Topic: ibminer’s factually false, defamatory, and reputationally scandalous statement (Read 1232 times)

For the record, because another banned user made a false accusation against me here:  I have not deleted any of ibminer’s posts on this thread.

Another user, who is categorically banned from my self-moderated threads, made almost two dozen identical posts in a very short time.  I suspect that she must have been using a spambot, since the deleted post was sometimes re-posted within seconds after I deleted it.

That is off-topic here.  Do not attempt derailing the thread with it.  I will reply to ibminer’s latest twisted nonsense if or when I have time for such things.  Suffice it for now to say, it is nonsense—just a slightly different twist on what has been rehashed already.

Well, isn't that convenient.

Deleting multiple posts in this thread after over a year is just pathetic, nullius.

You were dealing with an account likely controlled by a 15 year old boy, yes that is considered "underage". Even after you saw theymos' evidence, you continued to try and find every angle you could to make the person behind alia a real girl. Which displayed further poor judgement to me.

You seemed to be trying to justify the charade after evidence had already been brought to light. You started believing his/alia's stories to get out of it, almost making excuses for him as you thought about every possible option where alia was really a real girl... which all seemed a tad suspicious, but at best, displayed poor judgement... by that point, I believe you should have known there was a 15 year old boy behind the alia account.

To top it all off, you started this thread to *punish* me for my post relating to last years' April Fools.

I'm sorry if this all hurts your feelings, but it is what it is.

IF you had approached this differently, and I thought you actually had an issue with the post your attacking me over in the OP, and that you were not just trying to inflict a punishment because you were butthurt, I may have considered changing it to something like "underage e-pimp", or "an underage e-pimp who had a sister". This would be to give you the benefit of doubt on your peculiar belief that there was actually a girl living with an underage brother pimp.

It's interesting you seek to find any reason to leave me negative feedback, while never once leaving alia any feedback.

You can continue with your malice intent, but I certainly am not going to be pressured to change it because of you wanting to punish me for an April fools day post I made expressing my opinion. That ain't me, sorry.

See, this is where you're wrong.  I gave them back more money.  Although it does sound from your comments that you are highly likely to be evading taxes from the way you say, "less money" when what you really mean is "more dollars."

Thanks for reminding me of this.  There is so much trash on this forum that sometimes, I am lamentably absentminded about sweeping some of it up.  This is one of at least a score of threads that met that fate.  Eh.  If I don’t keep up with forum threads about large-scale frauds and major political upheavals, then you may understand that however bad ibminer is, he simply slipped to the bottom of my priorities.

I will forthwith tag ibminer for the baseless, scurrilous, abysmally dishonest defamation which he has made against me, and which he chose to worsen in this thread (archive).  This also reminded me to catch up on some other tagging previously promised...  Tags take too long to make since theymos imposed a short and undocumented length limit; I prefer to craft a meaningful summary that fits within the feedback text, but I am falling back to low-effort tag text because it’s not worth my time.

Now, it seems that ibminer got himself into some other controversy.  I have no time to review the evidence about a user who is beneath my attention, other than tying up loose ends here; thus, I cannot now express an opinion about that either way.  I do request that this thread remain on-topic.  Other accusations against ibminer are tangential, albeit probative insofar as they go to character; if there are other threads were these accusations are evidenced and discussed, I ask that you please link thereto.


Damn straight.  The forum the world would be a better place if moral cowardice, groupthink, peer pressure, and the herd mentality were not all so fashionable.

—Actually, scratch that:  The world would be a better place if not for modern democratic thinking, which by design puts the lunatics in charge of the asylum.  The herd mentality works just fine, when the sheep obey a proper shepherd. 

---

As I said before, I did not want to tag ibminer.  But no sinister “setup” is involved:  When I open a topic in Reputation accusing someone of dishonest and untrustworthy behaviour, it does not take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that I am considering a tag.  Also, as you are aware, you are permabanned from my self-moderated threads (unless I open one against you).  Ban evasion will not be tolerated—not yours, and not nutildah’s.

I have done some cleanup of ban evasion, plus extremely low-value troll posts; pre-cleanup archives:  archive.is, archive.org (seems to be flaking out right now, but I will link to it anyway).

---

I have been busy.  Unlike some users who sit on the forum 24/7 posting animated GIFs and no-value one-liners, I am not on-call to address the latest forum drama; and sometimes, if I have a few spare moments for the forum, I may prefer to talk about Bitcoin (!).  Perahps I may be building an important project—or perhaps I may be busy taking a nap; that would be more productive than wallowing in Reputation.  If you want my attention, get in line and wait your turn.

Hadn't seen that one.

The majority of what I refer to was told to me privately when I had a lot of questions about the organization, before getting involved. The answers I got are what I was sold on, and that's what I refer to when discussing certain specifics about the Nasty* organization.

I wish LoyceV or Ninja could show the number of proud posts you have removed from this community recently.

So, you have no shame for making up extremely serious lies about me contributing to a stroke?
You have no remorse for wishing more people would stroke out to help the community?
You have no shame for telling everyone you were triyng to get me help through your charity, and instead ignored me?

No shame about losing 99% of the pirate ponzi bitcoins you held?
No shame about losing 99% of nastymining bitcoins you held?
Finally, you never paid taxes and instead deflected about your October 2018  audit by claiming I sent you a PM outting myself as a pedophile,  You then said Theymos knew about it and later deleted it.  Theymos responded with trust to you, distrust to me, and continuing to pay you hundreds of thousands dollars while you scammed.


I hope you do now. Took me a long time to understand why Theymos expressed sympathy to me years ago about the pedo link, but let OG continue to spread the rumor.  I would have been happy with help with expenses, but the billions spent on the new forum and the helicopters and champagne were not meant for those with morals.   I guess the lawyers will take the lions share and litigate the idiots for years and the victims will get what's left.   God bless the blockchain and let's see the underbelly of this community.  

No shame or remorse whatsoever over my involvement in the Bitcoin community. I’m quite proud and thankful for my experience here. Other than a handful of trolls, I’ve had an enormous amount of positive feedback. You are too trapped in your quest to spread hate to understand that you aren’t in the majority with your feelings toward me and the things I’ve done for this community.

If I was such an embarrassment, you wouldn’t have assembled a team to spread lies to try and damage my reputation. You wouldn’t need to.

Congrats on your mining operation. I’m sure you’re probably operating it in an environmentally responsible way and donating all the mined coins to the community... You probably get interview requests and people asking you for consulting on their operations. Oh wait, that’s me. Which one of us is the greedy asshole and embarrassment again?

Every thread you will ever see complaining about suchmoon/Vod/ibminer always turns into them deflecting and making up lies about whoever confronts them. That’s why people just avoid them and start new accounts if you’ve had the misfortune of becoming the outlet for their misery.



My guess is because it’s obvious that I’ve done nothing wrong. Being mad at someone for donating BTC from their efforts here to a community organization is irrational. Funny how people’s true motivations always seem to surface though...

He can say whatever he wants. Truth is that ibminer still blames me because he lost money with some signature advertiser I had for a few weeks. He takes no personal responsibility and is trolling an organization I donate to because I sold him silver for BTC years ago and now he’s mad that the silver coin didn’t appreciate more than Bitcoin itself.

I would say to avoid dealing with ibminer as well as his partners Vod and suchmoon or else it will end badly for you. They will literally come back 5 years later and try to trash your reputation if the exchange rate doesn’t go their way. Worst sort of crypto traders you can find. Don’t let them deflect. Dig and find the truth. You’ll quickly see that Vod & ibminer are the worst kind of people to have in any community. There are probably hundreds more like the OP who just don’t want to take the time to complain because they know they’ll get their reputation slandered. So watch what they do to me, look at all the negative trust they’ve handed out, and think about all the users who didn’t have the reputation to stand up for this behavior outside of threads like this that are quickly filled with lies and deflection by the usual suspects so they can keep torturing newbies to make up for their helplessness in real life. These harassed users need to realize that they outnumber the abusers 100 to 1 and start standing up for themselves. I alone can’t make much difference, because as you see I am outnumbered and they can spread more lies than I have time or desire to correct. Don’t be fooled. These people are not better than anyone, no more knowledgeable about Bitcoin than a random off the street, and they have less financial knowledge than a typical teenager with a piggy bank. Their opinions are not to be valued by any respectable person.

 

When you think Og couldn't get any slimier... disappointing.

Again more nonsense.. obviously some sort of effort to drive me away from the NastyFans thread.

Thanks for the bump though, I had almost forgot about this thread...  where art thou, nullius?    This april fools' joke was much better this year!  Seriously glad we didn't have to get into a tiff over it.

---

I accepted my mistake investing in your organization a while ago.

Your post here is because I refuse to allow you to falsely claim & advertise a '125% ROI' on an investment that I'm a part of.

Damn. Your just pullin' stuff out of your ass again.
Just like the prior accusation you slung at me last time we had a disagreement, about stealing a miner.
I think this is proof enough for me that you're not doing this from bad memory... you're just literally making shit up intentionally.

I don't gamble... so I've got no clue where this comes from. I've had a few conversations with OgNasty (when he has brought it up) about his signature for MoneyPot & DogeDigital, most recently here.

But, go ahead, please post the quote, PM, whatever ya gotta do to prove your claim about me "blaming you for losing money gambling".

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

---

I'm not going to respond to the rest, if OgNasty has proof on anything he's said here to try and smear me, deflect, etc... please quote me, post my PM, do what you have to do.
Og's upset that I won't accept his claim of '125% ROI', and I have good reason to not accept it.

Anyone else with any concerns, feel free to PM me.

No, he is saying he lost 99% of the bitcoins he sent you, whether they were worth $1 or $1,000,000.

Yes, he's still blaming vendors for accepting his payments in BTC as the reason he didn't get rich with everyone else.  Imagine having such little personal responsibility.  When you go from praising someone to hating them because of how the free market moved an asset, you are probably an irrational and miserable person.  This is what I'm accusing ibminer of doing and seems to fit in a pattern of his accusatory behavior toward others to make up for his personal decisions that didn't turn out how he thought they would.

He was involved in the conversation less than an hour ago.

He paid you 1.65 BTC and received a return of 0.0095 BTC.
 

ibminer has displayed a pattern of not accepting the consequences of his actions and blaming others for his mistakes.  He even blames BTC vendors for him not getting rich because they accepted his BTC for goods and those goods did not gain value as quickly as Bitcoin.  Who does that?  Imagine searching for someone to provide you a good and accept your currency, then when you do you make an exchange with them you praise them for accepting your currency.  However, then that currency appreciates a lot so you find that vendor and blame them for you not making money because they accepted the currency you asked them to accept.  That's ibminer.  Everything is everyone else's fault.  He didn't get rich because evil Bitcoin vendors forced him to spend his BTC.  He even once blamed me for him losing money gambling because I was wearing a signature advertisement.  People like this will always take the stance that their failure is someone else's fault.  No amount of explaining, examples, or facts can get them to take personal responsibility for their actions.  They simply cannot accept their own failure so they lash out at everyone else and try to force company for their misery.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCMcSx1as3c

Fuck Yeah!!! Scared enuff to go on a rant in a self moderated thread!!!

Exactly, This is what came to my mind when I saw this post!!!

Nice try, completely twisting what Lauda said.

Unfortunately, since ibminer decided to double down, it is no longer a matter of retracting a single word.


I have no desire to fight with ibminer.  What I want is to resolve this, route him to /dev/null, and go do something important.

My actual intention had been that when my demand for a retraction of a single word was met, I would lock the thread and walk away.  I did not say so outright, because it is dangerous to make such promises, and because it is the kind of thing that could be misconstrued by persons who are twisting my words and mischaracterizing my actions (especially suchmoon).  However, I think it was clear enough:


OP, following my concisely stated demand:


ibminer made a false factual statement.  It is of such an inflammatory and destructive nature that, as I noted in the draft reply to pugman that I timestamped and filed away yesterday, I believe that I would have an actionable tort case against ibminer.  (So noted only to measure the magnitude and seriousness of the matter.  A single word can indeed incur a successful lawsuit.  I am a crypto-anarchist behind Tor; and anyway, if I were to sue, I would not be so stupid as to discuss the matter on an Internet forum beforehand!)

Now, he has piled on a whole heap of new accusations and insinuations—much of it in vague terms that are impossible to answer or publicly rebut as to fact.  Some of what he has now said, I know first-hand to be factually false; the rest is presumeably false, unless he has extraordinary evidence.

I don’t have the spare time to continue sitting on top of this thread as I did yesterday; but I will not just let this go so easily.  ibminer has piled wrong atop wrong.  He needs to answer for that.


I know that you mean well.  I appreciate that.  Since you said that a few times now, I just need to make it clear that ibminer is not in a position to demand anything of me—and I am never nice.

---

---

---

Something else that I should probably address:


I appreciate anybody who appreciates my work; but I do not owe anything to anybody (save for a very few individuals who have immeasurably enriched my life, whether through their own published work or though their private interactions with me).  Moreover, I have not changed:  As shown below, my personality now is indistinguishable from that in 2018.  Perhaps your perceptions of me may have changed.  My characteristic aggressiveness and absolute certitude in the face of conflict would understandably be appealing to those who agree with me, and not to those who don’t.


Thanks; taken under advisement.


Nothing wrong with my demanding redress from somebody who wronged me.

N.b. that that was stated in the manner of a legal demand (in manner of speaking—without any implication of being an actual legal demand).  A demand for retraction of a false and defamatory statement is a quite ordinary response.


In 2018, I created a whole thread for that, my “hate mail” thread.  Want the same nullius back?  Here he is.


I have spent my whole adult life handling highly confidential information for people with whom I have a relationship of mutual trust.  And if someone sends me a friendly PM, I will treat that with the ordinary discretion of a gentleman.  Whereas nobody has a right to impose on me and swear me to secrecy, just by sending me a Personal Message—especially not if the PM is of a hostile nature.  It is completely ridiculous to criticize anybody for publishing unsolicited adversarial PMs.

My 2018 PM-dumping thread was inspired by the example of various activists whom I have seen publish extreme hate-mail and death threats sent via “private” channels of communication.  Reductio ad absurdum, would you criticize them, too?


I go against governments.  I have real-life, years-long experience litigating against large corporations (who eventually steamrolled me by sheer mismatch of resources—eh, I bit off more than I could chew there).  Do you suppose that I be scared, or even impressed by DT members on an Internet forum?


I respect those who earn my respect, and that’s that.

I am not a flatterer—in colloquial terms, I don’t kiss arse (and I categorically despise people who expect that from me).


Oh, shit!  I just quoted OgNasty.  The world is truly ending.


Now, lest there be any doubt—I really have not changed even a bit:

Re: Measures against scams misusing the Bitcoin name


Re: Buying Drugs with Bitcoin ?

(Does suchmoon wish to lecture me about rudeness?)

Bracketed replacement of internal quotation is in the original:
Re: Bitcoin Diamond improves on Bitcoin transactions


Re: Do Not Buy Christmas Presents!!

(A forum search of posts that I have made using the word “idiot” is amusing.)


Red boldface is in the original:
Re: Bitcoin not so anonymous?


Re: Merit broke my life
Merited by soniclord (50)

Development & Technical Discussion:
Bitcoin’s Public-Key Security Level

(Amidst my own philosophy, the next one invokes Dancing Pigs that I picked up long ago from RISKS Digest.  Sorry about the “catless” part.)

Development & Technical Discussion:
Bitcoin Distorters, Dancing Pigs, and Cryptokitties; ochlocracy equals kakocracy

I was merely responding to marlboroza... it's how I read it. Not trying to confuse anyone as to how they should read it. Now that ibminer responded you should refer to that for what he meant, not my (or anyone's) interpretation or opinion.


Totally agree. The answer is in, close the thread, unless you want to stir the drama some more.

I am really really surprised as to why this is happening. Not a single word needed to be said, remove the word, close the thread, end. I wonder what will be next instead of this simple solution. 

Urban-dictionary or not, why are we playing around with the implication of the phrase "underage e-whore" which any casual reader would understand as "underage prostitution on the internet".

Whats an e-mail? (mail on the internet)
Whats e-commerce? (commerce on the internet)
Who is an e-whore?

In the alia case, there was an actual GGB verified women whose nudes, cam-shows were used. Theymos did say that she was verified on GGB by which everyone else understands that she would have been of age. She was the e-whore. NOT an underage one. You know that from the beginning as you were closely involved. You could have used that statement in the context you explained which is why this seems like an over-reaction to many.
Yet, the issue raised by OP is that to a casual reader, your statement would imply that a fellow member with a nice reputation and an amazing, informative body of work here (as admitted by everyone advising him to change), was somehow involved in a despicable and illegal act happening on Satoshi's forums. Something that directly harms his reputation as well as the forum. A forum that we all care deeply about, i think.

Granted, there were better ways to settle this which is why you too could just have been Col. Jessup and finished this. The way OP asked may not seem appropriate to you, me or plenty others but that does not make you right in continuing to be unflinching on something this serious. Your leaving it unchanged and suchmoon trying to create confusion on "meaning of e-whore" just sounds like an excuse to not accept your mistake while using it to target another user because you want to, don't know, have something on him?   Surely you are better than this.

Is this really that important in the grand context of things?

Can you please just remove the wording and fight it out in however many threads you guys want? Is that so hard to do What is wrong with people these days: both sides attack each over a single word.

@moderator:  Whoops, sorry.

---

ibminer, you have added here several serious allegations on your part—against me, and about others.  As to myself, I have first-hand knowledge that you are wrong about everything except what I myself just said upthread a few hours ago; but I will set that aside for the moment.  Overall, either you must have strong evidence to support your allegations, or your reply here is utterly despicable.

---

0. In substantial effect, you have unavoidably stated that the GirlsGoneBitcoin verification process was, and thus can be fooled by a 15-year-old boy using “software and video packs”.  Also, all of alia’s customers on the forum (n.b. that I was never one of them).

Quote from: ibminer on April 03, 2020, 07:05:41 PM

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)..

Quote from: nullius on February 27, 2018, 03:58:30 PM

Actually, you are more than questioning theymos’ reliability:  You are directly impugning it.  I and many others rely on this as sterling information:

If the GGB verification process is unreliable, then it would behoove you to inform those who are relying thereupon.  If, in this case, it was actually fooled by a 15-year-old boy using “software and video packs”, then I myself relied on it to my detriment; and I should be let to know about that.

In the absence of sound evidence to the contrary, I will presume that theymos knows what the hell he is doing—and that you, ibminer, are slinging some very dangerous mud without thinking about the consequences.

---

1. You made a vague statement that alia/favours was “being supported by [me]”.  What, exactly, do you mean by that?

Quote from: ibminer on April 03, 2020, 07:05:41 PM

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.

For the record, the only “support” of any kind whatsoever that I ever gave to the alia account was reputational:  I made the account significantly more forum-famous than it already was when I found it—which only occurred because it was already more than a little bit forum-famous.  And aside from some innocently intended positive comments that I made about alia to specific individuals in PMs, almost all of that was in full public.view (forum posts and merit).

If you allege otherwise, be specific—and put up the evidence now.  I know first-hand that you don’t have any, because I did nothing wrong as you are insinuating.

---

2. I actually have nothing to hide here.  Please feel free to post the PMs:

Quote from: ibminer on April 03, 2020, 07:05:41 PM

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).

I am calling you on this, because your unjust and inexcusable insinuations are damaging to me.  Without even reviewing PMs that I have not looked at in over two years, I can affirmatively state that publishing my PM correspondence with you would not damage me at all, because I did nothing wrong other than to be innocently scammed by a scammer.

If you want to nitpick or twist on a word here or there (such as the pronouns that I used at various times during the development of a very confusing situation—oh, muh pronouns!), then I can explain anything that I said in its proper context.

If you are seeking to prove that I was “self-admitted” to have promoted the alia account, I think the point is moot:  I myself just said essentially the same thing, on this thread, just a few hours ago (and I have made similar remarks to others in the past, in public and in private):

Quote from: nullius on April 03, 2020, 01:58:05 PM

Quote from: marlboroza on April 03, 2020, 01:16:59 PM

I would personally go with "shilled for scammer"(no hard feelings @OP) but that's me 

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.

Furthermore, I also consent to forum administrators or staff viewing my PMs sent to alia and received from alia, if they have any suspicions about me.

OP here:

Quote from: nullius on April 02, 2020, 08:21:04 PM

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*.)

Some of them are embarrassing in the “*cringe*” sense; I would not want for those to be published.  None of them is in any way inculpatory of me.  I think that admins and staff are sufficiently level-headed to view the matter objectively and dispassionately.  If they have any questions, they may PM me.  For obvious reasons, I do not want to say too much more about this in public.

But I do so say, just in case ibminer’s wrongful remarks about me have the predictable effect of causing admins or staff to have such suspicions about me as would be allayed if they were to review evidence already in their own possession.

---

3. Please state specifically which of my act and/or omissions you think were wrong, and what you think I should have done instead:

Quote from: ibminer on April 03, 2020, 07:05:41 PM

Your actions after he was identified showed me you were not someone I, nor anyone, should trust the judgement of.

I was fooled by this scammer just as badly as anybody else.  The alia account was used to scam some people for money.  It was used to scam me for reputation-builiding.

I have all along reasonably taken responsibility for anything that I actually did.  I have all along erred toward being critical of myself:  I should have known better.  I should have been more alert, more cautious.  I should have analysed this situation in every detail.  Yes, I am essentially victim-blaming myself using the same arguments used by scammers who rationalize that “fools deserve to be scammed”.  That is acceptable for me to do to myself, because I have a right to hold myself to a much higher than ordinary standard for both astuteness and carefulness:  I am smarter than this.  It is not acceptable from ibminer—enough is enough!

Although I was moderately careless with a “female” situation (as most men are at least once or twice in their lives), I was not even negligent—much less knowingly engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever.

It should not need to be said that when the scam accusation broke, I was in a situation in which I myself was shocked, caught off-guard, and initially confused as to the facts.  Nevertheless, I promptly caught my bearings and not only cooperated with, but actively assisted the scam investigation to the best of my ability.

I am ashamed of having been fooled, but I am proud of how I handled it when I discovered that I had been fooled.  To suggest that I did anything whatsoever wrong after that point is indefensible for you.  So, put up or shut up:  What did I do wrong, and what should I have done differently?

---

4. ...:

Quote from: ibminer on April 03, 2020, 07:05:41 PM

Quote from: nullius on April 02, 2020, 08:21:04 PM

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.

I never accused theymos of such nonsense. Keep trying.

How do you square that with your now-amplified statements quoted above?  I really don’t want to spell this out for you.

And why are you tangling yourself in self-contradictions to focus this crap on me, of all people?  I was never one of alia’s customers.  I never saw an “alia” camshow—whether a live camgirl, or “software and video packs” as you allege.  All that I did was to get overly excited about my lovely forum girlfriend, interact with the account publicly in ways that rapidly amplified its fame, send it a bunch of merit for posts that I thought were meritorious, brag too much in PMs to a few individuals who never accused me of anything for their own parts, and exchange some sexually explicit textual communications with what, in reliance on GGB verification, I believed to be a camgirl.  So—why me?

(N.b., I still believe GGB verification much more than I believe you.  At this point, I do not find you to be at all credible.)

---

There is more in ibminer’s post that should be addressed; but first things first...

Note:  When I saw ibminer’s post, I was finishing a draft of a long reply to pugman.  Abstract:  Look up the word “tort”.  And please never rely on Wikipedia legal arguments for anything important.

Combining the posts would make this far too long; thus, I have set it aside for now, and OTS-timestamped a copy of my draft in case I want to prove later what I was writing.  (Should have done that with my February draft of what became OP here.  OTS should be a habit.)

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.

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.