Topic: Dank's final testimony (Read 4334 times)
I love dank, and I will miss him. I've had the privileged of being with salty when he received that box and we laughed our asses off.
Yeah, permanent bans have been reversed from time to time. Mathew N Wright, Atlas, and Goat were permabanned and then unbanned at some point (If I'm not mistaken) I'm sure it has happened to others as well. I'm not sure what the process is, a few months and a reasonable doubt that the person has changed whatever behavior got them banned perhaps.
Maybe I think the admins will give to him a second (maybe third) chance , and he will be un-banned. How do you think, will it be possible?
AFAIK, dank has already been given three chances on this forum.
Then the ban in this case is right, however can he still view & read the forum ?
Yes, he can still login and whatnot, just can't post or pm.
Yeah, permanent bans have been reversed from time to time. Mathew N Wright, Atlas, and Goat were permabanned and then unbanned at some point (If I'm not mistaken) I'm sure it has happened to others as well. I'm not sure what the process is, a few months and a reasonable doubt that the person has changed whatever behavior got them banned perhaps.
Maybe I think the admins will give to him a second (maybe third) chance , and he will be un-banned. How do you think, will it be possible?
AFAIK, dank has already been given three chances on this forum.
Then the ban in this case is right, however can he still view & read the forum ?
Are you able to see from any admin log (if such a thing exists...) as to who banned him? Not to witchhunt but so those that are interested can get a reason.
It doesn't exist, not that I'd share that information without the person involved's permission. That said, permanent bans, especially to established members aren't given out lightly. If its a five post spammer not as much thought and careful consideration needs to be put in, but for someone who has been around for a while like Dank, it wouldn't have been done haphazardly. Only admins and global mods can ban people, and I would imagine that a global moderator would have consulted an admin before banning Dank.
I'm not trying to shift blame onto Badbear or Theymos, it might not have been them, I'm trying to emphasize that Dank wouldn't be banned for the BTC he owed Squal, and he wouldn't have been banned carelessly. I can guarantee there was a lot of thought involved, and most probably at the very least consultation with an admin.
Sure. Sometimes permanent bans can have an effect that temp bans won't, for example some think they just can't or won't be banned for more than a few days.
I don't see.this being the case for dank though unfortunately.
See give a man a chance to change and see what happens, he is making effort to pay him back.
To be fair, Dank made a few payments to Squall, but then stopped. Either way, you don't get banned for being a scammer, whether you have good or bad intentions. I'm not sure why Dank got banned, my guess would be either spamming or posting things that made the admins worry about his mental state. He has been banned before, so I suppose he could have received a permanent ban for spamming, or he may have posted something that could have been considered a threat to himself or others. (just speculating I'm not entirely sure)
Are you able to see from any admin log (if such a thing exists...) as to who banned him? Not to witchhunt but so those that are interested can get a reason.
I posted the reason on page 2. Has nothing to do with his scam, that was like...over a year ago or something so a little late on the draw if it were.
Though I do notice that most of the ones who disagree with the banning spend no or little time in the sections dank posts in, so they aren't affected. Just saying
.
Yeah, permanent bans have been reversed from time to time. Mathew N Wright, Atlas, and Goat were permabanned and then unbanned at some point (If I'm not mistaken) I'm sure it has happened to others as well. I'm not sure what the process is, a few months and a reasonable doubt that the person has changed whatever behavior got them banned perhaps.
Maybe I think the admins will give to him a second (maybe third) chance , and he will be un-banned. How do you think, will it be possible?
AFAIK, dank has already been given three chances on this forum.
Yeah, permanent bans have been reversed from time to time. Mathew N Wright, Atlas, and Goat were permabanned and then unbanned at some point (If I'm not mistaken) I'm sure it has happened to others as well. I'm not sure what the process is, a few months and a reasonable doubt that the person has changed whatever behavior got them banned perhaps.
Maybe I think the admins will give to him a second (maybe third) chance , and he will be un-banned. How do you think, will it be possible?
Yeah, permanent bans have been reversed from time to time. Mathew N Wright, Atlas, and Goat were permabanned and then unbanned at some point (If I'm not mistaken) I'm sure it has happened to others as well. I'm not sure what the process is, a few months and a reasonable doubt that the person has changed whatever behavior got them banned perhaps.
Are you able to see from any admin log (if such a thing exists...) as to who banned him? Not to witchhunt but so those that are interested can get a reason.
It doesn't exist, not that I'd share that information without the person involved's permission. That said, permanent bans, especially to established members aren't given out lightly. If its a five post spammer not as much thought and careful consideration needs to be put in, but for someone who has been around for a while like Dank, it wouldn't have been done haphazardly. Only admins and global mods can ban people, and I would imagine that a global moderator would have consulted an admin before banning Dank.
I'm not trying to shift blame onto Badbear or Theymos, it might not have been them, I'm trying to emphasize that Dank wouldn't be banned for the BTC he owed Squal, and he wouldn't have been banned carelessly. I can guarantee there was a lot of thought involved, and most probably at the very least consultation with an admin.
Are you able to see from any admin log (if such a thing exists...) as to who banned him? Not to witchhunt but so those that are interested can get a reason.
It doesn't exist, not that I'd share that information without the person involved's permission. That said, permanent bans, especially to established members aren't given out lightly. If its a five post spammer not as much thought and careful consideration needs to be put in, but for someone who has been around for a while like Dank, it wouldn't have been done haphazardly. Only admins and global mods can ban people, and I would imagine that a global moderator would have consulted an admin before banning Dank.
I'm not trying to shift blame onto Badbear or Theymos, it might not have been them, I'm trying to emphasize that Dank wouldn't be banned for the BTC he owed Squal, and he wouldn't have been banned carelessly. I can guarantee there was a lot of thought involved, and most probably at the very least consultation with an admin.
See give a man a chance to change and see what happens, he is making effort to pay him back.
To be fair, Dank made a few payments to Squall, but then stopped. Either way, you don't get banned for being a scammer, whether you have good or bad intentions. I'm not sure why Dank got banned, my guess would be either spamming or posting things that made the admins worry about his mental state. He has been banned before, so I suppose he could have received a permanent ban for spamming, or he may have posted something that could have been considered a threat to himself or others. (just speculating I'm not entirely sure)
Are you able to see from any admin log (if such a thing exists...) as to who banned him? Not to witchhunt but so those that are interested can get a reason.
It has also been noted that the actions by individual moderators/administrators are anon so the subject user will not harass them (in other words they are acting on behalf of the forum itself)
See give a man a chance to change and see what happens, he is making effort to pay him back.
To be fair, Dank made a few payments to Squall, but then stopped. Either way, you don't get banned for being a scammer, whether you have good or bad intentions. I'm not sure why Dank got banned, my guess would be either spamming or posting things that made the admins worry about his mental state. He has been banned before, so I suppose he could have received a permanent ban for spamming, or he may have posted something that could have been considered a threat to himself or others. (just speculating I'm not entirely sure)
Are you able to see from any admin log (if such a thing exists...) as to who banned him? Not to witchhunt but so those that are interested can get a reason.
See give a man a chance to change and see what happens, he is making effort to pay him back.
To be fair, Dank made a few payments to Squall, but then stopped. Either way, you don't get banned for being a scammer, whether you have good or bad intentions. I'm not sure why Dank got banned, my guess would be either spamming or posting things that made the admins worry about his mental state. He has been banned before, so I suppose he could have received a permanent ban for spamming, or he may have posted something that could have been considered a threat to himself or others. (just speculating I'm not entirely sure)
I like Dank quite a bit. Hes a strange cat, but I think hes a good guy. Real doped up though. I'd like to share an amusing anecdote in Dank's memory.
A while ago (March I think?), I needed to convert some BTC to $ to make a trip. Having a bad relationship with Paypal, and my bank at the time for standard financial nonsense (freezing my account for months over a suspicious one time $500 payment from a well established financial institution outside of the US) so I figured I'd try my luck trading some Bitcoins for cash in the mail. I put up a listing, and Dank answered shortly after saying he would do it. Dank was still a marked scammer at this point because of the Squal loan, so I told him we could either escrow the Bitcoins or he could send to me first, so he elected to send the cash to me first. The exchange was 4.20 Bitcoins in exchange for $1420, $420 of which was to be paid to Squal as a monthly settlement they had agreed on a while ago to pay back his debt(which he did honor).
The next day Dank sends me a pm saying, sent it. I replied asking for a tracking number, and he said to me "just kidding" or something to that effect. I sort of thought he was high or trying to pull some sort of scam but my coins were safe so I didn't especially care, I just asked him to clarify. He told me he had mailed it out but didn't get a tracking number, he had sent it with faith. I asked him if he could send me a picture of the receipt so that I could figure out when the package would be here (really just looking for proof he had actually sent something) to which he responded that he had got a small flatrate box, put the $1420 in it, and covered it in $7 worth of standard letter stamps that he had purchased at Walgreens and jammed it in someone's mailbox. At this point I'm like, ok why would he even bother trying to scam me? He does know that if the package doesn't arrive, I'm just not going to send him the bitcoins right? Two days later, I open my mailbox and there is a small flatrate box half covered in stamps with the agreed on cash inside. I couldn't stop laughing...
Anyway, gave him his coins, he paid Squall, and I still have the box in my room nearly a year later.
Dank in my opinion is a good guy, just stoned out of his mind.
A while ago (March I think?), I needed to convert some BTC to $ to make a trip. Having a bad relationship with Paypal, and my bank at the time for standard financial nonsense (freezing my account for months over a suspicious one time $500 payment from a well established financial institution outside of the US) so I figured I'd try my luck trading some Bitcoins for cash in the mail. I put up a listing, and Dank answered shortly after saying he would do it. Dank was still a marked scammer at this point because of the Squal loan, so I told him we could either escrow the Bitcoins or he could send to me first, so he elected to send the cash to me first. The exchange was 4.20 Bitcoins in exchange for $1420, $420 of which was to be paid to Squal as a monthly settlement they had agreed on a while ago to pay back his debt(which he did honor).
The next day Dank sends me a pm saying, sent it. I replied asking for a tracking number, and he said to me "just kidding" or something to that effect. I sort of thought he was high or trying to pull some sort of scam but my coins were safe so I didn't especially care, I just asked him to clarify. He told me he had mailed it out but didn't get a tracking number, he had sent it with faith. I asked him if he could send me a picture of the receipt so that I could figure out when the package would be here (really just looking for proof he had actually sent something) to which he responded that he had got a small flatrate box, put the $1420 in it, and covered it in $7 worth of standard letter stamps that he had purchased at Walgreens and jammed it in someone's mailbox. At this point I'm like, ok why would he even bother trying to scam me? He does know that if the package doesn't arrive, I'm just not going to send him the bitcoins right? Two days later, I open my mailbox and there is a small flatrate box half covered in stamps with the agreed on cash inside. I couldn't stop laughing...
Anyway, gave him his coins, he paid Squall, and I still have the box in my room nearly a year later.
Dank in my opinion is a good guy, just stoned out of his mind.
See give a man a chance to change and see what happens, he is making effort to pay him back.
I like Dank quite a bit. Hes a strange cat, but I think hes a good guy. Real doped up though. I'd like to share an amusing anecdote in Dank's memory.
A while ago (March I think?), I needed to convert some BTC to $ to make a trip. Having a bad relationship with Paypal, and my bank at the time for standard financial nonsense (freezing my account for months over a suspicious one time $500 payment from a well established financial institution outside of the US) so I figured I'd try my luck trading some Bitcoins for cash in the mail. I put up a listing, and Dank answered shortly after saying he would do it. Dank was still a marked scammer at this point because of the Squal loan, so I told him we could either escrow the Bitcoins or he could send to me first, so he elected to send the cash to me first. The exchange was 4.20 Bitcoins in exchange for $1420, $420 of which was to be paid to Squal as a monthly settlement they had agreed on a while ago to pay back his debt(which he did honor).
The next day Dank sends me a pm saying, sent it. I replied asking for a tracking number, and he said to me "just kidding" or something to that effect. I sort of thought he was high or trying to pull some sort of scam but my coins were safe so I didn't especially care, I just asked him to clarify. He told me he had mailed it out but didn't get a tracking number, he had sent it with faith. I asked him if he could send me a picture of the receipt so that I could figure out when the package would be here (really just looking for proof he had actually sent something) to which he responded that he had got a small flatrate box, put the $1420 in it, and covered it in $7 worth of standard letter stamps that he had purchased at Walgreens and jammed it in someone's mailbox. At this point I'm like, ok why would he even bother trying to scam me? He does know that if the package doesn't arrive, I'm just not going to send him the bitcoins right? Two days later, I open my mailbox and there is a small flatrate box half covered in stamps with the agreed on cash inside. I couldn't stop laughing...
Anyway, gave him his coins, he paid Squall, and I still have the box in my room nearly a year later.
Dank in my opinion is a good guy, just stoned out of his mind.
A while ago (March I think?), I needed to convert some BTC to $ to make a trip. Having a bad relationship with Paypal, and my bank at the time for standard financial nonsense (freezing my account for months over a suspicious one time $500 payment from a well established financial institution outside of the US) so I figured I'd try my luck trading some Bitcoins for cash in the mail. I put up a listing, and Dank answered shortly after saying he would do it. Dank was still a marked scammer at this point because of the Squal loan, so I told him we could either escrow the Bitcoins or he could send to me first, so he elected to send the cash to me first. The exchange was 4.20 Bitcoins in exchange for $1420, $420 of which was to be paid to Squal as a monthly settlement they had agreed on a while ago to pay back his debt(which he did honor).
The next day Dank sends me a pm saying, sent it. I replied asking for a tracking number, and he said to me "just kidding" or something to that effect. I sort of thought he was high or trying to pull some sort of scam but my coins were safe so I didn't especially care, I just asked him to clarify. He told me he had mailed it out but didn't get a tracking number, he had sent it with faith. I asked him if he could send me a picture of the receipt so that I could figure out when the package would be here (really just looking for proof he had actually sent something) to which he responded that he had got a small flatrate box, put the $1420 in it, and covered it in $7 worth of standard letter stamps that he had purchased at Walgreens and jammed it in someone's mailbox. At this point I'm like, ok why would he even bother trying to scam me? He does know that if the package doesn't arrive, I'm just not going to send him the bitcoins right? Two days later, I open my mailbox and there is a small flatrate box half covered in stamps with the agreed on cash inside. I couldn't stop laughing...
Anyway, gave him his coins, he paid Squall, and I still have the box in my room nearly a year later.
Dank in my opinion is a good guy, just stoned out of his mind.
I hope some of you look at this in a humane way, this heartless crap is what makes this forum so bad. Everyone wants retribution here, while I agree dank should honor his obligations, His life takes precedence the kid needs help and this may be his only outlet to speak. Would you listen to him spewing things like what he talks about on here out in public, no I doubt you would. Take a step back, think If I was in his position how would I want to be treated. Your just pushing him further into isolation, and self doubt.
He can not change the past but he can change his future. Throwing more hurdles in front of this guy does nothing but make it harder. I never give people money on the street but I will buy them a meal and chat with them, sometimes thats just enough to get them going again. If not at least they got a decent meal and someone to talk to for a bit that WILL NOT JUDGE THEM. Cause guess what none of us are prefect and we all make mistakes.
All equal now lets stop acting like we are better then others cause its sickening.
Anyone know where dank resides at? Like state cause if hes near me I will buy the guy a meal and let him talk if thats what needs be.
He can not change the past but he can change his future. Throwing more hurdles in front of this guy does nothing but make it harder. I never give people money on the street but I will buy them a meal and chat with them, sometimes thats just enough to get them going again. If not at least they got a decent meal and someone to talk to for a bit that WILL NOT JUDGE THEM. Cause guess what none of us are prefect and we all make mistakes.
All equal now lets stop acting like we are better then others cause its sickening.
Anyone know where dank resides at? Like state cause if hes near me I will buy the guy a meal and let him talk if thats what needs be.
It's very strange , why a legendary account was banned ? I think these type of people should help the other type of users (like me and other). Instead of helping ,he scam and I really don't understand : why ?
If Dank is banned, how come his account last activity shows 7th December?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/dank-21728
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/dank-21728
I think he can stay logged here in the forum , but he cannot post or send private message.
If Dank is banned, how come his account last activity shows 7th December?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/dank-21728
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/dank-21728
I think it is wrong that Dank be disallowed posting on this forum.
You know what you should do? Start your own forum and allow dank to post there. See what kind of quality material you get!
I think it is wrong that Dank be disallowed posting on this forum.
To me, dank's legacy will always be ($9,569.60). The amount he owed Squall.
drug addiction is in itself a disease
Taking drugs for the first time is a choice, not a disease. Even if its 'hard to get out', he still put himself 'in'.
I agree the drug user is somewhat to blame for their problems, but it is far from 100% their fault.
9.2% of the U.S. population according to http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends
23.9 million people is a lot when you think about it, even though it's only a small fraction of the population.
For example someone who experiments with a drug at only one point in their life could potentially become addicted, while someone could experiment some kind of illegal drug once in their life and then stop
Yeah you're right. I assume the % would be a lot higher then. I'd be interested in reading more about it.
drug addiction is in itself a disease
Taking drugs for the first time is a choice, not a disease. Even if its 'hard to get out', he still put himself 'in'.
I agree the drug user is somewhat to blame for their problems, but it is far from 100% their fault.
9.2% of the U.S. population according to http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends
23.9 million people is a lot when you think about it, even though it's only a small fraction of the population.
For example someone who experiments with a drug at only one point in their life could potentially become addicted, while someone could experiment some kind of illegal drug once in their life and then stop
drug addiction is in itself a disease
Taking drugs for the first time is a choice, not a disease. Even if its 'hard to get out', he still put himself 'in'.
I agree the drug user is somewhat to blame for their problems, but it is far from 100% their fault.
9.2% of the U.S. population according to http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends
23.9 million people is a lot when you think about it, even though it's only a small fraction of the population.
Vod dank has told me he expected to fulfill the obligation with squall early next year.
dank has a history of lying. Don't believe anything he tells you.
If he does pay squall back, then great! But I won't hold my breath.
I'm rather confused why dank was still using this forum anyway. He made it clear he had no interest in Bitcoin, so why choose this topic of forum to promote his rhetoric?
The only logical conclusion I can think of was because his main agenda was to take money from others.
The only logical conclusion I can think of was because his main agenda was to take money from others.
He also said, "the forum just proved everything I said right."
He just doesn't know when to stop does he. I don't know maybe for him it is only a joke for pass the time , or maybe he has a plan or something like that .
drug addiction is in itself a disease
Taking drugs for the first time is a choice, not a disease. Even if its 'hard to get out', he still put himself 'in'.
I agree the drug user is somewhat to blame for their problems, but it is far from 100% their fault.
drug addiction is in itself a disease
Taking drugs for the first time is a choice, not a disease. Even if its 'hard to get out', he still put himself 'in'.
I agree. Even with peer pressure and all that, you are the one who made the choice to do drugs. Maybe some time away from forums might do him and the community some good.
drug addiction is in itself a disease
Taking drugs for the first time is a choice, not a disease. Even if its 'hard to get out', he still put himself 'in'.
Some people are more susceptible to addiction problems. Thats usually what people mean when they call drug addiction a disease.
drug addiction is in itself a disease
Taking drugs for the first time is a choice, not a disease. Even if its 'hard to get out', he still put himself 'in'.
Dank derails pretty much every thread he posts in, it's very annoying.
I don't know if he really has mental issues or if he's just trolling, but in the end it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.
I think the issue is that he will constantly get trolled regarding his defaulted loan where ever he posts and he will respond to the troll which gets the conversation off topic. He also seems to say somewhat "off the wall" ideas often and people tend to react to the strangeness of what he says.I don't know if he really has mental issues or if he's just trolling, but in the end it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.
It's bad advice because the small chance of encountering negative side-effects are outweighed by the potential benefits in serious medical cases. Especially when prescribed under supervision of a doctor.
The chance of someone encountering harmful side-effects when taking anti-depressants is much greater then "small", many/most people that take anti-depressants will encounter some kind of side effect. The side effects will also sometimes change over time, sometimes for the worse and sometimes for the better. Also a doctor "supervising" a patient taking anti-depressants is not able to closely watch the patient close enough to prevent a potential suicide, it does not take very long to attempt to commit as such. Furthermore, what you said is NOT THE TRUTH. They are most certainly not "nothing but placebos for depression". Maybe a certain drug class (SSRI's for example) would have no pharmacological effect on a patient and help them feel better by placebo effect alone, but another drug class (say SNRI's) might genuinely work to pharmacologically positively affect a patient.
These drugs do mess with your brain's chemistry and are not placebos, but it is really hard to say what the effect will be prior to a patient actually taking the drug. I was about to post a link to Kevin Miller's documentarty, "Generation Rx", but can't find it. Until I do, here is one of his other talks/ lectures.
http://youtu.be/0YVmjav2er8
I wouldn't wish their prescribed quackery on my worst enemy.
The chance of someone encountering harmful side-effects when taking anti-depressants is much greater then "small"
If we redefine "harmful" as "undesirable", then fair point.
The side effects will also sometimes change over time, sometimes for the worse and sometimes for the better. Also a doctor "supervising" a patient taking anti-depressants is not able to closely watch the patient close enough to prevent a potential suicide, it does not take very long to attempt to commit as such.
... which makes a good support structure, open lines of communication, and talk therapy imperative during early stages of treatment.
To say "it does not take very long to attempt to commit suicide" is, again, dangerously irresponsible, speaking nothing to the potential positive benefits of therapy.
You might as well be saying "that chances of getting hit by a car are much greater if you leave your house" - completely overlooking the necessity to make a journey to begin with.
These drugs do mess with your brain's chemistry and are not placebos, but it is really hard to say what the effect will be prior to a patient actually taking the drug
Enter the Genomind product which aims to resolve your concerns moving forward. We're getting better at this science stuff.
I'm rather confused why dank was still using this forum anyway. He made it clear he had no interest in Bitcoin, so why choose this topic of forum to promote his rhetoric?
The only logical conclusion I can think of was because his main agenda was to take money from others.
The only logical conclusion I can think of was because his main agenda was to take money from others.
He also said, "the forum just proved everything I said right."
He just doesn't know when to stop does he. 
Dank does tend to spam a lot of incoherent shit, lets not be surprised this happened, to be honest, I think I'm more surprised he didn't get banned sooner given how many newbies and the like get banned for less spam than what he posted.
True enough Mircea got banned on less than Dank and is still in the graveyard
What a trilema (well not really)
I guess it could be moved to a month new year new start thing at the least Dank does need some time off.
Dank derails pretty much every thread he posts in, it's very annoying.
I don't know if he really has mental issues or if he's just trolling, but in the end it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.
I think the issue is that he will constantly get trolled regarding his defaulted loan where ever he posts and he will respond to the troll which gets the conversation off topic. He also seems to say somewhat "off the wall" ideas often and people tend to react to the strangeness of what he says.I don't know if he really has mental issues or if he's just trolling, but in the end it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.
It's bad advice because the small chance of encountering negative side-effects are outweighed by the potential benefits in serious medical cases. Especially when prescribed under supervision of a doctor.
The chance of someone encountering harmful side-effects when taking anti-depressants is much greater then "small", many/most people that take anti-depressants will encounter some kind of side effect. The side effects will also sometimes change over time, sometimes for the worse and sometimes for the better. Also a doctor "supervising" a patient taking anti-depressants is not able to closely watch the patient close enough to prevent a potential suicide, it does not take very long to attempt to commit as such. Furthermore, what you said is NOT THE TRUTH. They are most certainly not "nothing but placebos for depression". Maybe a certain drug class (SSRI's for example) would have no pharmacological effect on a patient and help them feel better by placebo effect alone, but another drug class (say SNRI's) might genuinely work to pharmacologically positively affect a patient.
These drugs do mess with your brain's chemistry and are not placebos, but it is really hard to say what the effect will be prior to a patient actually taking the drug. 
Dank derails pretty much every thread he posts in, it's very annoying.
I don't know if he really has mental issues or if he's just trolling, but in the end it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.
I don't know if he really has mental issues or if he's just trolling, but in the end it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.
He even derailed this thread, even though he has not written a single word.
Can we move this in the pharmacy section please?
It's bad advice because the small chance of encountering negative side-effects are outweighed by the potential benefits in serious medical cases. Especially when prescribed under supervision of a doctor.
Furthermore, what you said is NOT THE TRUTH. They are most certainly not "nothing but placebos for depression". Maybe a certain drug class (SSRI's for example) would have no pharmacological effect on a patient and help them feel better by placebo effect alone, but another drug class (say SNRI's) might genuinely work to pharmacologically positively affect a patient.
Your perspective smacks of Jenny McCarthy uneducated "anti-vax" nonsense, and is not rooted in science or our current (limited) understanding of brain chemistry.
And speaking to an increase in depression or ideations of suicide, I suspect you might be referring to cases where anti depressants are contraindicated for use in young adults due to those negative side-effects being two to three times more likely to occur.
... speaking of bad and very dangerous advice ...
Patients respond differently to different medications. You're always supposed to be getting onto meds under a doctors supervision.
How is it bad and dangerous advice? What I stated is the truth. I think most people will agree that taking something that can actually cause suicidal behaviour when you're depressed is a pretty bad idea. And what do doctors know in this regard? You go to a doctor tell them you feel a bit sad and 9/10 without hesitation they'll throw a load of pills at you. I think blindly taking anything they give you is taking bad advice. Quiz them in depth about whatever medications they give you and they'll usually be unable to tell you anything other than what's written on the box or the little sheet of paper they get from the pharma companies telling them what and when not to give them.
Furthermore, what you said is NOT THE TRUTH. They are most certainly not "nothing but placebos for depression". Maybe a certain drug class (SSRI's for example) would have no pharmacological effect on a patient and help them feel better by placebo effect alone, but another drug class (say SNRI's) might genuinely work to pharmacologically positively affect a patient.
Your perspective smacks of Jenny McCarthy uneducated "anti-vax" nonsense, and is not rooted in science or our current (limited) understanding of brain chemistry.
And speaking to an increase in depression or ideations of suicide, I suspect you might be referring to cases where anti depressants are contraindicated for use in young adults due to those negative side-effects being two to three times more likely to occur.
they're now known to be pretty much nothing but placebos for depression
... speaking of bad and very dangerous advice ...
Patients respond differently to different medications. You're always supposed to be getting onto meds under a doctors supervision.
How is it bad and dangerous advice? What I stated is the truth. I think most people will agree that taking something that can actually cause suicidal behaviour when you're depressed is a pretty bad idea. And what do doctors know in this regard? You go to a doctor tell them you feel a bit sad and 9/10 without hesitation they'll throw a load of pills at you. I think blindly taking anything they give you is taking bad advice. Quiz them in depth about whatever medications they give you and they'll usually be unable to tell you anything other than what's written on the box or the little sheet of paper they get from the pharma companies telling them what and when not to give them.
Dank derails pretty much every thread he posts in, it's very annoying.
I don't know if he really has mental issues or if he's just trolling, but in the end it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.
I don't know if he really has mental issues or if he's just trolling, but in the end it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.
global moderator
Activity: 4046
Merit: 2732
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
they're now known to be pretty much nothing but placebos for depression
... speaking of bad and very dangerous advice ...
Patients respond differently to different medications. You're always supposed to be getting onto meds under a doctors supervision.
How is it bad and dangerous advice? What I stated is the truth. I think most people will agree that taking something that can actually cause suicidal behaviour when you're depressed is a pretty bad idea. And what do doctors know in this regard? You go to a doctor tell them you feel a bit sad and 9/10 without hesitation they'll throw a load of pills at you. I think blindly taking anything they give you is taking bad advice. Quiz them in depth about whatever medications they give you and they'll usually be unable to tell you anything other than what's written on the box or the little sheet of paper they get from the pharma companies telling them what and when not to give them.
they're now known to be pretty much nothing but placebos for depression
... speaking of bad and very dangerous advice ...
Patients respond differently to different medications. You're always supposed to be getting onto meds under a doctors supervision.
There is some excellent emerging work with genotyping done by http://www.genomind.com/faqs/ - Their Genecept Assay product is one of the first products that allows doctors to tailor treatments based on how well a patients physiology may or may not interact with different classes of drugs.
global moderator
Activity: 4046
Merit: 2732
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Agreed. Arguable as to whether it is bad advice. I think actually most if not all anti-depressants carry the side effect warning of potential increased suicidal ideation and they're now known to be pretty much nothing but placebos for depression (not to mention usually having a load of other bad side effects), so this is one 'conspiracy theory' that he's actually probably right on. Still, they can help people but only as much as a placebo can. I'd also advise people not to take them or at least with caution and research various alternative means instead.
Maybe the ban was awarded because he was giving out dangerous advice to a potential suicide member on this thread:
Probably not, but antidepressants can actually increase the risk of suicide for some people. They also effectively change your personality/the way you think, so some could say that antidepressants (along with mood stabilizers and others) can change who you are as a person. And god whatever you do, don't result to pharmaceutical antidepressants.
Wow, I cannot believe you just wrote this. What would happen if the guy is genuinely suicidal and taking medication and decides to take your "advice", and something bad happens because of it?
Maybe the ban was awarded because he was giving out dangerous advice to a potential suicide member on this thread:
I think a little break from the forum would do him good. Less of a distraction for him maybe.
And god whatever you do, don't result to pharmaceutical antidepressants.
Wow, I cannot believe you just wrote this. What would happen if the guy is genuinely suicidal and taking medication and decides to take your "advice", and something bad happens because of it?I think a little break from the forum would do him good. Less of a distraction for him maybe.
I'm not sure if a break away from this forum is all he needs to get his life back on track. And Phinny has used his main account as collateral for a loan. He is currently posting under the account Gleb Gammow or something.
Better then keep posting here and doing nothing, I assume
. I see, thanks for the heads-up. global moderator
Activity: 4046
Merit: 2732
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
I'm not sure if a break away from this forum is all he needs to get his life back on track. And Phinny has used his main account as collateral for a loan. He is currently posting under the account Gleb Gammow or something.
I remember we had a case with him last time where he showed signs of suicide via posts here. Bruno even called the cops on him just in case (bless him, where's old Bruno now?). That said, I guess him having some time off the forums to get his life straightened out would be a good change too. Maybe a ban removal some time in the future?
Dank does tend to spam a lot of incoherent shit, lets not be surprised this happened, to be honest, I think I'm more surprised he didn't get banned sooner given how many newbies and the like get banned for less spam than what he posted.
I'm sure if he paid Squall back he might have his ban removed.
That's a lot of stuff he could sell if he wasn't so greedy. Not to mention the motorbike he can't ride.
That's a lot of stuff he could sell if he wasn't so greedy. Not to mention the motorbike he can't ride.
I was under the impression that the forums didn't moderate scamming, I'm not sure why his payment to squall would be factored into his ban.
I don't think it was. dank constantly posts nonsense threads. I think the mods just got sick of it. According to dank, he was warned twice already.
I understand that, I was responding to your idea that if he repays squall he might get unbanned. I don't see that happening, since his ban should have been for unrelated reasons.
The forum isn't run by logical robots. I have no idea since I'm not a mod, but I believe if dank came back and repaid his debts and promised to behave, he might be unbanned. It would be a win win for everyone. But that's just my ignorant opinion.
I'm sure if he paid Squall back he might have his ban removed.
That's a lot of stuff he could sell if he wasn't so greedy. Not to mention the motorbike he can't ride.
That's a lot of stuff he could sell if he wasn't so greedy. Not to mention the motorbike he can't ride.
I was under the impression that the forums didn't moderate scamming, I'm not sure why his payment to squall would be factored into his ban.
I don't think it was. dank constantly posts nonsense threads. I think the mods just got sick of it. According to dank, he was warned twice already.
I understand that, I was responding to your idea that if he repays squall he might get unbanned. I don't see that happening, since his ban should have been for unrelated reasons.
I'm sure if he paid Squall back he might have his ban removed.
That's a lot of stuff he could sell if he wasn't so greedy. Not to mention the motorbike he can't ride.
That's a lot of stuff he could sell if he wasn't so greedy. Not to mention the motorbike he can't ride.
I was under the impression that the forums didn't moderate scamming, I'm not sure why his payment to squall would be factored into his ban.
I don't think it was. dank constantly posts nonsense threads. I think the mods just got sick of it. According to dank, he was warned twice already.
I'm sure if he paid Squall back he might have his ban removed.
That's a lot of stuff he could sell if he wasn't so greedy. Not to mention the motorbike he can't ride.
That's a lot of stuff he could sell if he wasn't so greedy. Not to mention the motorbike he can't ride.
I was under the impression that the forums didn't moderate scamming, I'm not sure why his payment to squall would be factored into his ban.
Vod dank has told me he expected to fulfill the obligation with squall early next year.
dank has a history of lying. Don't believe anything he tells you.
If he does pay squall back, then great! But I won't hold my breath.
How can someone be automatically permanently banned?
Vod dank has told me he expected to fulfill the obligation with squall early next year.
Vod dank has told me he expected to fulfill the obligation with squall early next year.
I think that picture is very sad and I hope that is not how he is living.
Don't feel sorry for him. His parent's would let him move back in if he stopped with the drugs. He brings everything on himself.
When all is said and done, Sean Martin will eternally be known for being a scammer. Not for the theft itself, but for his unwillingness to repay.
I think he most likely converted his loan to fiat and then bitcoin eventually went through the roof causing him to have sold the ~50 BTC for ~$800 and then was asked to repay $10,000 as a settlement offer because the price of bitcoin had gone up so much. I don't think those were very fair terms regardless of what he agreed to. I think that if squal were to invest that kind of money in a "bank" loan that had little chance of getting repaid then he would have probably lost that money in some other dubious investment/ponzi. I think that dank would have repaid his loan if he were given an amount to repay that was much closer to the amount he actually borrowed. I think that he probably tried to honor his agreement to repay the loan but was eventually told by someone that it was not fair for him.
Trust me, I am not defending scammers, as I have personally called out a number of scams, including some that no one else has noticed/discovered before I was able to connect the dots (which probably has hurt my business BTW). I think that any true scammer should rot in hell as they are stealing from others who have worked hard for their money.
This is a real shame.
Namaste.
Namaste.
I think that picture is very sad and I hope that is not how he is living.
Don't feel sorry for him. His parent's would let him move back in if he stopped with the drugs and dropped the god complex. He brings everything on himself.
When all is said and done, Sean Martin will eternally be known for being a scammer. Not for the theft itself, but for his unwillingness to repay.
The modlog says that he was auto banned, and reports in the above thread say that he has said he ban was permanent. I think that picture is very sad and I hope that is not how he is living.
Dank shows signs of bipolar disorder which is a very sad disorder and affects a very close friend of mine. It is something that will sometimes make you think something is a good decision when it is really not (this is especially true when it comes to things regarding money). It will also make you sometimes act in ways that people will often find strange. I don't think that he intended to troll (which is probably what he was banned for), I think he always has had good intentions on here. I think he was trying to follow the rules of the forum, which may be difficult for him to do.
I think it is sad when people on here ridicule him for how he acts and for the claims that he makes. I don't think his intentions were to scam anyone and that he wanted to make people be a good person when he made that thread. If squal were to have made a reasonable settlement offer to settle his debt (something well under 4 figures in US dollars worth of bitcoin) then I would personally pay his debt as he does not deserve to get harassed the way he did about a stupid mistake that he made years ago on here.
If it were up to me (it is not) I would personally reverse the ban, however I would seriously doubt that will happen.
Dank shows signs of bipolar disorder which is a very sad disorder and affects a very close friend of mine. It is something that will sometimes make you think something is a good decision when it is really not (this is especially true when it comes to things regarding money). It will also make you sometimes act in ways that people will often find strange. I don't think that he intended to troll (which is probably what he was banned for), I think he always has had good intentions on here. I think he was trying to follow the rules of the forum, which may be difficult for him to do.
I think it is sad when people on here ridicule him for how he acts and for the claims that he makes. I don't think his intentions were to scam anyone and that he wanted to make people be a good person when he made that thread. If squal were to have made a reasonable settlement offer to settle his debt (something well under 4 figures in US dollars worth of bitcoin) then I would personally pay his debt as he does not deserve to get harassed the way he did about a stupid mistake that he made years ago on here.
If it were up to me (it is not) I would personally reverse the ban, however I would seriously doubt that will happen.
I'm sure if he paid Squall back he might have his ban removed.
That's a lot of stuff he could sell if he wasn't so greedy. Not to mention the motorbike he can't ride.
That's a lot of stuff he could sell if he wasn't so greedy. Not to mention the motorbike he can't ride.
He also said, "the forum just proved everything I said right."
Nothing more.
Nothing more.
I talk to dank off of these forums. He's a good guy with good intentions, in my opinion.
He was banned after posting this thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-get-into-heaven-for-free-no-cost-100-free-877083
And he asked that I give this as his appeal:
He was banned after posting this thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-get-into-heaven-for-free-no-cost-100-free-877083
And he asked that I give this as his appeal:
Jump to: