I did not put any conditions on my apology to Lauda. Nor did I make demands after the fact. It was an acknowledgement that I was in the wrong.
Cherry-picked as something that ought be highlighted.
I can’t speak for Lauda, but I don’t believe he has any corrupt intentions in creating this thread.
I can’t speak for Lauda; but I would guess she saw what I did,
i.e. that you could have no ulterior motive for reaching out with that apology, when you had...
...no assurance (or even rational expectation) that the reply will not be, “Too little, too late; go die in a fire”? It actually takes some sincerity and courage to do that.
I, for one, believe you, at least on that point (and it’s an important one).
See below for further analysis.
An important point to note: I argue the following from my own perspective. As I recently observed elsewhere:
I must note the mutual distrust, in fairness to Quickseller: I have obviously and unapologetically always been on Lauda’s side in that dispute; and I must recognize that Quickseller had his own perspective on that, even if I think his perspective was dead wrong.
The Quickseller case is unique: Downfall from grace;—now, possible redemption?Fact beats detective novels: A respected member of the community rapidly became
the forum’s most-distrusted virtual leper according to BPIP way back when. The rigorous application of forensic authorship identification left people feeling deeply betrayed by someone who had been so trusted. The individual in question then seemed as if he had embraced the lifetime devotion to revenge once sworn by the boy-Hannibal to his father:
“I will use fire and steel [and much forum badness that nullius will hereby avoid mentioning on a thread about peace] to arrest the destiny of Rome.”I believe that Quickseller is a highly intelligent individual which is precisely why I previously saw him as very dangerous (in comparison to just some dumb troll, of which there are many).
O, he of Punic faith!
Quickseller would never have been so widely despised, if he had not previously been so widely admired. From my limited knowledge of forum history, most of the few users who had a downfall of such magnitude had done bannable offenses, and were banned. He hadn’t, and he wasn’t; and so he went on the warpath with few friends, and many enemies.
His Nemesis: Lauda.With this new détente, can Quickseller completely turn things around for a rise as spectacular as his downfall? Time will tell: In reputational matters, it is far easier to destroy than to rebuild.
I am curious to see what Quickseller may choose to build on this forum going forward.
In this circumstance, I don’t think it’s appropriate for anybody with a Lauda tag to suddenly come crawling out of the woodwork with vociferous complaints in the “peace” thread. Those who do so, are only thus proving that they
lack the sincerity that Quickseller has shown,
as described below. Indeed, it is trolling with flamebait; and moreover, it is offtopic: What does any of this have to do with Quickseller, or with Lauda’s announcement of peace with Quickseller?
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5379/53799851.htmlNow only to get to the other dozen or so people you attack...
[...] I would not hold out much hope for any kind of peace with TECSHARE when he himself reacts to others’ newfound amicability by trying to start a fight.
~
~
[...]
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/truth-or-dare-2758665(Edit)
P.S. I am not buying this spirit of forgiveness crap, maybe the OP wants to run some shit with an ex-scammer and wishes to take off the baggage or whatever.
ibminer, that was meritorious? The edit apparently occurred within the 10-minute (?) period in which the post does not show an edit time.
allahabadi, you evidently do not know Lauda very well. I would suggest that bad people
should try to corrupt her into such a conspiracy, because it is a probably a good way for them to earn red-tags. Anyway, what “shit” would you expect for Lauda to “run”? Selling pills, maybe?
The Quick QuestionI will hereby present some
evidence of the sincerity of Quickseller’s motives that I myself found significant, but I did not previously intend to ever discuss publicly. For the record, I noticed similar things that I will not mention here: I consider myself to be an astute observer, who sees what others do not; I do not want to write a guidebook for manipulative types to show me what I want to see.
(And to any impartial observer, the following will speak for itself as to my wisdom.)The prelude to this thread really began here:
Topic: @PrimeNumber7 is an alt account of @Quickseller
Subject:
I am not Quickseller.Merited by nobody—but I presume, not unnoticed by Quickseller.Sorry...
On principle,
I will not become Quickseller for the purpose of smacking down alleged Quickseller alts.In the same thread, I also brought out other old “Quicksy” quotations for the purpose of telling others that they should
avoid following that example. As I am (or was) wont to do, I also ridiculed old Quickseller quotes in a few other places; but nowhere else did that so neatly intersect with the topic of a controversy which surely must have caught Quickseller’s attention.
And golly darn, what will I now do without “Quicksy” as a rhetorical foil representing all ills of the forum? ;-)Whereupon, I observed,
inter alia:- Quickseller’s only plausible direct motive to suddenly retract a thread that hadn’t been bumped in eleven months, which nobody else was discussing, was that he sincerely realized it was wrong, and he was ashamed of it.
It could not plausibly have been a trick, for a reason that I recently stated in another thread:
...suddenly, publicly, unilaterally apologize... for years-old threads, with no assurance (or even rational expectation) that the reply will not be, “Too little, too late; go die in a fire”? It actually takes some sincerity and courage to do that.
I would not accuse Quickseller of expecting for Lauda to treat him kindly. And had Lauda wanted to reject his apology, then I myself would have backed her unequivocally on the principle that after all he did, she had the right to say, “too little, too late”. It was an awfully big risk for Quickseller, with no sure reward but to assuage his own conscience. - Although I agree with Lauda that PrimeNumber7’s identity is not proved either way, I think that Quickseller’s behaviour at the sidelines of that controversy is circumstantial evidence that they are probably two different individuals.
Quickseller is proud. He would not eat humble pie for Lauda just to protect his own work building an alt identity: Instead, I expect that he would ruthlessly counterattack, as he has done many times before when others wrecked his deceits. But if another person were being smeared with what I called “Quickseller-stench”, using what I identified somewhere as “Quicksold” twisted logic, then that may cause him to rethink some of his past behaviour—as he did, within 48 hours.
(All the moreso if they may be separate people who know each other IRL—which would be none of anybody’s business, except insofar as it may explain the thin evidence connecting them. However, I do think that Quickseller may have behaved similarly, if PrimeNumber7 were just an innocent stranger who got blindsided by being pinned with the Quickseller stigma. In that case: “WTF, now some poor random bloke is getting torched with an accusation of being me!? I am sincerely sorry that I made similiarly wrong accusations in the past.”)
This, in turn, is evidence that his motives are sincere: The whole scenario invoked remorse in him, and he acted accordingly.
(N.b. that analysis of PrimeNumber7’s identity is off-topic here; thus, I have confined the foregoing to a narrow discussion of what reasonable inferences may be drawn about Quickseller’s motives for apologizing to Lauda.)
Because this is an Internet forum (
sigh), I must state explicitly that
none of the foregoing evidence is conclusive, and all of it must be weighed carefully. Together with my other observations, it
is sufficient evidence for me to consider Quickseller to be
prima facie sincere, absent contrary evidence.
The Acts of QuicksellerI'd like to see an explicit statement of what you have done in the past which was not best for the community. And then, maybe provide some examples on what you would "believe to be best for the community" moving forward?
Although your questions are reasonable, I respectfully suggest that this is a long-term question—and one of acts, not words.
For Quickseller to publicly browbeat himself in some ritual ceremonial apology is neither necessary nor sufficient; and for my part, I am
more hopeful because I don’t see him making grand promises for the future. Talk is cheap. “Time will tell.”
I have noticed that quietly, without fanfare or pretense, Quickseller has recently retracted some of the dirt he slung out against a few other people—not only the pill thread against Lauda (
which was only on everybody’s minds because I myself had recently been calling attention to it). That is a good sign; I hope he that will do more of it, and do it right quickly. I say “hope”, because the best thing about his apology to Lauda was that it was of his own initiative, unrequested and unexpected. I would not give him so much credit, if he were to mouth a bunch of apologies just because someone told him to.
After having swum in a sea of red for years, how high a standard can Quickseller set for himself here?
To be clear,
I am not trying to rehabilitate Quickseller: That is up to him. —Up to him, as he stepped up of his own initiative to amends with Lauda. My position is actually a fair bit harder than yours, ibminer: I simply step back and watch him do what he wants. I will pass my judgment on the results of him acting of his own free will. I hope that I will be suitably impressed. It will not hurt my feelings if I am not.
I am probably the most unforgiving person on this forum;
Quickseller was never a simple troll. (I always accused him of worse in the sense of “evil mastermind”; but that is beside the point.)
In the long term, for my part, I couldn’t care less either way about whatever vision Quickseller now sets forth for doing the “best for the community”. I want to
see it. If he does good things, then I will applaud that!—if he does bad things, then I will urge others to treat him a thousandfold as harshly as they did before, with
no third chances—and if he does nothing, then he will just fade to grey as a moderately interesting has-been who, at least, is no longer widely hated. Meanwhile, I will treat him with a judicious neutrality. Fair enough?
I don't know about this user, I'll look when I have the time.. 