I'm no fan of TBF at all, but I wanted to give Bruce Fenton and others some relevant information. In late 2014 Bruno (Gleb/Phinneas) made a wild accusation against Patrick Murck on this forum:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/brunos-accusations-against-patrick-murck-851373
The original title was more provocative. He never backed up his accusation with any evidence, of course, and it was always reasonably clear it was just something he was making up.
Frankly, Bruno is probably seriously mentally ill and delusional. He has no credibility and no weight should be given to what he says. On the other hand, it wouldn't be particularly surprising if he turns out to be a physical threat to people due to his mental instability. He should be taken seriously in this sense.
Regarding TBF, it should just shut down.
Topic: Bitcoin Foundation: Where on Earth Did all the Money Go? - page 12. (Read 15421 times)
Curious, as to where I ever penned that I wasn't aware of Egan's accusations.
Not the accusations, but that they were discredited.
Do you have other evidence? Because so far the only thing you put forward was an accusation which was proven false.
There's more to the story than just the sexual side, e.g., IGE.
Basically he's no one anyone would want representing them in the media? Is that basically what you're saying?
Curious, as to where I ever penned that I wasn't aware of Egan's accusations.
Not the accusations, but that they were discredited.
Do you have other evidence? Because so far the only thing you put forward was an accusation which was proven false.
There's more to the story than just the sexual side, e.g., IGE.
Quote
"Chad's World was the first signal that maybe things weren't right with DEN," says Winter. "It was definitely, um, ahead of its time."
It felt like a "gay pedophile version of Silver Spoons," adds another industry observer who saw the pilot and five unaired episodes. "I first thought it was some sick fantasy of theirs," he adds. "When I found out about the molestation charges, I realized that it was more a case of art imitating life."
It felt like a "gay pedophile version of Silver Spoons," adds another industry observer who saw the pilot and five unaired episodes. "I first thought it was some sick fantasy of theirs," he adds. "When I found out about the molestation charges, I realized that it was more a case of art imitating life."
Quote
Another regular at the mansion was DEN executive VP Brock Pierce. He was aggressive and self-assured, with blond hair and an insouciant pout. He was also still a teenager—17 years old and coming off a successful career as a child actor, with The Mighty Ducks and First Kid among his credits. According to a DEN board member, Pierce was hired as "the guy who could tell us what Gen Y-ers were likely to think." This talent came in handy not only in targeting the youth demographic, but also in bringing a supply of beautiful young men to the estate, lured with vague promises of fame as the Internet's first TV stars.
Eventually, a number of these acolytes would file lawsuits alleging they were raped and/or sexually abused at M&C by the three cofounders. Their charges are remarkably consistent—all claim they were bullied and drugged to coerce sexual compliance, and in some cases, threatened with loaded guns. When the plaintiffs filed civil suits against Collins-Rector, Shackley, and Pierce, the three suddenly disappeared with what remained of their fortune—turning up two years later living in a villa in Spain.
Eventually, a number of these acolytes would file lawsuits alleging they were raped and/or sexually abused at M&C by the three cofounders. Their charges are remarkably consistent—all claim they were bullied and drugged to coerce sexual compliance, and in some cases, threatened with loaded guns. When the plaintiffs filed civil suits against Collins-Rector, Shackley, and Pierce, the three suddenly disappeared with what remained of their fortune—turning up two years later living in a villa in Spain.
I've spoke extensively with Radar's John Gorenfeld when he called me by phone.
As I've mentioned, ThePolicyCounsil.com was never a working website (was even for sale in 2014, as I've depicted) nor can I find incorp docs of ThePolicyCounsil.com INC which was paid the aforementioned amount.
Again, no idea what you are accusing.
Is the accusation that Jim didn't have a website? That he was paid as reported? Do you think he was paid differently than what was reported? What? I said I'm glad to seek justice for any illegal act....but I don't even see what you are accusing.
Try the format:
I accuse _____ of _____ (crime/ bad act) based on ______ evidence." This might encourage some basic critical thinking.
I accuse you and Brock Pierce of mincing about with the dead body of The Bitcoin Foundation a la Weekend at Bernie's. There, I said it.
Oh, fuck! Dude played the Weekend at Bernie's Card. Now you got Bruce reevaluating his card holdings in hope of trumping your unexpected play. This could get interesting.
Mrs. Fenton: Bruce, are you coming to bed?
Bruce: Not yet! Busy Googling Weekend at Bernie's.
Mrs. Fenton: You're not playing some card game again, are you?
Bruce: I can not lie. Yes, dear.
Curious, as to where I ever penned that I wasn't aware of Egan's accusations.
Not the accusations, but that they were discredited.
