Pages:
Author

Topic: Is excluding people just because some one you don't like includes them valid? - page 4. (Read 1698 times)

legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Of course you don't recall, because you simply went through my trust list and started excluding names knowing nothing about them, and you can't think of any halfway decent lie to cover up for it. So people need to earn your permission to not be excluded now, is that what you are saying should be the standard for trust lists?

Where did I say that?

These are all good people which you flippantly slander and exclude because of your blinding bias for me. You don't give a fuck about using the trust system to serve the community, it is simply a toy for you to use to punish people you don't agree with, and anyone who associates with them to fortify your own position within it.

I think you're missing a key element of the trust system and that might explain why you're having such a hard time understanding it and keep blaming everyone who dares to disagree with you. I don't claim to be serving the community or whatever straw people you're making up. It's other users who decide whether my trust list, my actions, my opinions are valuable to them or not. Whether those decisions collectively result in a default trust position is completely out of my control unless you believe in some cockamamie conspiracy of a secret cabal controlling DT.

You asked a question, I answered, no need to keep making shit up if you don't like the answer. ~suchmoon and move on (same goes for everyone who thinks TECSHARE is a victim here and not a bitter deluded troll trying to stir shit up).
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Don't flatter yourself. I couldn't care less who includes them but they showed up in DT2 at some point and seemed unfit for it.

RidleyReport posted no trust feedback at all. Has one positive rating from you without a reference and for a dubious reason. "This man does great work helping to preserve Americas Constitutional rights. Thank you!" - what does this have to do with being unlikely to scam?

c1010010 posted one positive for you and has one positive rating from you, both without references from 6 years ago.

HardyGoodsLtd - I don't recall the reasons for excluding this one, seems half decent compared to the usual DT sewage so I have removed the exclusion.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and perhaps try to be less of a conspiratard next time. Or not LOL

Of course you don't recall, because you simply went through my trust list and started excluding names knowing nothing about them, and you can't think of any halfway decent lie to cover up for it. So people need to earn your permission to not be excluded now, is that what you are saying should be the standard for trust lists? These are all good people which you flippantly slander and exclude because of your blinding bias for me. You don't give a fuck about using the trust system to serve the community, it is simply a toy for you to use to punish people you don't agree with, and anyone who associates with them to fortify your own position within it.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
Is excluding people just because some one you don't like includes them valid?

No, Dr. Techy.  But you do it anyway, as do many others.   Prove I dislike instead of distrust.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Don't flatter yourself. I couldn't care less who includes them but they showed up in DT2 at some point and seemed unfit for it.

RidleyReport posted no trust feedback at all. Has one positive rating from you without a reference and for a dubious reason. "This man does great work helping to preserve Americas Constitutional rights. Thank you!" - what does this have to do with being unlikely to scam?

c1010010 posted one positive for you and has one positive rating from you, both without references from 6 years ago.

HardyGoodsLtd - I don't recall the reasons for excluding this one, seems half decent compared to the usual DT sewage so I have removed the exclusion.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and perhaps try to be less of a conspiratard next time. Or not LOL
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
I was looking through Suchmoon's distrust list today and a few names stood out to me.

~RidleyReport (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0)
~c1010010 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0)
~HardyGoodsLtd (Trust: +4 / =0 / -0)

The first two users are almost totally inactive here, and users I added to my trust list because of mostly off forum interactions with them. The last user is a reputable trader here and as far as I can tell has zero complaints against him. Is it appropriate to add people to your exclusions simply because some one you don't like includes them? I can't possibly imagine any other excuse for these three names being on their distrust list considering their activity levels being almost nil. Isn't this exactly what you have accused me of doing in retaliation multiple times Suchmoon? The only difference is what you accused me of was adding users who excluded me to my exclusions, you have gone a step further and decided to exclude people simply because I included them. That seems rather petty and abusive to me. Feel free to impress us with your mental gymnastics though.
Pages:
Jump to: