Topic: ibminer’s factually false, defamatory, and reputationally scandalous statement - page 3. (Read 1171 times)

You were one of the best members around when you were posting about "technical" stuff that actually matter but then out of a sudden you became so active in this board in a way that puts you a few topics away from being the next cryptohunter, obviously with better writing skills.

As far as DEMANDING the edition of a post, i wouldn't set my hopes too high, we barely get people to change their feedback, let alone edit a post, the way i see it is that ibminer seems like a reasonable dude, i am pretty sure the effect of a single-line PM would be stronger than this topic.

People who are not aware of what happened back then might think that you tried to promote some underage prostitute, people who are aware of what happened will see post as "promotion of 15 year old scammer", at least I have understand it that way.

Perhaps better approach would be to PM ibminer and ask him to edit post and instead "underage e-whore" to write "underage scammer", just to avoid confusion.

Well, I certainly think the term "e-whore" is broad enough to include scammers whose scam involves (the pretence of) providing sexual services, but I'm neither ordinary nor (according to some people) reasonable, so make of that what you will.

In what way is it “technically correct”?

Are you alleging that the camgirl who transacted online sex work on GGB and on this forum was underage?

I think that I can safely assume you are not suggesting that any ordinary reasonable (or even sane) person would read the term “e-whore” to refer to an identified male scammer, who obviously did not do any camgirl work.

---

Insubstantive insults and insinuations aside, some other parts of your post may warrant reply; but first things first.

I need not remark on my opinion of how you think a joke by theymos reasonably calls for outrage, but you laugh at a serious discussion a false allegation that, in substantial effect, this forum permits and facilitates underage sex work.

Did you actually ask ibminer via polite 1-2 sentence PM to reconsider that post or did you immediately decide to go full cryptohunter? Well, I guess not immediately, it's been six weeks since that post and it doesn't look like you bothered to counter it back then.

I apologize that the 5 GIFs were insufficient to express the ridiculousness of your demand to change something on the intertubes. Something that relates to the virtual reputation of your perfectly anonymous account, which you boast about so often. Something that is technically correct although I can see why you don't like the connotations. Something that could have been easily mitigated by replying to that post with your POV and moving on. But where's the fun in that, let's have some dramatized walls of text.

This thread looks like a setup for one of your "I don't like what you said" red trust ratings. I will be very offended if you give one to ibminer and not to me.

I was more of pointing to the Love in this feedback



and you thinking it's fare to react to the ibminer reply towards alia in this way of creating a fking thread in reputation about it.

suchmoon, protip:  If you want to continue to claim, contrary to all evidence, that you are “thick-skinned”, then you should probably not get so excited as to use five redundant animated GIFs in a row column.  If one would suffice to make your point, then I think that about three is about the outside limit before you start to look... excitable and emotionally invested.

Now, I neatly laid out why it is unacceptable to fling around those sorts of vile and scandalous false accusations on an Internet forum—especially when it is effectually a smear of the forum’s administrator, on whom, as ibminer damn well knows, I and others rely to prevent underage shenanigans both here and on Reddit.  It is a serious matter.

ibminer used a keyword that essentially invoked the Four Horsemen...


...whereas I trust that if anybody were actually to promote an “underage e-whore” here, theymos would drop the ban-hammer with the force of a thermonuclear weapon.

None of this is a new thought.  When I first saw ibminer’s factually false, defamatory, and, in the totality of the circumstance, peculiarly vicious comment, my first thought was, “Fscking Four Horsemen:  ibminer just went half-Danos.”  If not properly retracted, that comment indeed puts ibminer about three rungs in Internet Hell above that whackjob whom you surely did not appreciate:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=992943

Is “fare” a subtle pun for how ibminer dishes it out, but can’t take it when his dish is sent back as tasteless and nauseating?

Everything is fare in LOVE and WAR !

reserved

I never argued with ibminer’s ~exclusion of me over an admitted past error in judgment on my part (and I may add, one uncharacteristic of me).  That is a matter of personal standards.  An alia scam investigator who hit the case before ibminer nevertheless has me in his inclusions list; ibminer has excluded me since that time; in the circumstance, neither position is facially unreasonable.

I so state upfront, to make it clear that I am not arguing over ibminer’s use of the trust system.  This is a separate matter:  The word which I have hereby underscored is factually false and defamatory, and of a nature that is peculiarly scandalous and damaging to my reputation.


