Re OP: "~by rallier" is obvious and done...
For transparency, my response is a neutral rating:
I may not be so magnanimous. The accusations of “manipulating the Default Trust system” and “making false accusations” are backed by nothing other than the observation that, um, you have a trust list, and you use it. The incomprehensibly written recommendation that others avoid “[making] a connection (or [working]) with” you is based on nothing at all. In sum, the text of the tag does not even adequately allege any wrongs justifying negative feedback. Therefore: The tag is frivolous within its four corners—even if, arguendo as to fact, one makes all assumptions against you and in favour of “by rallier”.
As such, it as is transparently a ham-handed attempt to inflict reputational damage in retaliation for your quite ordinary and unremarkable decision that you don’t want to see someone’s tags. That is defamatory and dishonest. Moreover, it sets a horrid precedent: Imagine if everybody who was ~excluded by someone else issued negative feedback on that basis!
I understand that you don’t want to look “retaliatory”; but I think that the substance of the matter may well warrant negative feedback, and anyway, I don’t have that problem.
Eh, I am too busy with art and τὴν τέχνην to weigh that out now. —Now, let’s see what other interesting bits this thread has turned up...
DT is manipulated so easily these days,
The old system was better.
^^^ THIS!
Of course, the old system was not perfect. I myself disliked the old DT; I am moderately critical of how theymos chose to run it. But...
Because I am oft accused of “walls of text”, here is the TL;DR:
theymos-dictated Ancien Régime DT:
Democratic DT:
Democratic DT:
And:
Basic sanity of the trust system:
RTFM:
RTFM:
Et cetera...
THIS SPACE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT NULL.
On the Official Opinions of ALL WOMEN!
I've said time and time again if you look at what Lauda says about women, then you'll know that Lauda is a man.
Translation: “I am a basement-dwelling doofus who does not know any women, but has Read On The Internet many prejudicial broad*-brush statements about the Official Opinions of ALL WOMEN® on the subject of womankind. No exceptions!”
If the only “women” whom you know as the absolute representatives of all women are largely obese, mostly American dumb-goose twitlibs with blue checkmarks, many of whom have matching hair, then your wretched incomprehension of womankind may exclude more than one Laura; e.g. from my index of authors named “Laura”:
This really made me laugh out loud for a second time 
Same here. :-)
I've said time and time again if you look at what Lauda says about women, then you'll know that Lauda is a man.
Lauda has tits... manboobs or double D's ill let your imagination decide
LOL.
Opsec protip: My reading list is generally private; thus, having long ago started and settled on a good theme, I shall stick to it:
“Doth this happen, because with women nothing is impossible?” — Nietzsche
On the Identity and Opsec of the Cat
I said for a second time because the first post I made was deleted by moderators but hopefully this one will stay. There is no doubt people can use a facade to create a persona but ther eis no reason to doubt Lauda being female. If Lauda says she is female then I am happy to accept it, unequivocally.
Laura refuses to confirm or deny the accusation that she is female. I have repeatedly interrogated her, in private. Even when I threaten her with rubberhose cryptanalysis of her sex, all that she will tell me is, “I’m a cat.” Quote-unquote.
Whilst travelling on business in Carpathia,
I doxed Lauda:
I doxed Lauda:
For her part, that’s not some perverse online game: It is opsec by someone who is totally uninterested in the types of online relationships for which that question would be relevant. (My own relationship with Lauda is strictly one of arts and letters and Bitcoin maximalism, some mild flirtation notwithstanding.)
One whole bit of identifying information is thus ambiguous. A naïve view is that this simply doubles Lauda’s anonymity set. In practice, relatively few women have Lauda’s skills and interests. If Lauda is a man, then the ambiguity increases his anonymity set by maybe a tenth—and misdirects attention into that tenth, which should help confuse intersection attacks across other partitions of his anonymity set. If Lauda is a woman, then the ambiguity increases her anonymity set by at least tenfold—plus wards off unwanted come-ons (a reason for which intelligent women on technical forums sometimes even declare themselves “male”). Either way, it is also a neat $5 monkey-wrench tossed into any attempts to profile Lauda.
Well, that is my analysis in the manner of an informal peer review. Lauda reserves a wise silence on the subject.
I myself profile Lauda as female based on a consistent pattern of observed behaviours that are archetypally feminine. E.g., Lauda treats Bitcoin, Core, and the Bitcoin Forum with the same unlimited, self-sacrificing feminine devotion with which the brilliant primatologist Dr Dian Fossey treated her gorillas and their conservation. When a man is devoted to a cause, his devotion generally manifests quite differently. Also, IRL, I have more or less (cough) known some élite, highly intelligent, decidedly non-“liberal” women who behaved almost identically to Lauda. It is the type who would not give even the time of day to the likes of Timelord2067; thus, perhaps his shallow, sexist assumptions about the categorical opinions of all women may be understandable—albeit still inexcusable.
FWIW. I am usually astute in such matters. If Lauda is actually a man, then I owe him a beer for a hell of a defencive psy-op. Whereas if Lauda is actually a woman, then... I owe her a beer for a hell of a defencive psy-op. Cheers, kitty.
) I don't read these topics, If someone didn't send me that link, I never know that this thread. I never visit again, so you can think or talk whatever you want.
