Topic: Hate mail from spammers and other forum abusers (Read 572 times)
Anybody who bombards you with hate mail isn’t worth wasting your time on. They don’t even deserve the effort of this thread. Just report their pm to a mod &/or put them on ignore.
OP, are you an angry Cub Scout master? Axing for a friend. You really need a safe space and this ain’t it, brother.
Hope those terrible “hate” mails from forum “abusers” don’t keep you up at night. lol
And you chose to use a self censored thread. Like liberals, all talk and accusations, but scared to hear opposing views or people defending themselves, given this thread is designed to accuse people of wrongdoing.
You’re a smart one.
Subject: Yo Sitch!
BTW, you have over 4,000 merit points with a newer account than mine. I’m high caliber, that’s just not possible. How do you do it, brother?
BTW, you have over 4,000 merit points with a newer account than mine. I’m high caliber, that’s just not possible. How do you do it, brother?
Wait, what? I’m under “active investigation“ by the boyscout merit police? Hahaha!!! Am I gonna get fired? Banned? That much less stress for me. Hahaha! Don’t you stop this active investigation, we clearly gotz real criminal activity and scams going on here. Lol
I haven’t had a guy to troll for weeks. Thanks for posting my PM, sitch. Lol
I wonder if their keyboard look like this
I'm sure they obviously do. It's a major correction of the limitations of the hardware for them and for them it helps but yet, the system and it's rules suppasses all. I don't know what is wrong with some users that they don't tend to understand the integrity that comes with accepting one's fault than trying to justifying why what and what is being committed as if, the means or the why makes it right.Worst still, some of them go about abusing someone over the web because, they've just got this in invisibility behind there keyboard and as such, there timid and depressed nature is surpressed. I'm just sure what is worth them would be dished out to them in dose that they never expect but still gets.
Good job keeping the forum's decency @OP, I applaud you.
Subject: Yo Sitch!
BTW, you have over 4,000 merit points with a newer account than mine. I’m high caliber, that’s just not possible. How do you do it, brother?
BTW, you have over 4,000 merit points with a newer account than mine. I’m high caliber, that’s just not possible. How do you do it, brother?
UNSOLICITED HOSTILE COMMUNICATION SEEKING TO INFLUENCE MY TRUST-RELATED DECISIONS
Yes, I can; but I do not wish to.
Please be advised that this PM discussion may be published at my discretion.
Please be advised i NOT PERMIT this discussion be published
but i know
you from lauda gand and she's assliker
good luck
People fell to this nonsense in my case and got completely played by these children who will now use explicit statements of such to try and re-establish more abuse. Confidentiality only works in agreement if you do it up front, and even then it is debatable depending on what is happening (keep a death threat confidential? No). hi
can you explane why you excluded me?
can you explane why you excluded me?
Yes, I can; but I do not wish to.
Please be advised that this PM discussion may be published at my discretion.
but i know
you from lauda gand and she's assliker
good luck
LoL I also got exact same PM's from peloso. I am not sure If I should publish them though.
I just ignored his ass.
he went mad after his bribes didn't work on me. Maybe he was always mad, dunno.
Funnily he also told me to not share the PM's.
I just ignored his ass.
he went mad after his bribes didn't work on me. Maybe he was always mad, dunno.
Funnily he also told me to not share the PM's.
It’s funny, the imbeciles and assorted trolls whining at Lauda and now at Vod forgot that I have a whole thread for this:
UNSOLICITED HOSTILE COMMUNICATION SEEKING TO INFLUENCE MY TRUST-RELATED DECISIONS
[...]
(...etc...)
UNSOLICITED HOSTILE COMMUNICATION SEEKING TO INFLUENCE MY TRUST-RELATED DECISIONS
Whines > /dev/null. Otherwise, shall be published here.
I will duly oppress your opinion by filing it in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️
...as part of your life advice to me, which I duly filed in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️
Your “lesson” as such is duly filed in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️
I will not waste my time arguing with a troll on endless forum threads about this. He is beneath reply. Case closed. Direct complaints to /dev/null, and DNFTT.
* nullius dons moderation hat.
[...]
Complaints > /dev/null
That is a conclusion, not an argument—and certainly not an invitation to debate. I will only debate Faketoshi or his shills if they can produce the most basic piece of evidence: A verifiable signed statement by one of Satoshi’s known keys, identifying Craig Wright as Satoshi. They do not do so, because they are liars or dupes—period. That is the truth, the objective truth, based on facts and not “debates”. Complaints >/dev/null
This is how it’s done, folks!
So having said, I will not argue the point. Complaints 2>/dev/null (Thanks, Anonymous, for the upgraded shell script!)
P.S.,
Complaints > /dev/null
Complaints > /dev/null
Whines > /dev/null.
Edit, P.S.: In case that last line be ignored, I reserve the right to publicly post PMs, e-mails, etc. from spammers and/or spam supporters and/or spammer supporters.
Edit, P.S.: In case that last line be ignored, I reserve the right to publicly post PMs, e-mails, etc. from spammers and/or spam supporters and/or spammer supporters.
At my exclusive discretion, I reserve the right to publicly post any PMs received by me (0) on the subject of negative trust feedback left by me, and/or (1) in relation to such a public discussion as this one.
Whines > /dev/null.
Whines > /dev/null.
(...etc...)
You live is really miserable, how much t8me you waste o formatting? 
))
Also have balls to quote whole message, not drag sentence out of context to create something suits you)
Though what to expect from narrow minded Lauda shill
At least now I have real reason to give you negative trust)))
))Also have balls to quote whole message, not drag sentence out of context to create something suits you
)Though what to expect from narrow minded Lauda shill
At least now I have real reason to give you negative trust
)))I read your feedback against nullius.
You are accusing him of being a software bot?
Well, no. He put some BS against me, I do same towards him
It strange to call pro-XRP person Bcash shill
But hey, anyone can have paranoic dilemas in this crypto world!
Man just overplayed in his role.
You live is really miserable, how much t8me you waste o formatting? ))
Also have balls to quote whole message, not drag sentence out of context to create something suits you)
Though what to expect from narrow minded Lauda shill
At least now I have real reason to give you negative trust)))
))Also have balls to quote whole message, not drag sentence out of context to create something suits you
)Though what to expect from narrow minded Lauda shill
At least now I have real reason to give you negative trust
)))I read your feedback against nullius.
You are accusing him of being a software bot?
You live is really miserable, how much t8me you waste o formatting? ))
Also have balls to quote whole message, not drag sentence out of context to create something suits you)
Though what to expect from narrow minded Lauda shill
At least now I have real reason to give you negative trust)))
))Also have balls to quote whole message, not drag sentence out of context to create something suits you
)Though what to expect from narrow minded Lauda shill
At least now I have real reason to give you negative trust
)))
An off-topic insult by Btrash shill #981616 “vsyc” has been archived and deleted from my trust feedback policy thread:
Retaliatory negative trust feedback from “vsyc” to nullius:
Date: 2018-03-25
Risked BTC amount: 0
Reference: (none)
...“vsyc” proceeded to declare:
(...etc., ad nauseam...)
Historical note: That thread saw my first direct involvement with immediate controversy on the Bitcoin Forum, although it wasn’t really an interesting fight due to the abject stupidity of Btrash pushers; e.g.:
Yawn.
(But it is amusing that this should be brought up again today, shortly after I became involved in a discussion about how an open, honest form of ASICBOOST is coming to Bitcoin.)
You such a joke, catch negative trust from me ))
))Retaliatory negative trust feedback from “vsyc” to nullius:
Date: 2018-03-25
Risked BTC amount: 0
Reference: (none)
If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.
...“vsyc” proceeded to declare:
When exchanges start switching to Bitcoin Cash and recognise it as next version of Bitcoin, than you will look like stupid clowns.
Bitcoin is a scam. Bitcoin Cash is the future and upgrade of Bitcoin (a.k.a. Dead Horse)
(...etc., ad nauseam...)
Historical note: That thread saw my first direct involvement with immediate controversy on the Bitcoin Forum, although it wasn’t really an interesting fight due to the abject stupidity of Btrash pushers; e.g.:
ill say it here...BITCOIN CASH IS THE REAL BITCOIN
Yawn.
(But it is amusing that this should be brought up again today, shortly after I became involved in a discussion about how an open, honest form of ASICBOOST is coming to Bitcoin.)
N.b. my edits to OP and feedbacks, articulating a suspicion of farmed/traded sockpuppets. I am not yet experienced at running those down. Someone who is may want to take a peek.
@Joel_Jantsen: No, that’s the keyboard I use when I see people spamming the forum. Whereas it appears that @actmyname’s must have katana and wakizashi affixed in traditional pairing. Having not studied that particular form of poetry, I will not attempt to split cherry blossoms. Rather, I will gather up a pile of spam, light it on fire, and apply the glowing red coals to melt all the special snowflakes who demand that the forum serve as their personal free money machine.
@Joel_Jantsen: No, that’s the keyboard I use when I see people spamming the forum. Whereas it appears that @actmyname’s must have katana and wakizashi affixed in traditional pairing. Having not studied that particular form of poetry, I will not attempt to split cherry blossoms. Rather, I will gather up a pile of spam, light it on fire, and apply the glowing red coals to melt all the special snowflakes who demand that the forum serve as their personal free money machine.
I wonder if their keyboard look like this
Envious Blongers
Almost piteous are they
An embarrassment.
Almost piteous are they
An embarrassment.
Reserved.
The purpose of this thread is to publish hate-mail, whines, threats, etc. I receive for spamfighting activity, in cases where no other pertinent thread exists. If/where warranted, I may then use posts here as references for issuing negative trust feedback.
N.b.: Although I always handle my communications as a gentleman, and I would issue negative trust feedback for unreasonable or treacherous disclosure of personal communications, I publish unsolicited hostile communications as a matter of policy. Be guided accordingly.
To inaugurate this thread, following is my very first hate-note specifically for spamfighting activities on this forum. (I have previously (2018-02-16) received a PM threat from a troll who was subsequently banned.)
PM from: #1431219 “quyhj94”
Activity: 70
Merit: 0
Posts: 124
Account (archived) personal text: “Thu Quy”
Account current signature: “ARCBLOCK ┃PRIVATE SALE OPEN ON 12TH -28 JANUARY ┃ARCBLOCK (https://www. arcblock .io/)” [spaces added to prevent URL from linkifying]
Prior history: Merit-beggar who spammed the forum repeatedly begging for merit. Red-tagged by me 2018-02-05, later by others. Note: #1809792 “littlepony” left this user two positive feedbacks on 2018-02-17, in a self-evident (futile!) attempt to counteract negative feedbacks. “littlepony” has an account (archived) “website” field consisting of a reflink for bountyplatform.io. I am red-tagging “littlepony” for trust farming; see below. I should thank “quyhj94” for bringing this to my attention with its hate-PM.
Subject: Fuck you bitch !
After I post this, I will leave additional negative trust feedback for #1431219 “quyhj94” with this post as a reference, and the following comment:
After I post this, I will leave negative feedback for #1809792 “littlepony” with this post as a reference, and the following comment:
Whines > /dev/null. Otherwise, shall be published here.
Edited to add note about both #1809792 and #1431219 having recently reset passwords. Both negative feedbacks have been adjusted to note this; also, to cross-reference the trust farming. “For investigative purposes *only*, I here articulate a suspicion that these ‘users’ may be farmed and traded sockpuppet accounts.”
N.b.: Although I always handle my communications as a gentleman, and I would issue negative trust feedback for unreasonable or treacherous disclosure of personal communications, I publish unsolicited hostile communications as a matter of policy. Be guided accordingly.
PM = Personal Message, not Private Message.
Compare "private interview" to "personal interview" or "private locker" to "personal locker". Something private isn't expected to be made public, but something personal is only owned by or associated with a single person, not necessarily with a strong guarantee of privacy.
To inaugurate this thread, following is my very first hate-note specifically for spamfighting activities on this forum. (I have previously (2018-02-16) received a PM threat from a troll who was subsequently banned.)
PM from: #1431219 “quyhj94”
Activity: 70
Merit: 0
Posts: 124
Account (archived) personal text: “Thu Quy”
Account current signature: “ARCBLOCK ┃PRIVATE SALE OPEN ON 12TH -28 JANUARY ┃ARCBLOCK (https://www. arcblock .io/)” [spaces added to prevent URL from linkifying]
Prior history: Merit-beggar who spammed the forum repeatedly begging for merit. Red-tagged by me 2018-02-05, later by others. Note: #1809792 “littlepony” left this user two positive feedbacks on 2018-02-17, in a self-evident (futile!) attempt to counteract negative feedbacks. “littlepony” has an account (archived) “website” field consisting of a reflink for bountyplatform.io. I am red-tagging “littlepony” for trust farming; see below. I should thank “quyhj94” for bringing this to my attention with its hate-PM.
Subject: Fuck you bitch !
Fuck you bitch !
After I post this, I will leave additional negative trust feedback for #1431219 “quyhj94” with this post as a reference, and the following comment:
Quote from: nullius
Vitriolically unrepentant merit-beggar. Repeatedly red-tagged for merit begging and spamming the forum to beg for merit; negative feedback issued by me on 2018-02-05, by Vod on 2018-02-06, and by DannyHamilton on 2018-02-20. Subsequently sent me a hate-PM:
Date: 2018-02-27 09:08:29Z
Subject: Fuck you bitch !
Text: “Fuck you bitch !”
Such a renegade response from one who has been caught doing wrong is demonstrative of an incorrigible and *untrustworthy* character. AVOID.
(Note: This account #1431219 was sent two transparent sham positive feedbacks on 2018-02-17 from #1809792 “littlepony” in a bald-faced attempt to counteract deserved and documented negative feedbacks. See reference link.)
(Also note: As of the time I post this, this account #1431219’s trust page bears the notation, “This user's password was reset recently.” The same notation appears on #1809792’s trust page. For investigative purposes *only*, I here articulate a suspicion that these “users” may be farmed and traded sockpuppet accounts.)
This feedback is made consistently with my trust feedback policy:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nullian-trust-feedback-policy-working-draft-3009256
Date: 2018-02-27 09:08:29Z
Subject: Fuck you bitch !
Text: “Fuck you bitch !”
Such a renegade response from one who has been caught doing wrong is demonstrative of an incorrigible and *untrustworthy* character. AVOID.
(Note: This account #1431219 was sent two transparent sham positive feedbacks on 2018-02-17 from #1809792 “littlepony” in a bald-faced attempt to counteract deserved and documented negative feedbacks. See reference link.)
(Also note: As of the time I post this, this account #1431219’s trust page bears the notation, “This user's password was reset recently.” The same notation appears on #1809792’s trust page. For investigative purposes *only*, I here articulate a suspicion that these “users” may be farmed and traded sockpuppet accounts.)
This feedback is made consistently with my trust feedback policy:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nullian-trust-feedback-policy-working-draft-3009256
After I post this, I will leave negative feedback for #1809792 “littlepony” with this post as a reference, and the following comment:
Quote from: nullius
Trust-farming. On 2018-02-17, #1809792 “littlepony” left two positive trust feedbacks for #1431219 “quyhj94” in a self-evident (futile!) attempt to counteract negative trust feedback which “quyhj94” had received for merit-begging and spamming the forum to beg for merit.