Do you have other evidence? Because so far the only thing you put forward was an accusation which was proven false.
Quote
"Chad's World was the first signal that maybe things weren't right with DEN," says Winter. "It was definitely, um, ahead of its time."
It felt like a "gay pedophile version of Silver Spoons," adds another industry observer who saw the pilot and five unaired episodes. "I first thought it was some sick fantasy of theirs," he adds. "When I found out about the molestation charges, I realized that it was more a case of art imitating life."
It felt like a "gay pedophile version of Silver Spoons," adds another industry observer who saw the pilot and five unaired episodes. "I first thought it was some sick fantasy of theirs," he adds. "When I found out about the molestation charges, I realized that it was more a case of art imitating life."
Quote
Another regular at the mansion was DEN executive VP Brock Pierce. He was aggressive and self-assured, with blond hair and an insouciant pout. He was also still a teenager—17 years old and coming off a successful career as a child actor, with The Mighty Ducks and First Kid among his credits. According to a DEN board member, Pierce was hired as "the guy who could tell us what Gen Y-ers were likely to think." This talent came in handy not only in targeting the youth demographic, but also in bringing a supply of beautiful young men to the estate, lured with vague promises of fame as the Internet's first TV stars.
Eventually, a number of these acolytes would file lawsuits alleging they were raped and/or sexually abused at M&C by the three cofounders. Their charges are remarkably consistent—all claim they were bullied and drugged to coerce sexual compliance, and in some cases, threatened with loaded guns. When the plaintiffs filed civil suits against Collins-Rector, Shackley, and Pierce, the three suddenly disappeared with what remained of their fortune—turning up two years later living in a villa in Spain.
Eventually, a number of these acolytes would file lawsuits alleging they were raped and/or sexually abused at M&C by the three cofounders. Their charges are remarkably consistent—all claim they were bullied and drugged to coerce sexual compliance, and in some cases, threatened with loaded guns. When the plaintiffs filed civil suits against Collins-Rector, Shackley, and Pierce, the three suddenly disappeared with what remained of their fortune—turning up two years later living in a villa in Spain.
Actually, it was I who did most of the digging on Brock, whereupon others expanded upon and/or acted on mine and subsequent findings.
Yet, you were somehow unaware that the accuser (who didn't even accuse a rock btw...but an associate of his) was a serial accuser proven to have lied in several cases and even scolded by the judge to the point that no lawyer would represent him?
Curious, as to where I ever penned that I wasn't aware of Egan's accusations.
critical thinking is not your strong point son, snort obviously is,
pretending to rationalize your thoughts actions and words
is really a sick and discusting way of trying to take a morale
high ground when it is completely obvious none exists,
ur such a shady n moraly bankrupt individual ur so embedded
in this contemptuous brand where u think denying obvious
facts and proof that people restate such obvious facts over
and over is nessesary, when ur only objective is the snort
is so funny, im suprised ur even able to build a conciousness
on such a childish ego but ive seen ot before enuff times
to believe it,
I thought this forum was moderated.
This guy's postings consist entirely of misspelled and grammatical errors with no coherent thought, filled with wild accusations which are not backed by even a coherent basis for the accusation let alone any evidence
As I've mentioned, ThePolicyCounsil.com was never a working website (was even for sale in 2014, as I've depicted) nor can I find incorp docs of ThePolicyCounsil.com INC which was paid the aforementioned amount.
Again, no idea what you are accusing.
Is the accusation that Jim didn't have a website? That he was paid as reported? Do you think he was paid differently than what was reported? What? I said I'm glad to seek justice for any illegal act....but I don't even see what you are accusing.
Try the format:
I accuse _____ of _____ (crime/ bad act) based on ______ evidence." This might encourage some basic critical thinking.
I accuse you and Brock Pierce of mincing about with the dead body of The Bitcoin Foundation a la Weekend at Bernie's. There, I said it.
Actually, it was I who did most of the digging on Brock, whereupon others expanded upon and/or acted on mine and subsequent findings.
Yet, you were somehow unaware that the accuser (who didn't even accuse a rock btw...but an associate of his) was a serial accuser proven to have lied in several cases and even scolded by the judge to the point that no lawyer would represent him?
If based on this thread, you are basing your very, very serious accusations against Brock apparently on three things:
1) a Reddit post
2) an accusation against an associate of his
Does this seem like a standard worthy of the accusation?
Consider:
1) the Reddit post is by Olivier who resigned, then came and was on the board -- he also made accusations of Mark Karpeles hiring assassins and others
2) the accuser was proven to be false and was actually scolded by the judge
1) a Reddit post
2) an accusation against an associate of his
Does this seem like a standard worthy of the accusation?
Consider:
1) the Reddit post is by Olivier who resigned, then came and was on the board -- he also made accusations of Mark Karpeles hiring assassins and others
2) the accuser was proven to be false and was actually scolded by the judge
Actually, it was I who did most of the digging on Brock, whereupon others expanded upon and/or acted on mine and subsequent findings.
Great, then look into what Jim Harper was paid for back in 2014 to the tune of $113,833 USD, then report back here your findings. Deal?
Harper was hired by the people in charge at the time to serve as global public policy counsel. Someone worked for the foundation? Sure. Um, yeah. That's not a secret. I mention that people worked there, including salaries, in the original post. He left, after he left he ran for office of a board seat and won.
I think there were too many employees and that many roles were not needed and that the salaries were too high - I have no idea if Jim was a good value at the time - I have no way of evaluating since I didn't work with him then. During his time on the board he seemed diligent and competent. If he was overpriced there is no law against that type of bad decision.
I know you want to find evidence of something more than mismanagement, bad decisions and waste. Maybe it exists....no one knows. What I'd suggest though is to put things in a format of: "I accuse _____ of _____ (crime/ bad act) based on ______ evidence." This might encourage some basic critical thinking.
critical thinking is not your strong point son, snort obviously is,
pretending to rationalize your thoughts actions and words
is really a sick and discusting way of trying to take a morale
high ground when it is completely obvious none exists,
ur such a shady n moraly bankrupt individual ur so embedded
in this contemptuous brand where u think denying obvious
facts and proof that people restate such obvious facts over
and over is nessesary, when ur only objective is the snort
is so funny, im suprised ur even able to build a conciousness
on such a childish ego but ive seen it before enuff times
to believe it,
As I've mentioned, ThePolicyCounsil.com was never a working website (was even for sale in 2014, as I've depicted) nor can I find incorp docs of ThePolicyCounsil.com INC which was paid the aforementioned amount.
Again, no idea what you are accusing.
Is the accusation that Jim didn't have a website? That he was paid as reported? Do you think he was paid differently than what was reported? What? I said I'm glad to seek justice for any illegal act....but I don't even see what you are accusing.
Try the format:
I accuse _____ of _____ (crime/ bad act) based on ______ evidence." This might encourage some basic critical thinking.
If based on this thread, you are basing your very, very serious accusations against Brock apparently on three things:
1) a Reddit post
2) an accusation against an associate of his
Does this seem like a standard worthy of the accusation?
Consider:
1) the Reddit post is by Olivier who resigned, then came and was on the board -- he also made accusations of Mark Karpeles hiring assassins and others
2) the accuser was proven to be false and was actually scolded by the judge
1) a Reddit post
2) an accusation against an associate of his
Does this seem like a standard worthy of the accusation?
Consider:
1) the Reddit post is by Olivier who resigned, then came and was on the board -- he also made accusations of Mark Karpeles hiring assassins and others
2) the accuser was proven to be false and was actually scolded by the judge
Great, then look into what Jim Harper was paid for back in 2014 to the tune of $113,833 USD, then report back here your findings. Deal?
Harper was hired by the people in charge at the time to serve as global public policy counsel. Someone worked for the foundation? Sure. Um, yeah. That's not a secret. I mention that people worked there, including salaries, in the original post. He left, after he left he ran for office of a board seat and won.
I think there were too many employees and that many roles were not needed and that the salaries were too high - I have no idea if Jim was a good value at the time - I have no way of evaluating since I didn't work with him then. During his time on the board he seemed diligent and competent. If he was overpriced there is no law against that type of bad decision.
I know you want to find evidence of something more than mismanagement, bad decisions and waste. Maybe it exists....no one knows. What I'd suggest though is to put things in a format of: "I accuse _____ of _____ (crime/ bad act) based on ______ evidence." This might encourage some basic critical thinking.
As I've mentioned, ThePolicyCounsil.com was never a working website (was even for sale in 2014, as I've depicted) nor can I find incorp docs of ThePolicyCounsil.com INC which was paid the aforementioned amount.
Bitcoin Jesus Motherfuckin' Christ!
Jim Harper is a current board member. Jim Harper was paid over $100K for services in 2014 from TBF's coffer.
Omg. Not sure what is more hilarious, the number of factual inaccuracies you folks have or how certain you are of the truth of bad information.
Harper is not a board member. He resigned as part of the board shakeup because he didn't see eye to eye with the other board members.
Harper was paid when he was not a board member by an Executive Director who is no longer there. I never paid Harper anything.
See...this is the problem with wasting time with sarcasm.
