Topic: Nullius defending the scammer lauda and nutildah. Terrified of open debate with (Read 758 times)

Good rule, so marlboroza is allowed to post here then  
Do you have video evidence of suchmoon reading this topic, then pretending to ignore then jumping in "trying to look cool"?

---

Any proofs to back up your statement from topic yet?


Why are you deleting my posts and censuring me?

Do you have video evidence of suchmoon reading this topic, then pretending to ignore then jumping in "trying to look cool"?

---

Any proofs to back up your statement from topic yet?


Stay on topic and stay safe!

Do you have video evidence of suchmoon reading this topic, then pretending to ignore then jumping in "trying to look cool"?

---

Any proofs to back up your statement from topic yet?


Stay on topic and stay safe!

Stop switching arguments to avoid looking silly.

You admit you were wrong, and needed to be corrected , that is enough.

Now back to hiding away.

Good to see you too are supporting the malboroza standard of video proof for control of account.

The marlboroza and suchmoon standard of video proof requirement for account control.

Nice!  That will get some mileage.

Until marlboroza answers if he is zorrobek then he will not be allowed to post further here on this thread
Also all derailing away from nullius will be deleted as I see fit.

Ok, I stand corrected, this sounds very criminal. What do you reckon, should he get a type 3 flag for the theft of posts? I take it you have the elusive video evidence.

Dont make this too obvious suchmoon .

Let's take a look at this post.

1. Look at the correlation between zorrobek and marlboroza
I mean look how zorrobek shows up. Look at the threads read them, then in Jan he marlboroza is told he cant post on that thread and who shows up? Zorrobek?


2. Mods just removing the text and not posts?
Mods deleting removing 80% (according to qs )of posts but leaving it active?


3. Those don't even matter. It is clear that malboroza making video proof a requirement
Where is your video proof I deleted them? Demonstrates he feels that is the required level of evidence to show someone controls accounts

Anyone else ( not part of the gang)suchmoon would just start calling marlboroza zorrobek...

Anyway there is no marlboroza proof aka video proof
I actually agree with him. However I still think it highly highly probable that is marlborozas alt.


So until I get a more credible and reasonable explanation for video proof being the requirement for account control. This will be the standard required.

Now suchmoon usually does this. He hides away afraid to speak pretending to ignore.
Then when suchmoon " thinks" he sees an opportunity to jump in with some smart put down it will jump in trying to look cool
Only to be bitch slapped back out of the thread looking like a foolish scammer supporting imbecile. Either self debunking his earlier claimed beliefs or just making outrageous crazy statements in anger.

Stick to helping with repeating your deletes.

Hold on that reminds me. Let me just delete the text of  of your posts first but leave it there for a bit of fun. Oh hmm seems I cant do that without having control of your account suchmoon. Lol

Keep em coming dummies.

Yes, but that's not the case here.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gone-puf-1472668

Moderators would just trash up the thread or even if they edit it, the same would be notified as an edited by mod. It would not be wrong to assume he deleted many more of his posts from there.

I think marlboroza looked liked a faucets hunter with his alt.

So let me get this straight (can't read the CH garbage but I'm assuming he's insisting that QS is right) - the dipshit in his own self-moderated thread is refusing to accept the possibility that a moderator or a self-mod OP could delete someone else's posts?

Please be sensible and read this link

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50571141

And the preceding posts above it where qs is saying zorrobek is yout alt.

Let's first answer this.  Is zorrobek your alt. Do you or have you controlled that account

Yes or no?

We can move to the statement that doesnt state what you think it states after this is sorted out.

I mean he quickseller is clearly in that thread saying you are zorrobek. To me it is highly highly probable from watching this alt that you are zorrobek. I dont really care if you are you can have an alt. There is no way to prove it is anyway.

To delete the posts content so they are empty posts and he says 80% were deleted by you.
Then clearly he saying zorrobek is your alt or you had control over it?  You cant delete other members posts and leave them empty.

You tell him he needs video evidence of you having deleted those posts. Why else asking the question?
You tell him show the proof  the video proof of you doing it.

You are clearly starting he needs video evidence to demonstrate zorrobek is your alt. Who else could delete this except zorrobek.

What else could it mean?
You require video evidence to demonstrate control of account.

Is zorrobek your alt? Yes or no?

Anyway I will continue to say what I have previously, until you offer a credible alternative meaning.

Once you answer this I will explain further how " or " means the first part of the sentence is a possible not a statement of certainty.

Also since investigating more deeply into the history of creepy pervy old nullius I am leaning to the part of the sentence that continues after the " or "

But let's do the zorrobek if you must explain how you were not requiring video evidence for proof of account control.

It appears you only think video evidence is required to prove you controlled or control an account.

If you offer sensible credible  alternative explanation of what you meant,  then fine.

Cannot change things later and say you meant something those words clearly are saying.
If you claim others have control over other accounts they can say where is the video evidence to you.

Anyway let's hear your alternative explanation of that requirement

Then can get back to your other point you think you have.

No, no no. You said I asked for video evidence that zorrobek is my alt account. This post proofs that I didn't ask for evidence that zorrobek is my alt account, it shows proof that I asked QS to provide me proof that I deleted post. As I said, I let you play for...."weeks"  

"alt accounts" to "controlling account", that is pretty much changing the story on your end.


Stop changing subject, provide proofs from topic! Lauda==nullius is what you claim, either edit topic so we could discuss other relevant things from topic or provide proofs to back up you claim!