Topic: ibminer’s factually false, defamatory, and reputationally scandalous statement - page 2. (Read 1227 times)

The reality
nullius is a bit butthurt that I called out his hypocritical point of view in a separate thread and we had a difference of opinion.
So, suddenly he now has an issue with a post I made ~2 months ago. Go figure.

The hyperbole in the OP

I'll try to make this easy for you, since I don't want to waste too much time on this.. especially considering the thread was created in anger over me not being a fan of the April fool's joke of the forum. *shrug*

nullius == alia's main supporter, promoter, and the person who made alia who he was on the forum (<- self-admitted, I won't bother posting the PMs unless nullius would like me to).
alia == favours
favours == 15 year old e-whore setting up a long con

My post remains unedited.


I'm also well aware this comment by theymos was made (privately, to both of us) before he linked alia to favours. And I'd assume why he decided to put a

---

(line) separating both statements. Whether he actually still believed there was a camgirl being paid in the same house as favours or not is up to him.

Based on the research I did back then, it was clear to me that favours was not paying anyone, it was him, likely using software and video packs (all commonly used by e-whores).. and being supported by you. Your actions after he was identified showed me you were not someone I, nor anyone, should trust the judgement of.


I never accused theymos of such nonsense. Keep trying.

I'd agree to this if Ibminer actually defamed you. He didn't do any such thing, and you know it. Let's see what defamation means, I have bold-ed it out for you.


Do you think there is a crime, or a tort going on here? Do you think ibiminer unjustly damaged your reputation? From what I can tell, no one but you are damaging your own reputation. You're giving very CH vibes, and posting big paragraphs when you can just say yes or no.

You can go around arguing about underage e-whore but you know its not going to matter, cause everyone is titled to their own opinion. Just like the whole cause of this whole thread, started because you didn't like someone's opinion towards you. Everyone can go around twisting words, but then what is the purpose of all this? Speak with ibminer and figure it out, the more people you involve in this, more people will give you their opinion, which would take you back to square 1.

I might have, yes. Won't happen again. Quite predictably it turned out to be a massive waste of time.

OgNasty being the voice of reason these days is surprising, but a nice twist.

(Neither insult nor flattery is intended—just as none is presumed, for my own part.  I know that you’re just being fair.  So am I.)

---

LOL, trial by combat and code duello are old-fashioned enough for me.  But that does not work through encrypted mixnets.  I guess this is a part of the point of what T. C. May and Wei Dai meant by crypto-anarchy!

Classical antiquity:


The next step beyond modern (and I don’t mean “postmodern”):


Anything is a good opportunity for art and/or talk about crypto-anarchy.  Well, I suppose that we will just need to settle this by rational debate a good old-fashioned Internet flamewar in which I repeatedly need to shoot down irrational and evasive cheap-lawyer nonsense, whilst ignoring arbitrary insults.

---

For you, of all people, to try to lecture me, of all people, about courtesy (let alone drama!) would be comically ironic, if it did not descend to the level of the outright perverse.


Beyond perverse.  Did you read OP, and my subsequent replies to you?

---

With all due thanks for your extensive personal advice, I must ask:  Why do we have a Reputation forum, if not for discussing reputational issues, and publicly settling such grievances as by their nature are best addressed in public, on the record?

I am not simply dismissing what you said:  It is a serious question.  For my part, I do not see any reason why I should hush up my complaint about the public defamation of me.  To the contrary, a part of the actual relief in actual courtroom defamation cases is to get everything out on the record in a public courtroom, so that a prevailing plaintiff can have it publicly demonstrated why he is right.  It can significantly enhance the repair of damage to one’s reputation; in some cases, it can be even more important than monetary damages, which may be nominal, infeasible to prove, or impossible to collect.

---

http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5415/54152367.html

Sometimes for rhetorical purposes.  Other times for efficiency:  If some people are presenting to me arguments that I already sufficiently answered in n different ways, then it is optimal to self-quote (perhaps with boldface, highlighting, large text, etc.), rather than to waste my time writing explanation n+1.

(N.b., although your post was strictly off-topic, I did want to answer it; and I do not want for people to think that I exercised my self-mod powers to delete a post which I would have left intact.)

Edit:  Note to forum moderators:  I assumed that the user deleted his own post (which I obviously didn’t delete myself).  I should have checked modlog.  I would not have tried to gainsay staff moderation over this!  My apologies.

https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php

Quote

• Delete reply: Re: ibminer’s factually false, defamatory, and reputationally scandalous statement in topic #5237500 by member #1012655

I agree with this. Nullius had a whole different reputation and status after he left, everyone thought he was different, witty, and a technical genius. And we wanted for nullius to return back, because more than half of the actual members of the forum practically loved him because he gave the vibes of old 2011 posters, which this forum had been lacking for ages. And now after his return, everything feels different.

Nullius, things wont be the same for you if go around demanding things, publishing pms, and going against DT members isn't going to help. You're better than that, and you know it. Back then, you handled the Alia situation much better, but now its getting quite the opposite. I get it, you're smart, but things won't be the same,  if the things you do keep being the same, it won't go so well. End your disputes privately, its better for everyone.

Gotcha, so you were arguing with yourself there. I got confused by you quoting my post so many different ways that it looked like you were trying to make an actual point about something.


Not really, even a rude PM would have been better than a rude drama thread. Nor is there any wrongdoing. A disagreement at most.

As a person who practiced bodybuilding (and partially martial arts) for the past 20-25 (or more) years, I stand on nullius' side

I say they settle this with a fight to the death.

Lauda being the voice of reason these days is surprising, but a nice twist.



Yes, everyone needs to kiss the ass of ibminer or suchmoon will use the lack of politeness as an excuse to defend his wrongdoing.

OK.  For the nth time:


Do you (stop pretending not to) get it yet?  Or to assist reading comprehension, do I need to add more highlighting, enlarged size, boldface, etc.?

---

No offense taken.  I was fooled; it was cold comfort that “alia” fooled many others, and had even obtained an unprecedented theymos neutral-tag verifying the account as a camgirl.  The level at which I had indeed publicized alia did, in my judgment, impose on me a positive duty to spare no effort in actively contributing to the investigation by the anonymous scam_detector, RGBKey (whose red-tag was the warning that jolted me into taking scam_detector seriously), ibminer (which is why I did respect him—and I appreciated what he did then), theymos himself, you, and too many others succinctly to list.  I never argued with anybody who made fun of me about this, or said that I made an error in judgment—which I admittedly did, and for which I took responsibility as much as I reasonably could.

---

Moved/amplified from edited addendum of previous post:

Maybe alia really did have a friend named Dave.  That part could be true.  In that case, the alia “Dave” scam would have been “technically correct”.  It is still wrong—doubly wrong and doubly dishonest, in the context of alia’s claim to know a “Dave” who was “the best” at “wallet recovery services”.  Context is important; and it is incredible that I need to explain this, let alone drill it in against arguments tantamount to “what the meaning of the word is is”.

---

Quote from: nullius on April 03, 2020, 12:43:15 PM

Or will he now claim that he just didn’t realize that the term “whore” is associated with sex work, and didn’t realize that he was applying the word “whore” to an account that was used for online sex work?

Quote from: alia on February 27, 2018, 10:21:24 PM

You're probably thinking of a different Dave,

Quote from: nullius

“You’re probably thinking of a different word ‘whore’, but yes, the word ‘underage’ can shift its meaning somewhat.”

Beautiful strawman. Now show me where I made the "underage scammer" statement that you're so eagerly debunking.


No one needs to publish any fucking PMs.

1) You PM ibminer (like a normal person, not with a wall of text, not accusing him of any tangential crimes). He says ok, fair enough, and edits the post.

or

2) You PM ibminer (like a normal person, not with a wall of text, not accusing him of any tangential crimes). He says fuck off. You move on or you start a thread whining about it, whatever.

Which part of the above necessitates publishing PMs?


I would personally go with not making a mountain out of a molehill but if the OP insists I call dibs on the bulldozer.

Not "e-whore", "underage e-whore".

"She is underage e-whore". Whatever context might be here, this certainly sound like underage prostitute, not much people will go straight to dictionary to see what e-whore means (nor they will look for more context). I guess it is because focus is on that "underage" part.

Well, something is not clear here, alia said favours is her 15 years old brother. Who was really behind that account, alia "the cam girl", alia "the 15 years old scammer", alia "the underage brother of cam girl", maybe scammer payed cam girl, maybe he lied about age, maybe cam girl lied. What do we really know except that alia is scammer? Nothing. I would personally go with "shilled for scammer"(no hard feelings @OP) but that's me 

The TL;DR of a point further discussed below is that if the same standards are applied to ibminer as were applied to alia, then this...



“Pretzel logic”, Exhibit A:  “Because he was aware of the circumstance involving a camgirl, it’s a good chance he used the term ‘e-whore’ to refer to a male scammer.”


...is starting to look an awful lot like this:



Merited by ibminer (1)

On grounds of “not born yesterday”, I didn’t buy such tomfoolery from alia.  Not even when I had obvious personal motives to want to believe her, and to hope that there was some terrible mistake.  No way!  Bullshit is bullshit, and I blowtorched alia as soon as I smelled it on alia.  Do not expect differently here.

For this argument amounts to, “You’re probably thinking of a different word ‘whore’, but yes, the word ‘underage’ can shift its meaning somewhat.”  Not buying it.

---

---

---

If I had wanted to tag ibminer, I would have damn well done it already!  In almost every other instance in which I have created a Reputation thread against somebody, I tagged immediately with OP; hereto, the only exceptions have been the cases in which I had already tagged, before I decided that a dedicated thread for it was warranted.

Or is suchmoon accusing me of being hesitant about tagging?  Maybe of waiting to hear other people’s opinions before I act?


I think it’s bloody obvious that I do not want to tag ibminer.  —Do not want to.  Wherefore indeed, I procrastinated and avoided this since February.

---

---

---

That is indeed the slang used in some places.  However, if you want to be so technical...


...the term “underage scammer” is technically incorrect on its face.  More importantly, it is obviously not what was meant here.  The word “underage” does not merely “shift that meaning somewhat” (!).

Underage denotes that there is a minimal age limit for an activity to be considered legitimate.  It is also an emotionally charged word, in the context of anything involving any kind of sexual activity—especially sexual entertainment in exchange for money.

Furthermore (and more importantly in the context of reputation and the defamation thereof), hereby bending credulity well past its breaking point:

ibminer chose to use wording which an ordinary reasonable person anybody with an IQ above room temperature would expect for people to read as as I did.  At best, it would be a double entendre that >99% of people would read as “underage camgirl”.  That would be underhanded and deceitful.

Or will he now claim that he just didn’t realize that the term “whore” is associated with sex work, and didn’t realize that he was applying the word “whore” to an account that was used for online sex work?



With due apologies for the evident necessity of belabouring the obvious:

The term “underage scammer” is ridiculous, unless we presume that there is a proper legal age for legitimate scams.  Do we start to “card” for it or do otherwise age verification, to make sure that scammers are not underage?

Contrast:

• “Juvenile scammer”, “minor scammer”, “teen scammer” (an ambiguous, overloaded word—but everybody will know what is colloquially meant here; contrast the very different implication of “teen porn”, a marketing shorthand for ages 18–19), etc.
• “Underage porn”, “underage prostitution”, “underage camgirl”, “underage girlfriend”, etc.—or in non-sexual contexts, “underage drinking”, “underage purchase of cigarettes”, etc., etc.

These just look stupid:

• “Underage serial killer” (Do we age-check for this, too?)
• “Underage drug dealer”
• “Underage terrorist”
• “Underage armed robber”
• “Underage rapist”
• “Underage scammer”

This is why I invoked an “ordinary reasonable person” standard.  It prevents all sorts of word-twisting.  I think that in the context, with an actual camgirl involved, a claim by ibminer that he oh so innocently meant “underage scammer” would be a “dog ate my homework favours is my fucking brother!! and I meant the other Dave!!” level of excuse.

---

---

---

Yes.  Especially for a pseudonymous account behind Tor.  Reputation is all that I have here; this is backwards, for the reasons explained by T. C. May:


I do think it’s remarkable that several people are essentially criticizing me for using a forum named “Reputation” to discuss reputational issues.

---

This is indeed an ugly thread.  I did not want to create it; and I do not want to keep it going.  Although I doubt that anything will change my own loss of respect for ibminer or my distrust of his judgment, I think it’s clear straight from OP that I will consider this thread to be resolved if my stated demand for an appropriately marked retraction is met.  An apology would be decent; but in principle, I am disinclined to demand such things, or even ask for them, for I strongly dislike fake, coerced “apologies”.  I am addressing only (contra)factual statements here—in a general manner similar to what I would do in a courtroom defamation case, adjusted appropriately for the nature of the venue as a Reputation forum.

---

Edit—minor corrections above, plus this addendum:


So, ibminer falsely associated me with an “underage e-whore”, and I am the one smearing him by calling him out for it?

That is much worse than “pretzel logic”.

(Hostile and defamatory public statements should be dealt with in public.  But nice try saying that I should have hushed this up in PM—so that if the issue were not resolved by a “polite PM” about ibminer’s rude remark, you could accuse me of being untrustworthy if I reasonably needed to publish the PMs to protect my reputation.  Not playing your game.)

Edit again:  (statement moved here)

Just out of curiosity, who is the "We" referred to here ? Old timers ? Your cult ? Or something else ?

Wrong doing is neglected sounds like an CH argument to me.

I doubt it. To me "e-whore" without context doesn't mean literal prostitution and top definitions on Urban Dictionary are about attention whoring, not webcam stuff. Granted the word "underage" may shift that meaning somewhat, so perhaps "underage e-whore" could be changed to "online prostitute pimped by a 15 year old scammer" or "15-year old scammer impersonating a prostitute", not sure which is more accurate. It gets very murky if the 15 year old was posting sexually explicit stuff (text porn). I don't recall the details.


Yes. I assumed the wall of text would have been twice as tall and there would be a half dozen additional allegations if he had been blocked by ibminer.

Working under the assumption that he is able to PM him, right? This is odd for you to argue. Were I to find such an erroneous statement by you about myself I would not be able to proceed the way you are asking him to proceed (precisely because I am unable to PM you).

---

The thread is too much (this is his style of writing though), but most responses are absurd. Many years back if you had made such a false statement (underage pornography) about somebody else, especially as a DT member you would not: 1) Be a DT member much longer. 2) Your reputation would be gone very soon had it not been retracted very shortly after being pointed out.[1] We find ourselves in a very weird environment now where wrongdoing is neglected because the way it is being called out is not politically correct?  I do not know if that statement was intentional or not, but this and the current state of things are just wrong.  

---

[1] I do not wish either faith to ibminer, I just hope he removes the statement and this thread is shut down. These two were used as an example how this became worse here ("bad things are okay unless called out in a politically correct manner AKA the way I like it"). I do not think OP wants to tag ibminer either.

If we're being pedantic... I don't like his trust system abuse and this wordy shit-slinging thread against ibminer looks like an attempt to justify another red rating. I don't give much of a shit about his "interpersonal issues", everyone has them, I'm not about to throw rocks out of my glass castle.


Yeah... no. If he actually wanted to change one word - this is one of the worst ways to proceed. If he wanted to smear ibminer - it's not a bad effort, C-.

About triggering nullius with 1 word: with all due respect to all, I fully understand his reaction.

"To see the right and not to do it is cowardice". -- Confucius

I myself am a man of principles and a perfectionist. I hardly support criticism and I only accept it when it is proved in an undeniable way that I'm wrong. Even for small matters, not to mention anymore the big ones. For example: if I see a tree, I say it's made from wood. Then someone comes and says it's made from iron. I try to demonstrate he is wrong. I explain that the tree can burn if it's wood; if it was an iron it wouldn't burn. I would put a magnet on it, which would fall down: because it is wood and not iron. And so on. Until I prove my point. The opposite is also true: if that guys can prove me, against all my beliefs, that I'm wrong, I'll accept it. Hardly, but I will accept.

People are "triggered" by various factors. Maybe nullius gets triggered by a false statement (no matter its importance, although in this very case it really is an important one) about him which he also proves to be false.

Reputation is essential, as I tried to explain here, fact stated also by Tim May: "Reputations will be of central importance, far more important in dealings than even the credit ratings of today".

Some people may get triggered by money, other by stress. Others get triggered by their reputation being affected in a negative way; even more, if the accusations are false. And far more if the accusations are serious. Dealings with underage children in such manner presented by ibminer may affect someone even more than by reputation: it's illegal. I think this is a very good reason for anyone to prove his / her innocence. Bad reputation is bad indeed, but being associated with such illegal things is way worst. One is to be avoided by people on a forum for having a bad reputation and something completely different is to be associated with CP, this implying also the possibility to be chased by Police.

From all the above mentioned aspects, I consider that nullius proceeded in a legit manner for defending his reputation. And, as he proved ibminer's statements to be false, it would be expected that ibminer would say "I'm sorry, I was wrong. And I'll correct my mistake. First of all, by apologizing".

Nullius cares about bitcoin and the forum. The alia scandal was pretty well known and nullius had a lot of interaction with the account. That account was possibly an alt of someone else here in the forum. That is the only explanation for how adept they were at sending out the trust ratings to well-known accounts while simultaneously, engaging with some of the most prolific posters to build up a "web of trust" pretty quickly.


ibminer using the word "underage" has been taken by nullius as causing harm to his reputation, the forum and bitcoin. Our biases work its way in how we see things. Nullius doesn't gel well with ibminer and suchmoon. Suchmoon doesn't like the way nullius wants to handle interpersonal issues. They have crossed words several times earlier. That bias shows itself as he ridiculed the post in the first reply itself without worrying about giving it a hearing (till now. Hopefully, he will).

Nullius's bias/ habit of turning everything into a logical explainer with all the links and evidence, while very scholarly, makes it vulnerable to trivialization. As its an old post you had in draft, i hope you PM'ed and waited for ibminer to respond. ibminer on his part may or may not see his statement as affecting the forum's integrity and may have only used it because, again, you guys do not get along well. A lot of time, people do not care about the bigger goal if they don't "like" someone on their own team. Happens all the time in organizations. So even though nullius, suchmoon, ibminer and a lot of others are on the same team, these spats are only helping those who would like to divide and conquer. Don't we have enough issues to deal with CSW/ Ver and the likes??

I do not look highly upon that whole maze of accusation, scams, insults and major rivalries involving QS, OG, Vod, Lauda where everyone is shaking hands with "let bygones be bygones". It is all too complicated and I don't yet understand why QS is being allowed to weave his way back from the accusations of sockpuppeting, extortion etc etc. Has he accepted or shown any remorse for what he was accused of? If he has I haven't yet seen it. I would love to see what prompted the peace treaty. Even in the unforgiving cypherpunk-world, peace/ forgiveness should always be welcome.

I take their example to say that if those people can think about it, maybe nullius, suchmoon, foxpup, ibminer, even you guys can think about it. Your differences are mostly difference of opinions on trust and are a result of a few smart-ass replies to each other. In terms of principles, you are all on the same team.

@ibminer, could you please remove that "underage" bit because the GGB profile that was used was "not underage". You even get to be Colonel Jessep here:

 

Considering that ibminer was well aware of the circumstances of alia's scam I would say that it's a good chance he mean exactly that.


Oh no, me not finding something funny is "calling for outrage" now. Do I get my personal wall of text demanding me to say that the prank was funny? I'm really jelly at ibminer now who managed to trigger you with one word. That's some voodoo shit.