The negative implication of the term “e-whore” is an expression of opinion; however, the the obvious and unarguable (contra)factual implication of the phrase “underage e-whore” is a false allegation that I was both engaged in and promoting online sexual activity with a person below legal age for such activity.  Taken as a whole, the statement conflates the 15-year-old male scammer who controlled or was associated with the “alia” account, with the female who was doing online sex work through the same account.

That is egregiously dishonest on ibminer’s part.  As to fact, these are direct quotations from the pertinent investigation in 2018:




ibminer is well aware of these quotes:  He was directly involved in that thread.

As such, ibminer has knowingly falsely accused both me and, by unavoidable implication, theymos of peddling “underage” sex on a forum as to which various entities would relish an excuse to attack for censorship purposes.

This shows severely flawed judgment:  It shows that in the heat of anger, ibminer will toss out a factually false, defamatory, quite dangerous comment which reeks of the Four Horsemen of the Cryptocalypse, without considering the potential harm to others.  At the very least, it is harmful to my forum reputation.

Wherefore, I demand that ibminer modify his above-quoted post of 2020-02-13 with a clearly marked edit striking out the word “underage”, and stating that that word is retracted as factually incorrect.

When I have stated the foregoing, a failure to affirmatively retract and correct the false statement would evince actual malice.

ibminer is, of course, “entitled to his opinions”, which I really don’t give a damn about either way.

---

(To be clear, as a crypto-anarchist in cypherspace, I am applying some legal terms of art in the foregoing for the principal purpose of precise analysis in addressing significant reputational issues—including the question of whether ibminer is maliciously dishonest, or “only” extremely careless about the truth when he is angry and in the mood to hurl insults.)

---

Aside, for the record:  Before the alia scam accusation broke, the only (putative) photo that I ever saw of alia was a faceless, not-quite-topless photo that was posted on imgur, and publicly linked from one of alia’s forum threads.  I never saw alia on video.  I never saw alia nude.  I never saw alia’s crotch depicted at all (clothed or otherwise).  Indeed, I never saw or in any way possessed any visual depictions of alia that could not be legally shown on public television in most any Western jurisdiction (including every jurisdiction with which I am familiar in both Europe and the United States).

In the scam investigation thread, someone dug up a fully-clothed photo including the face of a female who was apparently involved with the male scammer’s old account; however, to my knowledge, it was never proved that that was the same female as did faceless “alia” camshows reported by customers on various threads.

I am a man of words, I was never alia’s customer, and I was in no particular hurry.  To the contrary:  As a most basic test of sincerity, I was waiting to see how long it would take from the time of alia’s “I think I’m in love” green-trust tag for her to send me what she charged others money to see.  She never actually did so.  Thus, my personal communications with alia were strictly textual.  Those communications were predicated on the reasonable belief that I was communicating, and exclusively communicating, with a GGB-verified camgirl.  When I first became aware that the alia account was misrepresented in any way, I immediately deceased all communications with it other than those reasonably calculated to ascertain evidence needed for me to get to the truth of the matter, and cooperate in the scam investigation.  As a further precaution, despite my potential embarrassment with some of them, I deliberately left intact all of my PMs with alia—just in case the forum’s administration were ever to have any suspicions about me in the matter.  (The PMs are still there—*cringe*.)

My thinking:  “If she means it, then sooner rather than later,
she will take the initiative to show off to me
some ‘freebies’ without being asked.”

Protip:  I am not so easy to manipulate, after all.
If you want to fuck with me, have fun—
but do not fuck with me.

Much though I like to have fun, I am a man of principle—and I do not “think with the little head”, as the saying goes.  Moreover, I am aware of the potential dangers to a pseudonymous activist who addresses controversial issues in adversarial settings.  I have spent decades assiduously avoiding anything with even the slightest hint of illegal underage sexual content online, both for reasons of principle and for practical self-protection against potential entrapment.

ibminer’s factually false and defamatory “underage” remark is grossly unjust to me.

---

The foregoing is a moderately edited edition of text that I wrote on or about 13 February 2020.  I indecisively withheld it, out of respect for ibminer’s considerable work against forum scams; I now see that that is always a mistake, for to protect my reputation, I must tie up this loose end before simply ignoring him.

Local Rules:  ibminer is the subject of this thread, and therefore has a reasonable right of reply.  Others will be moderated at my discretion.  Posts which quote the whole OP will be deleted without remark.