same ideas over and over without really adding anything to points that you might have already been made or if you are cluttering topics with your posts and claiming that they are on topic, when they are merely repetitions of the same point over and over.. which is a kind of dictatorship through cluttering.. if there were to be such a thing that could exist?


Oh gawd..    aren't you the greatest thing since sliced bread.  


For some reason, I find this last portion of your post quite humorous.. even though I am not really sure what it means.  Dummy me.

Probably I have not researched enough in order to understand the innuendos contained therein.

**By the way, based on your above spelling of "Beck," you might be getting Adam Back mixed up with Jeff Beck.   They have both been famous, but largely for different reasons... #justsaying.


Ok... maybe this helps me (without having to "research too much") to appreciate where franky1 might stand/sit in regards to the recently frequently discussed NFT/ordinals on bitcoin topic..

nice grammar excuse

but my english is real english

you can truly say you are great at english if you can understand this

"oi ewe, put down the dog n bone n put yer big knickers on"
and this
"a'ight me ol mucker, ow's yer ma"

Pardon me for that, but I really can't stand reading bad English. I'm neither British so it's just unbearable to have long talk with you.

seems for me to be such a nobody of no interest. you lot spend most days trying to control me

and you never touched the block data debates once.. as soon as i show you block data/binary data.  (segwit activation method... bockflags, .. coin value amounts stored in blockdata)and I ask you lot to do the same.. you lot shy away and play forgetful but just say you wont answer it due to [excuse]

i still await your debunks that are not just posts "franky is wrong because here is a quote of a buddy saying he is wrong, who is quoting another buddy who says he is wrong" as your only evidence

come on.. here is your prime chance to highlight your wins..
show it

the stage is open.. come on, show me the big debunks you speak of
come on the big network affecting debunks.. where my suggestions would negatively affect bitcoin more then the crap stuff you lot promote

.. or will i just get grammar nazi knitpicks of silly things that are meaningless to the context of the debate

come on. the stage is open. the mic is on. the speakers are on full. the stage spotlights are positioned right to the stage. ready for your big reveal......
dont be shy now

if you ever had a really big debunk proof im sure you were itching at the neck wanting to show it. and bookmarking it for prosperity.. so come on.. this is your moment
come on there must be one.. and no dont play the amnesia card

What is happening is not a code bug. It's a spam attack. Ultimately, a feature.

There is no broken code.

Lol, I'm not even touching this subject for the billionth time.

Maybe I reported you once. I don't remember. You're not interesting.

you have not. responding does not equal debunking. you just think fees is the only way to fix code bugs (facepalm) but does not make it true
ops i should be more precise. you were told to think fees were the fix.. sorry i keep thinking your words are your own and keep forgetting that you are just reading of a sales pitch sheet.. without you even bothering to even use your own mind to question what you are saying yourself.

i mean come on some of the stuff you say is silly. you saying that code cant do anything and only money can(its like you are stuck in the 1900's where code was not a thing)

example

that is not  debunk.. thats me laughing at you for you not understanding that it is CODE that creates rules and code that can change broken code.
not money

---

bitcoin at HARD REAL data level is measured in sats on the blockchain. the immutible blockchain
lets show you what 6.25btc looks like in binary(on the blockchain of real data and ruled amount)
100101010000001011111001000000
now that real data.. is then computed in a susers software to be human represented as 6.25000000btc

now i want blackhat to realuse that at smallest unit of account(sat) if that unit change from
625000000units
to
625000000000units
guess what it would look like in binary
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000
meaning the new coinbase of more "decimals" would have more binary numbers meaning it then impacts how many halving events occur
(because removing the right side by 1 bit is a halving of amount, meaning longer bit length=more halvings)

and also this new representation of 6.26btc
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000
makes the old reputation appear as no longer 6.25btc but devalued down to being 0.00625 due to the /100 blackhat wants

as for the "supply"
turning the existing old "8decimal" block data of binary value. from 19m coins into 19kcoins of new style
meaning it changes total supply into less then 2mill total once all halvings complete


but hey.. when i told blackhat about that.. he did not respond with a successful debunk. he just realised he made a massive misjudgement and just didnt respond to that topic
nope he did not discuss any binary or hex or decimal debate that would prove his opinion.

---

yet this topic here is blackhat that wanted me banned..
hmm
going from no reporting.. to sudden wanting me banned.. seems extreme leap to make in one shot

but it is funny to see the normal "i dont remember" defence to avoid stating something of truth.. (nice try.. but not subtle enough)

angelo. you probably had more skill in the scrap metal business than you do in PR

You enjoyed every character typed while writing this, didn't you?

the way i see it this is just more meaningless social drama...
you know, silly social that can be debunked by anyone who does the research into what franky1 is ACTUALLY saying.

thats right folks the main problem you can't realize is that you don't do research. me on the other hand, all i do is research... i do so much research i hardly have time to write huge walls of text on this forum , in threads where i've been asked to cease particepation , countless times... all because they fear the power of ACTUAL RESEARCH.

you will not out-research me. i will research circles around you, just like franky1 does...  how DARE you try to silence him? you cannot manipulate him like you do the market cap.

yep i have been researching since i was in the womb and that is why i know things that you turn a blind eye to. this is because you have no clue of the basic facts of reality... you are afraid to learn so you accuse me of derailing.

sorry but segwit was a hostile takeover. millisats don't exist.

heck not even the entire lighting network is real... it is a figmant of the blocksize gestappo's imagination. liquid makes even less sense but its still around because you all worship at the alter of your messiah adam beck.

ofcourse he has NO CLUE about what bitcoin actually is... just put your social drama aside and go do research. then you will discover how you have been misled , and finally see the light.

yep.

millisats.

The recent NFT topic, in which nevertheless I do correct him, isn't about debunked arguments. The fact that his posts get deleted (probably due to multiple reports) and he keeps re-posting the same text shows how childishly he behaves.

You could also disprove the notion that dividing 1 sat into 1000 msats doesn't make the currency less scarce, but that's up to serious debate with franky.

I don't ever report his posts based on opinions. Hell, I don't even remember well the time I reported him once.

That's up to the people who consider your posts as pointless, uninteresting and trolling. Also, you go off-topic frequently.

firstly
i do follow the rules.. just not the ones you lot make up

you say i do too many walls of text posts
guess what
one rule is to not split a post into multiple parts but to say it all in one post
another rule says no single word single line replies. a post should have decent amount of content

so yea. my rants as you call them are precisely in the rules

as for other things you think are rules that im breaking..
a forum post by a user that has a side job as forum staff. making an opinion post about his personal wishes due to cries he got from your social club new recruits(newbies).. is not an official forum rule. though you have zealous mod-sister that will pretend it gave them the right to control me. its still not an official rule of the forum

but hey when it was your newbie recruits that pushed him to make make that post. which your crowd then want to think is your power gain to control more.. is more of your silly game of self empowering nature of censorship..
it says more about you than me

---

im not part of any club that has enforced any mandatory code

but wait.. which dev team is your club defending.. oh right the central point of failure dev group that did have a mandatory enforced activation
(and no dont play the amnesia card..again) you have been shown many times the 2017 block events, bips and code and nya agreements that pushed it through with fake side promises added but never provided once the mandatory part succeeded.  and no although fake promoted (bad name calling) as a UASF it was not soft nor UA.. it was a MAHF+core code+NYA(economic node threat/assisted HARDfork) coalition attempt
you were even shown the image of the flags that had a very unnatural straight first phase near vertical blue line flag.. and then a un naturally straight diagonal red incline(rejecting opposition blocks) that got to an unnatural 100% to cause the mandated activation. you know the flag event image i speak of which is backed up by block data.. blockdata by the way that immutable so even i cant edit it.. incase your next silly reply is me showing edited data/bad data

---

last point of this post
i get your game doomad
you fail at a well researched rebuttal about features and flaws and bugs of certain things and certain devs. so your game is mostly to annoy me into i getting soo disrespectful with you that you then have a reason to cry about the disrespect you receive. and then hope to use the disrespect as the reason to get rid of me..

your technique is not original nor unique. its called "poking the bear"
its been around before you were born

and you are not succeeding in it either.
the funny part is your techniques have shown a few moments that your recruits are beginning to question your narrative and methods.. more than mine.
seems your more at risk of losing your recruits than the possibility of controlling my words with your games

Translation:  "I won't follow the rules I'm expected to abide by, but I'll continue to propose absurd rules for Bitcoin because I expect others to do what I want."

Seems legit.

what you wil find. should you do research.. is that i have been in this forum long before most of you lot came trolling in with your social trolls, of defending certain entity/teams

you lot came at me and started with your crap, circle jerking the same stuf and using each other as proof of each others confirmation bias.. and over time yes i felt you dont deserve respect.

take this topic..
this topic is you lot trying to kill me out of the forum
and you expect me to kiss the ring and be all "thank you for the privilege of remaining, my lord"

screw that, i get to defend myself and be as frank as i like

if you are surprised by my frankness.. i think you have not been paying attention to the obvious
like my name

when you lot have a centralist agenda. and i point it out and then you lot name call me.. expect me to lose any polite expression towards you. especially when you lot have been playing these games for a couple years now.

this is not the first time we have discussed this. yet you keep acting like you are an innocent newbie that deserves respect.. or wait. is it that you think you are a god/king that demands an expectation of respect?
sounds like the latter

this is a discussion forum much like other social networks.
it is not a business meeting. even if your other conversations with your colleagues of your persuasion act like this is a business meeting platform.. but thats more on you for being in a business situation in regards to what you are allowed and not allowed to say(im leaning towards you being sponsored into defending certain entities, because i lack seeing any large independent thought or opinions in certain topics by you lot, its too coincidentally similar how your echos appear in each others posts)

but again i do like seeing how you wish to control my speech, it shows alot more about you than it does about me

oh and one last observation
there are millions of registered users (you should know you analyse forum users)
yet the same dozen names pop up and hug and cling on to defend the mad-hatter parents of the group

You have a very unfriendly discussion style. Do you enjoy attacking anyone who talks to you?

( v sarcasm v )
please sir can i have the kings permission to use references that are analogies or synonyms of dictatorial, such as dictate, dictator, totalitarian, oppressor.
( ^ sarcasm ^)

or are you going to play silly grammar games of specificity limitation for a speech/proof control aspect.  can i show you your examples of synonyms and where you compare me to being such synonyms / compared analogies... of a claimed dictatorial in this topic

and dont worry i will limit the examples to just this topic
and i wont even bother to quote your work-wifes quotes which you follow and sing alot to.. or ill be hear for months copy and pasting

so screw it i wont wit for the king permissions , ill go ahead anyway. ill pick out a couple.. i wont even wall spam you with your many examples and your buddy group song sheets saying the same things.



funny point to end it with
"we ought to allow him"
(sarcasm->) aww king madhat, you allow me do you, aww you are so kind
(pfft)

stop being the centralised totalitarians yourself whilst trying to pretend you dont want control of the code and then pretend its others that want control even when all they do is poit out your groups central points of control to make bitcoin messy bloat and expensive to not be a payment network just so you lot can then offramp people to other networks so you can middle men scrub them of their value by getting profits out of them

(yes self custody doesnt make businesses get profits. so those sponsored people in your centralised group will do anything to get bitcoiners into situations that profit/ benefit the sponsors of features you lot idolise or are paid to defend)

your games and reasons and efforts are not subtle

I think he misunderstood my comment. ( maybe not ).

I see no debunked arguments regarding the recent NFT topic, maybe you should provide a technically sound and reasonable counter argument as evidence, e.g. like if someone says that the sun is made of water, you could disprove the notion by providing scientific evidence.

But if someone doesn't like your policies on a certain subject and you call their opinion bullshit and try to censor their voice, is by definition dictatorial behavior, which nobody likes especially regarding a supposed decentralized system.

So, yes both achow and maxwell are autocrats, as if they
 know better than everyone else.

I meant who called you dictatorial in this discussion?

you and your buddy doomad.. you both echo the same crap ..its why i call you the madhatter title.. you to echo off each other the same songs literally a single central mindset.
oh wait your songs are "totalitarian"
aww you thought you escaped it because of a synonym mistake

its more funny how you want to delete/ban forum topics/people that want bitcoin to be a open payment system for the unbanked(low income)

its more funny how you want bloat and and cause expensive fees on bitcoin
its funny how you want to plead to moderators to ban and delete users that are not kissing the core club party bus

its funny how you want to control who, how and what people say.
yet you only want freedom within your idolised central clubhouse

---

the real funny
in 2019
gmaxwell broke. he got alot of hounding from certain newbies recrutied into (oops i nearly let the punch line slip) to pester gmax into getting me banned from that category
and guess which group done this

it was this same group then used the thing that they instigated as a reason to then perpetually say i should stop doing x.y,z due to mod saying something
(certain groups self fullfilling agenda)

the reason i am not going to kiss the ring and toe the party bus is becasue it goes against bitcoins principles and needs to be highlighted that its not what bitcoin was created for

i am not trying to gain an opposing army(unlike some). i am simply suggesting people do some research outside the song sheet that certain group hands out

and yes i get attacked for it.. but i dont care about it. i just lose the respect to speak nicely to those types of people
i speak frank . and i have no fear in it.
you want to control me. but that says more about you then me

Who called you dictatorial?

me dictatorial???
im not the one with mod powers or chummy with those with mod powers trying to get people banned

im not even trying to be chummy to those with mod powers or gain power myself

your group are the centralist group that dont want independent/outside review.
your group adore the central point of failure
your group are the ones that tell people if they dont like core, fork off to an altcoin and leave core alone

YOUR groups social club are the dictators
look at your actions. look at this topic YOU created.

heck i recently thought you were trying to escape your dictator group. and go independent..
i even thought id suggest you should have a chance to become a greek mod. as long as you dont act like a greek GOD
my suggestions are just suggestions. unlike the powers your group try to attain for your personal centralist shenanigans

as for debunking me.. with actual hard data of something rally hard and provable in actual code or blockdata..
i doubt it
all your chums ever do is say i been debunked by quoting another social post of a chum of yours saying i was debunked where their source is another chums saying i was debunked.. or where you think you got a win becasue of grammar mistakes

In terms of mental health, sure.

But hearing the same bullshit, for millionth times repeated and debunked arguments does not. Also, not being civil does not.

Dictatorial? Buddy, a forum board has rules. And those rules are better to be enforced. This forum, while far from perfect moderation, does fit in this category as well. franky1 just feels like the rules aren't proper, or that the moderators abuse their power; apparently, only to him.