Topic: More trust system abuse by Lauda - page 5. (Read 4659 times)

So Lauda, when am I going to get to see some of your new found reasonable approach to your frivolous negative trust ratings?

Take it from me, it's not always glitz and glamour...

Sometimes ya gotta stop for autographs and photos...

Another removal and replacement in a sad and transparent abuse of the trust system.

Lauda   2020-01-24   Reference   Dishonest. Wouldn't trust. See also: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52385837.
Continues to post lies out of spite, see here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53466749. And: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/more-abuse-by-tecshare-nsfw-reeesponse-5214377

Amazing coincidence these ratings always appear when I am critical of their friends.

Be my guest, there you go : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=140827

I consider starting to collect these neg feedbacks.
Kinda feels like pokemon, gotta catch'em all

JJG the low functioning dreg waffling turd, keeps on supporting clear trust abuse. Not just in this case with lauda but in other instances also. How has this scumbag avoided red tags so far?? man up DT good guys.

Those supporting clear trust abuse are clearly untrustworthy. DT members should tag them red. This is what the system is for.

Lauda abuses trust usually to

a/ punish those that present observable instances of his prior scamming and shady deeds
b/ Punish those that present observable instances of his pals that entrench him with support prior scamming and shady deeds
c/ those that speak up to defend those he is abusing.

yogg, jjg, mosprognoz, owlcatz, tman, mornobozo, thenew anon, ultraelite, xtraelv tourettes poet, all of these are every bit as bad as lauda for trust abuse because they enable and support his trust abuse. ALL should be red tagged to warn others they condone his scamming and extorting and shady escrowing and trust abuse (to conceal those instances) if that is not untrustworthy then what is??

note them all down and work towards making sure these are all cut away from positions of trust.

laudas trust abuse is too blatant now, they know that accounts days are numbered don't focus to much only on lauda.

Also start pushing behind this reset idea i see some members supporting, this would be an excellent first step to prevent this kind of trust abuse lauda enjoys being able to dole out.

Your such a pajeet. How can you reference a 2015 post when the system has changed so much, only a Sexually transmitted disease like you would stoop so low.

Keyboard fucker

Finally found it.

There's no effect on any user when I replace a rating, let alone it constituting "harassing". I can't undo the butthurt of a dumb 'Murican with my magic wand, sadly.

---

I do know what your problem is. You've failed to accomplish a useless pajeet-level deal with me as you have with others, thus it hurts being unable to further facilitate your trust farming.  

Maybe you should replace it once an hour? Perhaps that would keep you from harassing slightly fewer people if you are busy doing that.

That shouldn't have ended in there. Replaced a fourth time to correct this mistake. Thanks for the heads up.

I am going to start keeping a record of Lauda deleting and replacing their frivolous negative rating in an attempt to further manipulate and abuse the trust system. This is the 3rd time the rating has been deleted and replaced.


Lauda   2020-01-02   Reference   Dishonest. Wouldn't trust. See also: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52385837.
Continues to post lies out of spite, see here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53466749. Missing dot.

My contemplation of adjustments to my trust list do not involve Lauda.... so don't attempt to suggest that.

Fine. I would be happy to see your adjustments, my respect for you would increase for sure. Hope it happens soon before more people loose there hope in DT.

Btw, I liked your above story about your well said "younger sister girlfriend" !

We have already gone back and forth a few times... TOAA and me.


You are free to make whatever determination that you deem appropriate, and I will let my words speak for themselves in terms of whatever I was purportedly claiming in terms of my spectatorship perspective or not. 


Yeah.. right... .. You seem to just want to stir shit, and attempt to go over points that have already been covered. 


I am not trusting anyone that I consider to be a harm to the system - although in my earlier post, I mentioned that I was considering making some adjustments, but at this time, I have no intention to discuss my trust considerations in public threads nor in response to any kind of assertion that I am somehow not doing it right....  I think that I already largely and sufficiently addressed this whole point at least once and maybe even more than once... and perhaps even more than I had needed to explain....     

O.k..  No problem.


Fair enough, I suppose.  But, I already said what my interpretation was.


I suppose that the cuts help, but I have been around the block for a decently long period of time, and I always try to represent accurately the statements of others and even give them the benefit of the doubt if I am not sure if I understand their argument, and even sometimes steel manning their arguments in order to attempt to address the stronger of the variations of arguments that can be read from their comments.   Just seems to be a better practice to attempt to give fair readings to people, even when disagreeing (maybe even especially when disagreeing), in my experience.


That's good.  I had already mentioned that I frequently will get a bit stubborn if I believe that someone is trying to get me to do something that I did NOT decide to do on my own.



Fair enough.


I already am familiar with a lot of that information. It is not like I just realized the various points that you made and how you so amazingly tied various points together.  You weren't really telling me anything that I did not already know - not that I arrived at the same conclusions as you or even believe that the evidence and the arguments that you were making were persuasive in terms of getting me to consider the evidence in a different light.  I am NOT totally closed to ideas of juggling my trust lists around, and I actually have some ideas that I have been considering, but I am not going to necessarily discuss my trust consideration ideas publicly, even though there are some possibilities that I might consult with one or two members before finalizing my changes... NOT necessarily that I would consult, but there are possibilities.  There are also possibilities that I might research into my considered changes a bit before I make them, but none of these considerations are really urgent on my mind at the moment, just some possible adjustment to which I had/have been giving some cursory thinking.



I don't take assignments very well, just like I was in grade school, I did not take them too well.

I did grow up though, and I found that there were certain ways in which I could receive assignments, but consider them to be ones that I had chosen to get involved in, rather than receiving them from someone else.


There is no ouch because you have not really said anything that resonates with me in terms of some kind of thing that I need to do or consider.  So, I am not sure how there could be any "ouch."  I have enjoyed some of the back and forth today, even though maybe I ended up spending a bit more time on it than I would have preferred, and there is one project that I was NOT able to make very much progress on today.  Actually there was another project that interfered, also, with my ability to get to one of my earlier intended projects, so it was NOT just you that caused me a bit of extra time away from that other earlier intended personal project that I had set for myself for earlier today.


That is how I read it, but sure, I could see some other possible plausible explanations.  They are not very persuasive, but I can appreciate that it is possible that you meant the ellipses to have communicated a message different from the message that I read.  Again, that does not seem to be a very plausible theory, but I can see that it is a kind of stretch of a possible intention.


hahahahaha

If that is how you treat your friends, I would surely hate to see what it would be like to be your enemy.     :D  

By the way, reminds me of a story.

 I had this friend, several years ago, and I was trying to get close to that friend in a kind of dating way.. and I might as well call her a girlfriend that I would have wanted to have.  This is well over 20 years ago.  

That wannabe girlfriend kept pushing me off onto her younger sister (by a few years).  Her sister was a bit annoying and even a bit immature, but also a bit fun in some kind of full of energy kinds of ways, too, especially because we were all kind of young and adventurous... relatively speaking, so I hung out with the younger sister on a frequent basis, and, for a few years, during that time of my life, I got to know other members of that family too.  

When I ended up moving away from that area, I had kind of fond memories for the various members of that family including that younger sister who I had spent a lot of time with, and when I got back in touch with the annoying younger sister (nearly 15 years after having moved to a separate place and different activities in my life), I had kind of wondered how we had fallen out of touch, so I was a bit excited when it came time to reunite with the younger annoying sister.  

After I spent some back and forth communications and then a few days reuniting with that younger annoying sister, my memory was refreshed regarding why I had fallen out of touch, and why she was so damned annoying.      

hahahahahhaha... so yeah, your comment reminded of a situation in which I had a friend (that younger sister) that was quite a burden of a friend, but surely much more tolerable in terms of annoyance 15 years earlier when I had more energy, and it can be really difficult to maintain friendships like that, and even more difficult when older (at least for me).


Yes.  I prefer to stay above ground.  Thanks for offering a graceful exit, for me.  


Edit:  I thought that we were done, and then I see that you added some more.  I am not going to go back and edit any of my earlier part to the extent any of that might have changed on your end... but anyhow, I will respond to the rest of your post.




Something like that.  Yes.



Maybe we are all made up, already?  Perhaps?


Hey, you chose how to respond, whether detailed or otherwise.  That's your choice.


Well, we were going back and forth, and it seemed to me that you were kind of heavy on the "Lauda hate", so when I looked at the red trust in your profile from Lauda, I thought that red trust might have had been partially motivating the way that you chose to respond to me in your various earlier posts.  You largely seem to have addressed my assertion(s).  You did not need to address it... that was up to you.



Up to you.  Of course, it was fair game because I raised it, but of course, you could have just ignored what I said, too.  Seems weird to reconsider the matter after you have already decided and you have already posted your list or the response that you had considered to be appropriate.

I think I was right about your rambling, if you like walls of text go enjoy with TOAA.

You are not just a spectator here as you are claming in every post of yours, you are a part of the problem because of this !!!


Eddie13 is talking 100% genuine and on topic, it is you who deny to take responsibility with literally no reason than fear to loose your "[blank 2]".

Or just say, you would include someone in your trust list even if they are an harm to the system.

I was just trying to explain situations to you (you even asked), and you don't want it, so I'll stop..
Simple..

That was not intended to misrepresent your post, it was intended to convey my feelings about our discussion, which was basically going nowhere..
It's not like someone is going to read that and believe it is exactly what you wrote.. Notice the ... ... cuts even.. Do you think?

I don't want to motivate you against your will or force feed you unsolicited advice either..
That was not my intention either.. I was just trying to share information with you (that you asked) and you were seeming to take offence to it as if I was trying to make you study something you didn't want to, so it's time to stop right?

Ouch man..

It would be a less than genuine summary 100%, but was not supposed to be a summary.. I thought it was an obvious chop-job..

I like you man.. Don't get all mad..

If you don't want to dive deep into this rabbithole that's fine..



I mean.. I wrote that huge post for you directly answering a difficult and legitimate question you asked me, dropped a source link in another post for you further answering your question, and you came back with "unsolicited advice" and "putting a burdon on you to study"...
You can probably understand that that was a bit frustrating and disheartening in our conversation for me, so I figure it was time to stop, and I'm sorry if I came back in a frustrated way..


I thought this was an honest question from you...


So I gave you a quite detailed answer..

Was it a rhetorical question? Was it merely a jab at me questioning my motives?
Was I not supposed to answer it?

Hahahaahahha

No wonder you receive red trust.  ahahahahahha 

Do really believe that you are representing the ideas of my post fairly?    Of course, I have a tendency to ramble a bit with explanations and even stream of consciousness, sometimes, but your summary is truly quite a bit less than genuine, amiNOTrite?

Ultimately, you can do whatever you want in terms of your posting behavior(s) or pestering anyone (including me) on any given topic, because I don't easily get flustered, even when members seem to be attempting to purposefully misrepresent the gist of my earlier points... like you seem to have just done.  Go figure?

OK I'll stop..

I am thinking that you are directing your comment at me, eddie13, right?

I doubt that the quote from Satoshi is fitting to this situation.  Seems to me that you have been trying to motivate me to take some kind of action, and to me, it is like a kind of unsolicited advice.  I did not ask for your advice, but then you are trying to put some kind of burden on me to study for something that I am not trying to prove or show.  The only thing that I said, to initiate my participation, was to suggest that I believe that most people are good, but then upon further comments from other posters, I modified some of my statements of opinion in response to those various responses..  

I am not seeking advice like was the case in the Satoshi statement, but you are trying to use satoshi's statement which really seems to pertain to someone who was attempting to ask stupid questions (wasn't it dan larimore?), but failing to do a sufficient amount of research about basics or whatever.  Doesn't seem to apply to my participation here.


Fair enough.