Topic: Is the whole trust system a joke? LAUDA OWNS IT? (Read 989 times)
Lessons learnt all round I hope 
I don’t share your morality; and if you thought somehow to shame me, it didn’t work. Also, I scorn all hope: Hope was the ill at the bottom of Pandora’s box, “the evil of evils, the most malign of all evils”. For the lulz, keeping up with the theme of things that I did not study in school—in this case, something that was always obvious to me: “(Gerade wegen dieser Fähigkeit, den Unglücklichen hinzuhalten, galt die Hoffnung bei den Griechen als übel der Übel, als das eigentlich tückische Übel: es blieb im Fass des Übels zurück)”.
Your “lesson” as such is duly filed in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️
I was, however, under the impression that nullius's post was satirical.
Yes and no. Please look to the overall context: dragonvslinux’s rude, empty conceit in reply to a polite, jovial request by someone whom he evidently dislikes for no good reason. That came with what I read as a subtle swipe at me, though the correctness of my such inference is irrelevant to my point. So did I despise this rudeness that in protest, I awarded merit to Vod’s jolly post.
Unedited: http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5395/53958809.html
dragonvslinux - nice charts! I'd like to see mine. 
Apologies Vod, these are reserved for "anthropologically interesting cases" only - whatever the f that means, and you weren't the most interesting it seems ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Students these days will study anything, especially nonsense philosophy. I'm sorry your not interesting enough, maybe try a little harder
I think I've said too much
For that, dragonvslinux deserved and received a slap in the face measured according to the seriousness of his stature.
However, the way that I delivered it, I left him a loophole. If he were not such an insecure little twit, then he could have done what I would do: Laugh it off!
—Am I mortal? Do I myself sometimes make bizarre typographical errors (usually induced whilst editing) which are not caught by my obsessive exercise of the preview button to read proof? Alas! It most saddens me when such a fate befalls one of my precious little belles-lettres. Nobody has yet dared to flame me over such a triviality; but if or when that happens, my response may be expected to be along these lines:
“Quel dommage! I have erred! 😢 The form of my art is marred by some trivial flaw which dishonours its unavoidable substance! I will now slap myself in the face with a large trout, and then drink myself into a stupor. Meanwhile, complaints from my critics shall be filed according to the virtù of their own substances, as measured against mine. 🗑️”
Of course, that would not work for dragonvslinux: He lacks the requisite substance for such boldness. Indeed, he underscored that point with a tedious outpouring of “virtuous” slop, his unintentionally comical hypercorrection of my punch line, and his ridiculous posturing about “lessons learnt all round I hope”.
I do mean the word “ridiculous” in its literal sense of inviting ridicule.
I'm sorry your not interesting enough, maybe try a little harder
[...]
You need education: “Try a little harder”, as you said.
HTH, HAND.
I would like to make a sincere discussion here and if you want to tag me feel free to do so because I would myself leave the community the way it is going right now and I made a new account to at least safeguard main account.
There is no need creating a new account to safe guard your main one. No one would target you for having conflicting opinions and if they did, it would not hold water as there would be counters to the rating and possible exclusions of those member from a couple of trusted lists.It should not matter that much either if you're leaving the forum.
There is no need continuing a reputation topic here in meta, you can join the discussion there with your dummy-account instead.
Edit- you moved the post while I was typing a reply.
My question first of all to FJ is that " Why don't you verify accounts initially if you want to verify their accounts later?" Secondly why would you only ask such ID proofs on big withdrawals and not smaller ones?
How does your question correlate with the title of your post? The forum does not police external sites and scams are unmoderated.This post is clearly made by someone that has no clue about the forum or who has suffered serious brain injuries. The only other possible explanation given the clear evidence in the OP is that it is seeking favor and merit from the proven and verified scammer lauda.
Another clear example of lauda using red tags to silence people raising questions regarding what some would certainly call shady practices.
Nothing will be done by DT they are terrified of lauda and his gang of merit pumped goons who have entrenched themselves in default trust using the moronic merit = trust system developed by theymos.
There is simply zero point attempting to appeal to Theymos to either fix the system or take care of system abusers and manipulators like lauda.
Things are actually getting worse. Lauds has flipped QS/ PN7 and has got him redacting years old posts on his favor. Removing tags on lauda and his goons. He seems to have awoken the sleeping beauty nullius who immediately awoke possessed to red tag an account laudas prime critic ( that account had not posted for months) on the basis that empathy is unfair. Later to make posts praising empathy. The nullius account is laudas bitch now. We have ChuckBuck felching away (thanks nullius for your great knowledge of felching) and JollyGood the game scam Hunter that will bust scams but then remain silent while lauda and his goons find ways to facilitate their repatriation on to this forum and be paid at the same time by those scams.
Same for suchmoon, he may utter a squeak of disapproval
at laudas red trust bully boy tactics that certainly do pose a financial risk to other members by detering and discrediting valid warnings like those in the op are giving. Suchmoon though soon shrinks away and stops squeaking when lauda turns up the heat. If it were anyone else ( except the true legend CH who suchmoon is terrified of because he destroys suchmoons feeble logic and reasoning for fun) suchmoon would be the usual tenacious wrecking machine that it is. No though, when it is lauda a squeak and no more is said. Why? because even the beloved suchmoon knows Lauda has so many slobbering goons and alts that suchmoon is vulnerable.
There is zero hope to overcome these trust abusing scammers like lauda entrenched by the merit cycling toadies and a few frail impotent old fools like jetcash that don't really have a clue. There are probably less than 3 DT1 that you can say even object to how things are and they are wise enough not to stick their necks out. It would do no good and why lose those sig spots and be bullied and have your accounts ruined and defamed.
The problem is the stupid system. You will always find ruthless scammers like lauda willing to abuse and game any system. Lauda just openly fucks the system and anyone who gets in its way. Almost a open and honest scammer and extortionist. It is possible lauda sees nothing wrong with abusing the weak and pathtic members who sit back and take it.
Theymos sees this and does what? removed laudas exclusion? why? LoyceV was first to gloat about that bombshell. I never feel good criticising Theymos it is nothing to do with fear either. It is almost like lauda has something on him as leverage and criticism feels like punishing someone who is already suffering. Since if you examine the history of Theymos posts and ideologies it is inconceivable he would create such a system allowing such abuse of honest members at the hands of those so greedy and dishonest. Almost creating a cancer to erode free speech. If it is intentional then fix this disaster.
Therefore you have zero hope to see any kind of balanced and fair governance. Red tags must not deter your freedom to speak out when you see something is clearly corrupt or a scam. If you wish to speak out the truth but don't want your account ruined just make an alt it takes 10 seconds, get a vpn, pay the dust evil ip, or just get a burner phone sim for the initial login. Whatever, just don't sit back and let a handful of scammers and their goons stop you saying what you want ( if it is true )
Find those scamming wretches posts, their escrowing services, and money lending threads and their sig sponsors and whenever you have an opportunity while working within the board rules to inject an evidence based warning these are scamming trust abusing scum bags do so. Beware there are mods they will implore to remove your posts at the slightest excuse of rule infraction. Your post must be on topic and relevant to the OP don't just follow the flow because others will be permitted you will not.
Join the guild in meta it is a possible solution to the trust abusing scammers like lauda and his crew.
[...]
"They're so dumb" is the correct grammar
...their so dumb.)
"They're so dumb" is the correct grammar
That was the pun...
It's safe to assume that if someone makes grammatical errors due to dyslexia, they probably won't notice that type of pun either
Lessons learnt all round I hope
[...]
"They're so dumb" is the correct grammar
...their so dumb.)
"They're so dumb" is the correct grammar
That was the pun...
For the [OT] rest: what a load of childish BS (again)...
if you're can understand despite grammar poor then syntax not matter because communication critical is most and ideas underlying matter more than sticking to confusing rules in english
I was, however, under the impression that nullius's post was satirical.
Orifice knotted all dare and tension, mime a steak.
Oops, I didn't even realize
...their so dumb.)
"They're so dumb" is the correct grammar
if you're can understand despite grammar poor then syntax not matter because communication critical is most and ideas underlying matter more than sticking to confusing rules in english
I was, however, under the impression that nullius's post was satirical.
Orifice knotted all dare and tension, mime a steak.
Students these days will study anything, especially nonsense philosophy. I'm sorry your not interesting enough, maybe try a little harder
Some of them even study the differing semantics of homophones.
(I hate people who confuse “you’re” with “your”...
...their so dumb.)
My bad, thanks for pointing that out, have corrected my previous post. I actually hate making that mistake myself, as I'm fully aware of English grammer and (believe it or not) am a well qualified translator (french->english). But being partially dyslexic, I make this mistake too often, as I don't "proof read" my own writing enough.
I don't think it makes me "dumb" though, far from it. That's like calling someone who's physically disabled weak: it's an enormous stereotype. But then again, if you think the likes of Richard Branson, Walt Disney and Albert Einstein are simply "dumb" - then I really can't help you.
For reference sake, my partial dyslexia comes from having a
*This was the 90s, in the UK, when bilingualism was generally discouraged and frowned upon
P.S., I escaped school early. Perhaps that may be why I avoided such brain-damage
Good for you, I wasn't as fortunate. My disgust for the English language began during my cognitive development, which took me decades to overcome
Mods, can you start deleting posts by the lazy users who don't bother to edit walls of text before they add one line of new useless content? :/
I am not even sure what such users are trying to accomplish: It induces people to scroll on past, or even killfile. Whereas basic network etiquette is not so much a forum rule, as a rule of the Internet for at least the past four decades. (n00bs, n.b., “the Internet” != “the Web”.)
Students these days will study anything, especially nonsense philosophy. I'm sorry your not interesting enough, maybe try a little harder
Some of them even study the differing semantics of homophones.
(I hate people who confuse “you’re” with “your”...
...their so dumb.)
h/t: *zing*
P.S., I escaped school early. Perhaps that may be why I avoided such brain-damage as tends to be inflicted by systemic educational degeneration and falling standards.
You need education: “Try a little harder”, as you said.
HTH, HAND.
I think I've said too much
dragonvslinux - nice charts! I'd like to see mine.
Apologies Vod, these are reserved for "anthropologically interesting cases" only - whatever the f that means, and you weren't the most interesting it seems ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Students these days will study anything, especially nonsense philosophy. I'm sorry you're not interesting enough, maybe try a little harder
I think I've said too much
Disclaimer: [...] All references provided are intended for indexing and informational purposes only [...]
If Loyce get's round to updating this list, then I'd consider doing DT trust stats for the Top 10 out of personal curiosity, so you'd make that cut at least
dragonvslinux - nice charts! I'd like to see mine.
The facts are there. Ad hominem. ?? calling a scammer a scammer is.not adhominem. It is the truth. How do you call out a scammer?
Which observable facts are you disputing now ?
Just based on the title of this topic, I have to strongly disagree with some statistical data. I only skimmed the OP, my bad.
Lauda's DT1 trust has been declining over the past year, while their distrust overall has been increasing.
This is particularly noticeable when we look at DT1 trust % (as well as DT1 & ex-DT1 combined that's now back over 50%):
To say Lauda owns the trust system is false. It's statistically clear they don't control/own DT, but instead are very close from being excluded after the recent DT shakeup.
Lauda's DT1 trust has been declining over the past year, while their distrust overall has been increasing.
This is particularly noticeable when we look at DT1 trust % (as well as DT1 & ex-DT1 combined that's now back over 50%):
To say Lauda owns the trust system is false. It's statistically clear they don't control/own DT, but instead are very close from being excluded after the recent DT shakeup.
All very true but is pretty much irrelevant when the case is so clear cut.
Not sure why you don't just do the right thing and red tag lauda then open a flag on the scamming piece of dirt.
This is not just leaving finger prints. This is video footage and thousands of eye witnesses and the cops have a time machine to revisit and watch live if they want. With the killer bursting in boasting about it and saying you're next.
Fuck lauda a clear undeniably crooked scammer. No need to be polite about those that are undeniably shit stains.
Say what you like about him, it will not change the undeniable and independently verifiable evidence that demonstrates he is a scammer and is supported by many in DT.
There is no weak argument here regarding lauda being a scammer or trust abuser.
I want to show you what I see every time someone writes one of these posts. Let us perform a direct substitution on the word 'Lauda' and see the concreteness of your response which I still find is plagued with antagonistic remarks.Not sure why you don't just do the right thing and red tag lauda then open a flag on the scamming piece of dirt.
This is not just leaving finger prints. This is video footage and thousands of eye witnesses and the cops have a time machine to revisit and watch live if they want. With the killer bursting in boasting about it and saying you're next.
Fuck lauda a clear undeniably crooked scammer. No need to be polite about those that are undeniably shit stains.
Say what you like about him, it will not change the undeniable and independently verifiable evidence that demonstrates he is a scammer and is supported by many in DT.
There is no weak argument here regarding lauda being a scammer or trust abuser.
I'm not sure why you don't just do the right thing and put negative feedback on satoshi. You need to open a flag on this scamming piece of dirt.
There's tons of evidence.
Fuck satoshi, they're clearly undeniably crooked and they're a blatant scammer. This is why I call them undeniably crooked and a blatant scammer because they don't deserve politeness.
It doesn't matter what you say about him, because the evidence clearly shows he's a scammer.
There are no weak arguments in relation to satoshi being a scammer.
In all of that, what do we see? Well, for one, nothing really backing up your whole schtick of "Lauda = Scammer".
If you have time to insult them over several lines in the post, then you should have time to provide a link to the evidence your whole post is based on.
That is brilliant. Do you always ignore the content of the thread that you post in?
Have a look starting with my first post in this thread.
I think your substitution with satoshi may run into some problems ....like for instance the concrete evidence is independently verifiable as coming from lauda not satoshi
like the police saying look if we edit the video footage to Santa killing your wife, pretend the 1000's f eye witnesses are saying it was santa, put Santa's finger prints on the knife, then all of us cops pretend we see Santa there now threatening to kill you next ...then you see how silly you sound claiming it was real murderer?
This is such a insane example. Please be sensible.
All very true but is pretty much irrelevant when the case is so clear cut.
Not sure why you don't just do the right thing and red tag lauda then open a flag on the scamming piece of dirt.
This is not just leaving finger prints. This is video footage and thousands of eye witnesses and the cops have a time machine to revisit and watch live if they want. With the killer bursting in boasting about it and saying you're next.
Fuck lauda a clear undeniably crooked scammer. No need to be polite about those that are undeniably shit stains.
Say what you like about him, it will not change the undeniable and independently verifiable evidence that demonstrates he is a scammer and is supported by many in DT.
There is no weak argument here regarding lauda being a scammer or trust abuser.
I want to show you what I see every time someone writes one of these posts. Let us perform a direct substitution on the word 'Lauda' and see the concreteness of your response which I still find is plagued with antagonistic remarks.Not sure why you don't just do the right thing and red tag lauda then open a flag on the scamming piece of dirt.
This is not just leaving finger prints. This is video footage and thousands of eye witnesses and the cops have a time machine to revisit and watch live if they want. With the killer bursting in boasting about it and saying you're next.
Fuck lauda a clear undeniably crooked scammer. No need to be polite about those that are undeniably shit stains.
Say what you like about him, it will not change the undeniable and independently verifiable evidence that demonstrates he is a scammer and is supported by many in DT.
There is no weak argument here regarding lauda being a scammer or trust abuser.
I'm not sure why you don't just do the right thing and put negative feedback on satoshi. You need to open a flag on this scamming piece of dirt.
There's tons of evidence.
Fuck satoshi, they're clearly undeniably crooked and they're a blatant scammer. This is why I call them undeniably crooked and a blatant scammer because they don't deserve politeness.
It doesn't matter what you say about him, because the evidence clearly shows he's a scammer.
There are no weak arguments in relation to satoshi being a scammer.
In all of that, what do we see? Well, for one, nothing really backing up your whole schtick of "Lauda = Scammer".
If you have time to insult them over several lines in the post, then you should have time to provide a link to the evidence your whole post is based on.
I believe it is important to distinguish oneself from a typical rabblerouser in the Reputation section if you truly do wish to persuade others.
One vital step is the immediate disengagement from all ad hominem remarks. Countless times have I explained to various users: as opposed to strengthening your argument by way of character assassination, one may find that the true character assassination is of their own argument.
Regardless of the validity of your statements, by planting the seed of contempt you are creating a structure of thoughts that is easier to attack. By using a weak argument, you too weaken your character. It calls to question one's character if they have to resort to underhanded tactics in order to "win" an argument.
Let us impart an example to further elaborate this duality.
A supposedly-cunning serial killer has entered your house, killed your wife, and let you witness the entire event, allowing for your infuriation to blossom. Fortunately, their fingerprints are on the knife they foolishly left behind.
As opposed to solely providing the evidence, you begin to make remarks that appear to be unfounded: "He thinks he's smart but he's a total idiot, this ugly fuckface is clearly a killer."
As the serial killer walks in, you immediately start lashing out at him, spewing threats and instilling the halo effect upon his other characteristics.
Do these remarks help, or is it a mere mental masturbation of ego stroking?
One vital step is the immediate disengagement from all ad hominem remarks. Countless times have I explained to various users: as opposed to strengthening your argument by way of character assassination, one may find that the true character assassination is of their own argument.
Regardless of the validity of your statements, by planting the seed of contempt you are creating a structure of thoughts that is easier to attack. By using a weak argument, you too weaken your character. It calls to question one's character if they have to resort to underhanded tactics in order to "win" an argument.
Let us impart an example to further elaborate this duality.
A supposedly-cunning serial killer has entered your house, killed your wife, and let you witness the entire event, allowing for your infuriation to blossom. Fortunately, their fingerprints are on the knife they foolishly left behind.
As opposed to solely providing the evidence, you begin to make remarks that appear to be unfounded: "He thinks he's smart but he's a total idiot, this ugly fuckface is clearly a killer."
As the serial killer walks in, you immediately start lashing out at him, spewing threats and instilling the halo effect upon his other characteristics.
Do these remarks help, or is it a mere mental masturbation of ego stroking?
All very true but is pretty much irrelevant when the case is so clear cut.
Not sure why you don't just do the right thing and red tag lauda then open a flag on the scamming piece of dirt.
This is not just leaving finger prints. This is video footage and thousands of eye witnesses and the cops have a time machine to revisit and watch live if they want. With the killer bursting in boasting about it and saying you're next.
Fuck lauda a clear undeniably crooked scammer. No need to be polite about those that are undeniably shit stains.
Say what you like about him, it will not change the undeniable and independently verifiable evidence that demonstrates he is a scammer and is supported by many in DT.
There is no weak argument here regarding lauda being a scammer or trust abuser.
I believe it is important to distinguish oneself from a typical rabblerouser in the Reputation section if you truly do wish to persuade others.
One vital step is the immediate disengagement from all ad hominem remarks. Countless times have I explained to various users: as opposed to strengthening your argument by way of character assassination, one may find that the true character assassination is of their own argument.
Regardless of the validity of your statements, by planting the seed of contempt you are creating a structure of thoughts that is easier to attack. By using a weak argument, you too weaken your character. It calls to question one's character if they have to resort to underhanded tactics in order to "win" an argument.
Let us impart an example to further elaborate this duality.
A supposedly-cunning serial killer has entered your house, killed your wife, and let you witness the entire event, allowing for your infuriation to blossom. Fortunately, their fingerprints are on the knife they foolishly left behind.
As opposed to solely providing the evidence, you begin to make remarks that appear to be unfounded: "He thinks he's smart but he's a total idiot, this ugly fuckface is clearly a killer."
As the serial killer walks in, you immediately start lashing out at him, spewing threats and instilling the halo effect upon his other characteristics.
Do these remarks help, or is it a mere mental masturbation of ego stroking?
One vital step is the immediate disengagement from all ad hominem remarks. Countless times have I explained to various users: as opposed to strengthening your argument by way of character assassination, one may find that the true character assassination is of their own argument.
Regardless of the validity of your statements, by planting the seed of contempt you are creating a structure of thoughts that is easier to attack. By using a weak argument, you too weaken your character. It calls to question one's character if they have to resort to underhanded tactics in order to "win" an argument.
Let us impart an example to further elaborate this duality.
A supposedly-cunning serial killer has entered your house, killed your wife, and let you witness the entire event, allowing for your infuriation to blossom. Fortunately, their fingerprints are on the knife they foolishly left behind.
As opposed to solely providing the evidence, you begin to make remarks that appear to be unfounded: "He thinks he's smart but he's a total idiot, this ugly fuckface is clearly a killer."
As the serial killer walks in, you immediately start lashing out at him, spewing threats and instilling the halo effect upon his other characteristics.
Do these remarks help, or is it a mere mental masturbation of ego stroking?
Lauda has a special sponsorship deal with FJ he does not go through hhampuz.
Some say he is a part of FJ.
Some say that I am the CEO of FJ. Others say that I live on the Mars. Without proof, any statements without evidence in any cases would amount to defamation and you know how that is handled. Some say he is a part of FJ.
Is that a scammer I hear trying to sound tough?
Imagine a scammer crying about being defamed as FJ CEO haha.
Is it handled by you scamming them or extorting them or you escrowing for them?
The evidence of your lying and scamming is concrete and irrefutable. Any DT not tagging and flagging you is complicit. Same goes for Theymos there evidence of you trying to dupe and scam investors is here on this thread. If he does not tag you and exclude you he is complicit with Your scamming actions.
I would not forgive or forget such scamming and lying to dupe investors. Then again with the extortion, shady escrow and trust abuse. Time to put out the trash.
By the way I was looking around and found this - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20717506
such great thoughts about those reputed coins shows how arrogant and negative minded Lauda is
quote below
Calling someone idiot just because he invests in altcoins while if someone calls Lauda idiot I am sure Lauda and his army will red paint him to an extent that his account will look like a joke.
This recoin https://www.livebitcoinnews.com/recoin-ico-scammer-pleads-guilty-in-court/ ? Trying to prove Lauda is wrong and negative you proved Lauda was right?such great thoughts about those reputed coins shows how arrogant and negative minded Lauda is
quote below
Have u heard about Recoin? i purchased 700$ but planning to do more. what do u think about investment like this?
You are an idiot. Stop investing in shit that nobody uses/wants/needs.Calling someone idiot just because he invests in altcoins while if someone calls Lauda idiot I am sure Lauda and his army will red paint him to an extent that his account will look like a joke.
Read.
These trolls read what they want to read, they see word "idiot" and they see lauda posted it and then they take everything out of context. Jump to: