Topic: OgNasty Ponzi passthrough and ponzi fans.. BTC losses everywhere he goes - page 10. (Read 8011 times)

Attempting to confuse matters? I am sorry if you were confused, but I can't be responsible for every simpleton that wanders in and has trouble reading my words. What was lame-ass was your original lazy opinion based on not even bothering to review the information fully, by your own admission, but still be willing to have a strong opinion about it. This is exactly what I was criticizing about TwitchySeal. He knows damn well most people aren't going to bother to look that close and he has a good chance of convincing people through repetition of his baseless theories operant conditioning style. Combine this with the long term trend of himself and his buddies repeating this behavior clearly directed at OGNasty, and it becomes quite obvious this is about serving personal vendettas, not about righting any wrongs done. Why would I want you to feel sorry for me? What hole? Why is it you rely on projection so much? Is it perhaps because you don't have any logical retort to what I said?

That is what you get, Tecshare, for attempting to confuse matters.  You get confusion that you, yourself, caused, seemingly on purpose with your lame-ass attempt at creating a dinsingenuous summary that you were inaccurately striving to spin in your favor.

If you try to be a bit more genuine in your renditions of the conduct and statements of others, then maybe someone will feel sorry for you.  Including me.  Perhaps?    

But, here, you dug your own little hole (a victim of your own seeming success) and then you are complaining (largely off topic and irrelevantly and who gives any shits) about someone else pulling up the ladder.  Difficult to feel sorry for that when we have other topics of the thread, which is largely the evidentiary relevance of various matters concerning OGNasty and if there is any accounting that needs to be done based on more recent evidentiary revelations or the extent that any of the new evidentiary revelations matter.

Again, this is a totally false equivalence as I already explained. You can keep trying real hard to make it sound like they share equal fault here, but that is absolute horse shit. This is Vods MO 100%. Target people abusing whatever systems of power he can, the slide the topic with so much bullshit and bickering people don't want to even look at it any more, then they throw their hands up and call it a draw. He does this EVERY TIME he is challenged on his abusive behavior. Its easy to poo poo and say just ignore him when you aren't the one being targeted. After all it costs you nothing to dismiss attacks on others now doesn't it?



So I am to prove a negative now? That's not how it works captain confirmation bias. You are making the claim, you have the burden of proof. It is just one piece of the big picture, and the rest of the pieces you drew in with crayon from your imagination and stomp your feet and demand the Easter bunny you drew is real because rabbits exist.

If you can actually disprove something specific I said, please do.  Your 'A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft' defense is a true statement, but it doesn't directly address anything.  Sometimes a discrepancy absolutely does prove theft.  And sometimes, like in this case, it's just one piece of the big picture.

I'm going to keep editing out and ignoring all the bullshit assumptions and personal attacks from now on, btw.

It's obvious you are on OgNasty's side. That's your prerogative.

I'm just pointing out they are both prolonging "petty interpersonal battles" that are harmful to this community either way.

Now we can discuss the extent to which one is more harmful than the other, but I (and - again - I suspect more people around here) am (are) not up for that. As I already said:


Just leaving this out here - again:

This is exactly what I am talking about. A discrepancy in the numbers does not equal theft. Again, you are making conclusions then arranging the facts around it to support that conclusion, not looking at the facts and making a conclusion based on the facts. This is textbook confirmation bias. You are so thirsty for this to serve your personal vendettas. You aren't interested in facts or an honest assessment of what happened here. You are only interested in crafting a narrative that is maximally destructive to OGNasty's reputation because your target is the man, not any damages caused.

I hadn't made any conclusions until yesterday.  If you'd have read the thread you would've known that I was open about the fact that I could be wrong.

Right now (as of yesterday) there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Og stole BTC144 and I don't need Pirates statement about paying out OgNasty in full to prove it.   (There is evidence that he took more, but it's not strong enough (yet).)


We have pirates ledger for every transaction.
We have ogs thread archived.
We have both Pirates and OgNastys wallets indexed on wallet explorer.
We have the block chain.

Og was receiving weekly interest payments from Pirate, and making monthly payments to his pass through investors.

The last interest payment Og sent to his investors was on August 2, 2012.  

On August 6  Og received an interested payment of BTC66.8
On August 13 Og received an interested payment of  BTC39.2
On August 17 He received a withdraw for BTC38

On Sept 2 he paid out the insurance he had been collecting to 4 investors.  BTC9.92, BTC4.59, BTC22.95 and BTC27.54

We know that was the insurance because Og posted on the same day 'reserves have been paid, pirate has defaulted', and they total BTC65, the same amount Og listed as the 'current reserves' on August 2.

You'll find transaction ids to all of these in the thread if you decide to bother looking into it.

But you did in fact do that.


I put the quote you selectively edited in bold and underlined the parts where you took what I said out of context and pretended as if it were a direct statement from me as a matter of fact.

What I actually said:


You will notice you removed the context of not only the "TL;DR" indicating it was a summary of another user's post, but you also took the time to remove the brackets which are another indication of such so that you could reply to the comments as if it fit the narrative you are trying to manufacture. You did in fact edit my quote and take it out of context. You can repeat that I have not looked into it ad nauseam, but that doesn't make it a fact. You know what is textbook psychological projection? Exactly what you just did editing my quotes and purposely manufacturing new context to push your preferred narrative.

Just because you have some facts doesn't mean they support your every conclusion. You have established a relationship. You haven't established intent, harmed parties, or even missing funds. Your conclusions rely on speculation, assumption, and suspicion, not facts. You have come to a conclusion first then are attempting to arrange the facts around that conclusion. That is called confirmation bias, and it is a logical fallacy.



You are the one comparing apples and oranges. I didn't make a comparison, I pointed out your comparison is a false equivalence because their behavior is no where near comparable. Petty bickering is one thing, perpetual organized attacks on targeted users abusing the forums trust systems and using the force of the state as a weapon is not comparable. One is distinctly more dangerous to this community than the other.

You're comparing apple's and oranges, I only referred to the two threads who are basically the same petty $%^*(&&...

The one has done a lot of "policing" on this forum (stepping on a lot of toes while doing so) and the other one has mainly used this forum for his own financial gain (making a lot of people look green with envy). Not supporting either one, nor condemning either one (although; yes, the one might have been a bit more tactfull and the other might have used a bit better judgment in appraising opportunities).

But you must admit that both threads turned out to be nothing more than "petty interpersonal battles" (as you say), by both...  

PS and doing more harm to this forum and community than contributing...

I did not do that.


It's pretty ironic how you've been defending Og and claiming all of my assumptions are baseless and none of my conclusions are supported by fact (plus all the personal attacks), despite the fact you haven't bothered to look into it.  Textbook psychological projection.

Do you always edit people's quotes and take them out of context to manufacture deceptive conclusions or just when you have no argument to support your personal vendettas?

Differences of opinion is not a bad thing, and even clusters of alliances are not necessarily bad, either.  The forum seems to allow for that, and surely seems to be dangerous if newbies get too caught up in such battles, which makes it seem that they are accounts created or paid for by other members, even if they are overly enthusiastic to take sides.  None of us that you quoted, herein are newbies.

Anyhow, I try NOT to participate too much in those kinds of alliances, but the use of trust and various aspects/ tools of the forum does seem to encourage some of that kind of involvement. 

Came for the bitcoin, stayed for the interludes of drama.     

If one goes Sherlock on the traces of this attacks on specific people, you would know who's being targeted for what. But most don't bother, afterall it's all just a forum for many but much more than it for some.

I thought that was the case.

I think it's kind of lame and that you say stuff like this without even looking into it:




I appreciate you admitting that you didn't bother looking into it though.

You can stop posting any time you want.

I am not trying to be prescriptive.  I was merely describing.  So motivate yourself however, you would like.
 

 O.k.  Just seemed like a temper tantrum to me, but if it was an objective and emotionless variation of a rant, then that is fine, too.



You are on a mission to stop injustices.  I see.  Great.
 

I am glad that you are taking one for the team.  That's good of you.
 

I doubt that you are being targeted.

Anyhow, that seemed to be a bit off topic. 

I am not really sure what ways I can make it more clear that the need to be liked is extremely low on my hierarchy of needs, but it always seems people like to remind me of this when I am critical of them as if it is an effective motivating force. It's not.

Also, much like TwitchySeal it seems you also like to project emotional states upon me rather than respond to the substance of what I posted. You can all collectively wag your fingers at me and tell stories if you like, this Stalinist "show me the man I will find you the crime" bullshit must be stopped at all costs. If I need to be the whipping boy for a while until everyone else realizes they need to collectively stand up to this as well then so be it. All it takes is enough people saying no. The people doing this can't target all of us, their bullshit only spreads so thin.

Gosh, Tecshare.  What a great summary!!!!!  No wonder you are so well liked in these parts.  Your ability to boil a bunch of words down to their bare essence.   


NOZT

 


By the way,  Tecshare, I recall a few posts back, you were going on a little temper tantrum when Twitchy had attempted to summarize what you were saying, so you decided to attempt such paring down on your own?

TL;DR

[I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway. Victims might not have known they were robbed. Who needs victims anyway? We can still use this as an opportunity to allow certain people here to pursue personal vendettas. After all what is important is that we pass judgement on people even if there is no harmed party seeking redress.]



Literally no one is alleging you are alleging victims are coming forward. That is a cute little semantic trick though to make it superficially seem like I was accusing you of making that claim rather than accusing you of pursuing a personal vendetta for your own self serving purposes. All of your claims rely heavily on speculation, assumptions, and perfect hindsight. There are no victims seeking redress, meaning you are here to target OGNasty, not to serve any sort of justice.




I did not. Feel free to quote if you think I am wrong. I don't support your false equivalence. Vod has a long history of perusing his personal vendettas using every forum rule, community, and even the state to attack people who dare speak critically of him. OGNasty does not. They are no where near the same, so your "what goes around, comes around." colloquialism is meaningless in this context.




I see you are borrowing TwitchySeal's semantic deceits as well. None of this information is new. This isn't about seeking redress for any harmed party. This is about targeting a specific user because it serves you and your friends personally. I am "getting all bent out of shape over it" because I am not a fan of little men trying to make themselves feel big by rallying mobs and using the state as a tool to punish people who are critical of them. That's all this is. You can postulate about the law like Vod all you like, everyone sees what this is even if they aren't as vocal about it as me.

Great find!  


OG received 2 interest payments and a withdraw in mid August (total of BTC144)

Yet no interest payments or withdraws were paid to pass-through investors.  Just the reserve payout on September 1.

This much is clear and provable.