If you would have simply stated what your theory was, you could have gotten correct info.
I misspoke. Jim Harper WAS a board member.
http://www.coindesk.com/harper-janssens-exit-bitcoin-foundation/
Quote
Bitcoin Foundation board members Jim Harper and Olivier Janssens have resigned and been removed from the trade organization, respectively, following a disagreement over the future of the advocacy group.
Quote
I have not been presented any evidence of any theft, criminal act or similar wrongdoing but would be *happy to pay a bounty of at least 10%* for anyone with information and evidence of any such act leading to recovery of any funds which were misappropriated or stolen. Those who imply that there is any wrongdoing at the foundation now or by those involved now should come forward with evidence or at least a solid and specific accusation. If presented with any such evidence I would work to have justice done.
Great, then look into what Jim Harper was paid for back in 2014 to the tune of $113,833 USD, then report back here your findings. Deal?
it was obvious u meant he was a board member, Bruce is a pathalogical liar he must be holding
onto funds or assets belonging to the Bitcoin Foundation and is hoping those arnt dissolved
if the BF is shuttered, their could be no other reason for his bizarre and maniacal attemp to
distort and ignore the truth at every step, the Snort is strong with this one
If you want to hand-wave away early unsavoury behaviour, fine. Shady business dealings? Why not? I'm not a judge or jury. You associate with you you associate with. I'd sooner this lot of neckbeards for company, myself. And the 10 or so other board members, the ones BMB had to tell you about, do you know why they left?
So many incorrect assumptions it's no wonder there is so much misunderstanding.
1) I'm not hand waiving away past bad behavior. I'm shining a light on it - read the original post in this thread, I call out bad spending as ridiculous
2) agreed that who you associate with is important -- I'm not sure why the concept of someone being called in for a turnaround situation is hard to understand -- I do not and have no associated with the bad actors who made these bad decisions -- I've certainly never worked with any of them
3) 10 board members did not leave -- according to the article it was 10 regular members... out of 1500 (looking back at the old forum I doubt it was even that high) - yes, the reason they left appears to have been largely based on the same accusation in this thread that one board member was involved in a sex scandal -- this accusation was pretty much entirely debunked as unfounded -
Dude, you've really pissed me off now! I just wasted a bunch of time reading a mess of your posts on this forum seeking spelling errors on your part and came up empty-handed (had to Google to see if a hyphen was needed).
Great, then look into what Jim Harper was paid for back in 2014 to the tune of $113,833 USD, then report back here your findings. Deal?
Harper was hired by the people in charge at the time to serve as global public policy counsel. Someone worked for the foundation? Sure. Um, yeah. That's not a secret. I mention that people worked there, including salaries, in the original post. He left, after he left he ran for office of a board seat and won.
I think there were too many employees and that many roles were not needed and that the salaries were too high - I have no idea if Jim was a good value at the time - I have no way of evaluating since I didn't work with him then. During his time on the board he seemed diligent and competent. If he was overpriced there is no law against that type of bad decision.
I know you want to find evidence of something more than mismanagement, bad decisions and waste. Maybe it exists....no one knows. What I'd suggest though is to put things in a format of: "I accuse _____ of _____ (crime/ bad act) based on ______ evidence." This might encourage some basic critical thinking.
Bitcoin Jesus Motherfuckin' Christ!
Jim Harper is a current board member. Jim Harper was paid over $100K for services in 2014 from TBF's coffer.
Omg. Not sure what is more hilarious, the number of factual inaccuracies you folks have or how certain you are of the truth of bad information.
Harper is not a board member. He resigned as part of the board shakeup because he didn't see eye to eye with the other board members.
Harper was paid when he was not a board member by an Executive Director who is no longer there. I never paid Harper anything.
See...this is the problem with wasting time with sarcasm.
If you would have simply stated what your theory was, you could have gotten correct info.
I misspoke. Jim Harper WAS a board member.
http://www.coindesk.com/harper-janssens-exit-bitcoin-foundation/
Quote
Bitcoin Foundation board members Jim Harper and Olivier Janssens have resigned and been removed from the trade organization, respectively, following a disagreement over the future of the advocacy group.
Quote
I have not been presented any evidence of any theft, criminal act or similar wrongdoing but would be *happy to pay a bounty of at least 10%* for anyone with information and evidence of any such act leading to recovery of any funds which were misappropriated or stolen. Those who imply that there is any wrongdoing at the foundation now or by those involved now should come forward with evidence or at least a solid and specific accusation. If presented with any such evidence I would work to have justice done.
Great, then look into what Jim Harper was paid for back in 2014 to the tune of $113,833 USD, then report back here your findings. Deal?
Jump to: