Topic: Evidence of alias (u=1764044) long con scam! - page 13. (Read 6718 times)

So what's the verdict? Forum's favorite camgirl turned scamgirl?

One thing that I want to point out - and it's obviously quite redundant after 16 pages but anyway - the gambling script thing is where this fairy tale should have ended. There is no such thing as a winning script, and even if there is some sort of a hack/cheat - you're basically robbing a gambling site just by testing the script. It takes a staggering amount of naiveté (I'm gonna be generous here and assume that's what it is) to stake one's reputation on vouching for something like this.

I have handled >10 BTC without my iTcHy sCaMmEr hAnDs making a grab for them.

Atriz probably doesn’t care about that sort of money

I notice this thread last night and while I did find it this thread to be very interesting, I want to ask clarification about alia "brother".

Why did your "brother" offer a "hot girl vid/pic service" claiming to be a 18 year old girl if hes not a girl, and not 18? (http://archive.is/tt836#selection-6289.0-6321.15) I honestly do not really buy the whole "brother" thing but if it is proven to be true that you have a brother and you two arent actors on skype (assuming someone would go that length to validate anything, which I doubt), then would that also prove that your "brother" is a scammer? I just find it a bit odd that
favours would claim to be a girl but youre stating hes your brother.

I think you need a citation for this.

Oh man. Both of you are suffering from persecutory delusions. I give a shit on you and also on Lauda. The only thing you both do all day is to blame you. Like little kids. My God, grow up. Both of you should leave your house more to enjoy your life. Which adult person has "enemies" on the internet? You do not need to answer my question at all. I will not discuss with you or with anyone else about your toddler disputes.  

The difference is that leaving yourself positive trust is highly not done on this forum. Many people use trust to confirm their own alt-accounts (I did it too), but this trust should be neutral, not positive.

You're posting this as if it is some new revelation which I did not intend for people to see. You're also posting this as if it being positive, negative or neutral makes any difference whatsoever to my trust score. *yawn*

No, I’m posting this as if you were just talking about how trustworthy you were—which you were—and also, as if you had just recently upthread alleged yourself to have sent positive feedback from your alleged brother’s account to yours—which you did—and also, as if you were told that sending yourself positive feedback is wrong, and you brushed it off as an isolated incidence—which you did...

You're posting this as if it is some new revelation which I did not intend for people to see. You're also posting this as if it being positive, negative or neutral makes any difference whatsoever to my trust score. *yawn*

Side note:  Whilst preparing another post, I noticed this:  On the trust page for #1764044 “alia”, some new positive feedback!

Positive feedback from #1892451 “alia_alt” to #1764044 “alia”
Date: 2018-02-28
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000


Yes, a positive.  Not a neutral.

I took a screenshot, but can’t be bothered to upload it right now.  (A hassle, because imgur blocks uploads from Tor.)

Back to preparing the post for which I needed to review Alia’s trust summary...

Confirmed that Nullius = Sith Lord.

You like to deal in absolutes

And exchanges that turned out to be a scam handled thousands of bitcoins before stealing any of them. It means nothing that you haven't stolen 10 bitcoins if your plans are to steal more, not saying you are.

This sums it up. I may have looked at my friend's test in the 5th grade and copied a word or two, but I have handled >10 BTC without my iTcHy sCaMmEr hAnDs making a grab for them. It is possible that one wrongdoing is less serious than another. You like to deal in absolutes, unfortunately the world is not always black and white

Nice attempt to seize the moral high ground in what counts for “moral high ground” in today’s cesspit of a world.  Also, nice attempt to minimize the fact that you were trying to scam people by claiming to know Dave from “the best” “wallet recovery service” IRL.  I nailed you hard on that, right here in this thread.  Is that what you would consider a minor infraction?  Or what you yourself purport about leaving yourself positive trust feedback via your alleged brother’s account?  (I red-tag people for that without a second thought!)  Or, for that matter, stealing a candy bar?  Are you one of those people who pretends that shoplifting be inconsequential, a kind of a joke?

Anyway, have you heard of Draco?  He lends his name to the word draconian.  I admire him.

As to trust, dishonesty, and lies specifically, I linked this upthread:

Here apropos, I still remember people whom I know to have cheated in school as teenagers.  I would not trust them in business, even decades later.

Pretty good point, I guess. A crime is a crime. Stealing a candy bar is equal to murder. Today you lost not only a friend but a heart

There are so very many two-legged creatures on this Earth who are for some reason deemed “people”.  If any of them violates my trust, why should I ever grant second chances?  There are too many others out there who are potentially untrustworthy, and too few who are actually trustworthy.  I will never have an opportunity to give a first chance to more than a negligible fraction of all those people.  Why waste my time with anybody who has proved untrustworthy even once?

More generally, I grant neither mercy nor forgiveness to people who did things they knew or should have known were wrong.  Those are not accounted virtues in my religion.  Here apropos, I still remember people whom I know to have cheated in school as teenagers.  I would not trust them in business, even decades later.  They were inferior in character then, and will be now.  I will instead try trusting people who never cheated on school tests.  There are plenty enough who, at least, where never that dishonest.

@actmyname, forum samurai!


Actually, it is tumescent males “thinking with the little head” who are most vulnerable to online sex scams.  Those would be the most likely to swear up and down that any of the cases you have described in this thread were genuine.

For my part—those just joining this thread should be aware that I stated way back in its early pages:  I never saw an Alia cam show or got any pictures sent to me, despite having been under the impression that I could have such things for free.  I intended to, at some point—more as a part of getting to know my lovely camgirl than as wank material.  It just didn’t seem a priority.  I wanted to talk—which I think I did too much of; and I wanted to listen, though she didn’t seem to talk enough.  (FYI also, if/when I seek satisfaction, I can oftentimes be more pleased with pure cybersex—text only, terminal-friendly.)

---

So, you discovered my one weak point:  My deeply-rooted conscionable drive to avoid hurting anybody innocent.  Only, it is not a weak point at all; for it requires actual innocence, a thing which cannot be scammed, manufactured, or exploited.

I tell you:  If you could prove to me to my own independent standards that you are 100% telling the truth, then I would defend you even if every other person on this forum turned against me.  Even if theymos banned me!  I have been in situations where I stood alone against numerous people, in moral opposition.  I am fully capable of it.

Too bad for you, that ship sailed when Dave said he didn’t know you.  “My standards” means that to satisfy my conscience, I do not need to examine massive piles of evidence on many different charges (as I would for red-tags).  It only means I need to catch you in one significant lie.  Whereupon I adhere the ancient and timeless principle:

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

False in one thing, false in everything.