Pertinent history (excluding a neutral feedback for “quyhj94” 2018-02-05 for merit-begging, and also *another* negative feedback for “quyhj94” 2018-02-20 for merit-begging):
nullius’ negative feedback to #1431219 “quyhj94”
Date: 2018-02-05
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000
Reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20180205161858/https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-new-rank-requirements-2818350
Comment: “Has spammed almost identical ‘Dear my friend’ merit-begging posts into multiple threads (one of which is archived in reference). FOR SHAME, AND FOR SHAME AGAIN! (Note: At the time of this writing, quyhj94’s trust page says, ‘This user's password was reset recently.’)”
Vod’s negative feedback to #1431219 “quyhj94”
Date: 2018-02-06
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000
Reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-new-rank-requirements-2818350
Comment: “Spamming the forum asking for merit.”
#1809792 “littlepony” positive feedback to #1431219 “quyhj94”
Date: 2018-02-17
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000
Reference: (none)
Comment: “Why?”
#1809792 “littlepony” positive feedback to #1431219 “quyhj94”
Date: 2018-02-17
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000
Reference: (none)
Comment: “I believe him, he is good man !”
(Side note that #1431219’s “Gender” field says “Female”. On the Internet, who knows. Anyway, she is not good man ! )
https://web.archive.org/web/20180227092533/https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/quyhj94-1431219
(Also note: As of the time I post this, this account #1809792’s trust page bears the notation, “This user's password was reset recently.” The same notation appears on #1431219’s trust page. For investigative purposes *only*, I here articulate a suspicion that these “users” may be farmed and traded sockpuppet accounts.)
Leaving sham positive trust feedback for the transparent dominant purpose of attempting to counteract deserved and documented negative feedback is *untrustworthy behaviour*.
This feedback is made consistently with my trust feedback policy:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nullian-trust-feedback-policy-working-draft-3009256
Pertinent history (excluding a neutral feedback for “quyhj94” 2018-02-05 for merit-begging, and also *another* negative feedback for “quyhj94” 2018-02-20 for merit-begging):
nullius’ negative feedback to #1431219 “quyhj94”
Date: 2018-02-05
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000
Reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20180205161858/https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-new-rank-requirements-2818350
Comment: “Has spammed almost identical ‘Dear my friend’ merit-begging posts into multiple threads (one of which is archived in reference). FOR SHAME, AND FOR SHAME AGAIN! (Note: At the time of this writing, quyhj94’s trust page says, ‘This user's password was reset recently.’)”
Vod’s negative feedback to #1431219 “quyhj94”
Date: 2018-02-06
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000
Reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-new-rank-requirements-2818350
Comment: “Spamming the forum asking for merit.”
#1809792 “littlepony” positive feedback to #1431219 “quyhj94”
Date: 2018-02-17
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000
Reference: (none)
Comment: “Why?”
#1809792 “littlepony” positive feedback to #1431219 “quyhj94”
Date: 2018-02-17
Risked BTC amount: 0.00000000
Reference: (none)
Comment: “I believe him, he is good man !”
(Side note that #1431219’s “Gender” field says “Female”. On the Internet, who knows. Anyway, she is not good man ! )
https://web.archive.org/web/20180227092533/https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/quyhj94-1431219
(Also note: As of the time I post this, this account #1809792’s trust page bears the notation, “This user's password was reset recently.” The same notation appears on #1431219’s trust page. For investigative purposes *only*, I here articulate a suspicion that these “users” may be farmed and traded sockpuppet accounts.)
Leaving sham positive trust feedback for the transparent dominant purpose of attempting to counteract deserved and documented negative feedback is *untrustworthy behaviour*.
This feedback is made consistently with my trust feedback policy:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nullian-trust-feedback-policy-working-draft-3009256
Whines > /dev/null. Otherwise, shall be published here.
Edited to add note about both #1809792 and #1431219 having recently reset passwords. Both negative feedbacks have been adjusted to note this; also, to cross-reference the trust farming. “For investigative purposes *only*, I here articulate a suspicion that these ‘users’ may be farmed and traded sockpuppet accounts.”
Jump to: