overwhelming consensus excludes Lauda, remains in DT2, went in2 buz w sold act - page 11.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Hhampuz on February 23, 2018, 03:34:35 AM

Instead of all the bullshit and all the empty threats of "I have proof.. I swear". Why don't you just share the proof QS?

I feel sad for anyone that actually listens to you or think that your words hold any weight at all.

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 23, 2018, 03:37:25 AM

Your latest change (I believe today) to the title of the thread was to add the language "6 socks added Lauda to their list." Are you going to list out those "6 socks" and then state reasons why you believe them to be socks of Lauda? Lots of moving goal posts and revolving drama here, no? Can you explain why you believe such an approach is justified?

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 03:23:56 AM

It should not be difficult to find evidence yourself though. Just pick one person who has added lauda to their trust list; there is a ~1 in 9 chance of it being a clearly purchased account, and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 11105

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 03:27:56 AM

There is proof the accounts in question are both purchased and owned by the same person. It is undeniable that you have declined to answer questions about if you have lobbied people or otherwise given incentives to people to add you to their trust lists.

There is also this...

Quote from: Lauda on February 23, 2018, 03:23:43 AM

OP's vendetta against me, which turned into an sick obsession, started before the alleged accounts[1] apparently added me.
[...]
[1] Still no idea who these accounts are. No proof that they are purchased, nor proof that they are owned by one person.

These statements do not agree with each other Roll Eyes

QS: Do you believe that you are acting in good faith when you continue to change the title of this thread? The thread has become a rolling stream of consciousness of allegations, no? Where does it stop?

Maybe you want the title of this thread to say, "I hate Lauda for a variety of changing reason"

Your latest change (I believe today) to the title of the thread was to add the language "6 socks added Lauda to their list."

Are you going to list out those "6 socks" and then state reasons why you believe them to be socks of Lauda.. that would be evidence and logic? Seems like a lot of moving goal posts and revolving drama here, no?

Can you explain why you believe such an approach towards the supposed behavior of Lauda is justified?

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Lauda on February 23, 2018, 03:34:26 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 03:32:54 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 23, 2018, 03:29:41 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 03:27:56 AM

There is proof the accounts in question are both purchased and owned by the same person.

You mean like proof that I do pills and proof that I'm The Pharmacist? Roll Eyes

Yes, just like that proof

Yeah, then this is your butthurt nonsense all over again. Nothing to see here folks.

Do you want to bet on that?

Hhampuz

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 6194

Meh.

Instead of all the bullshit and all the empty threats of "I have proof.. I swear". Why don't you just share the proof QS?

I feel sad for anyone that actually listens to you or think that your words hold any weight at all.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 03:32:54 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 23, 2018, 03:29:41 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 03:27:56 AM

There is proof the accounts in question are both purchased and owned by the same person.

You mean like proof that I do pills and proof that I'm The Pharmacist? Roll Eyes

Yes, just like that proof

Yeah, then this is your butthurt nonsense all over again. Nothing to see here folks.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Lauda on February 23, 2018, 03:29:41 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 03:27:56 AM

There is proof the accounts in question are both purchased and owned by the same person.

You mean like proof that I do pills and proof that I'm The Pharmacist? Roll Eyes

Yes, just like that proof

Quote from: Lauda on February 23, 2018, 03:29:41 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 03:27:56 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 23, 2018, 03:23:43 AM

OP's vendetta against me, which turned into an sick obsession, started before the alleged accounts[1] apparently added me.
[...]
[1] Still no idea who these accounts are. No proof that they are purchased, nor proof that they are owned by one person.

These statements do not agree with each other Roll Eyes

Yeah, right.

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 01:51:52 AM

One of these accounts was last active as of late May 2017, and most were last active as of June 2017, so I can rule out someone recently adding Lauda to their trust lists.

That is when they were last active, and when is the latest you could have been added. It is possible you were added previous to this time, and some have this data.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 03:27:56 AM

There is proof the accounts in question are both purchased and owned by the same person.

You mean like proof that I do pills and proof that I'm The Pharmacist? Roll Eyes

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 03:27:56 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 23, 2018, 03:23:43 AM

OP's vendetta against me, which turned into an sick obsession, started before the alleged accounts[1] apparently added me.
[...]
[1] Still no idea who these accounts are. No proof that they are purchased, nor proof that they are owned by one person.

These statements do not agree with each other Roll Eyes

Yeah, right.

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 01:51:52 AM

One of these accounts was last active as of late May 2017, and most were last active as of June 2017, so I can rule out someone recently adding Lauda to their trust lists.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

There is proof the accounts in question are both purchased and owned by the same person. It is undeniable that you have declined to answer questions about if you have lobbied people or otherwise given incentives to people to add you to their trust lists.

There is also this...

Quote from: Lauda on February 23, 2018, 03:23:43 AM

OP's vendetta against me, which turned into an sick obsession, started before the alleged accounts[1] apparently added me.
[...]
[1] Still no idea who these accounts are. No proof that they are purchased, nor proof that they are owned by one person.

These statements do not agree with each other Roll Eyes

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Let's see.
OP is an account seller/farmer.
OP's vendetta against me, which turned into an sick obsession, started before the alleged accounts[1] apparently added me.
OP is the one who brought up the trust list dump into this discussion (i.e. exclusions). That didn't work.
OP is the one who brought up the inclusions from the trust list dump.
The conclusion: The likelihood that OP has set this up over the course of time in order for it to be used at a later point for attacking me is very high.

[1] Still no idea who these accounts are. No proof that they are purchased, nor proof that they are owned by one person.

The forum's Iago does it again. Roll Eyes

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Lauda has claimed to have sent negative trust to >1000 "scammers" however as noted here, lauda has failed to leave negative trust to 6 clearly purchased accounts, all owned by the same person who all have lauda on their trust lists, as well as an account seller who clearly sold one of the accounts in question.

This amounts to over 11% of those who have lauda on their trust lists, and this only accounts that I have uncovered after a quick review.

Lauda has failed to respond to questions regarding if he has used sockpuppets to add himself to his sockpuppets trust lists, and has failed to respond to questions regarding if he has lobbied anyone to add him to their trust list.

How do Blazed, hilariousandco and salty feel about this? Is it appropriate to be selective in when negative trust should be sent? Lauda is well known to have sent hundreds of negative ratings to those who he claims to be sold accounts.

Salty previously claimed to have added lauda to his trust list because of the 'will of the people'. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say this is closer to the will of one person. Or maybe it is best accurately described as being the will of lauda.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: theymos on February 14, 2018, 04:51:05 AM

I've been seriously thinking about reopening the idea of enforcing user-defined trust lists via suggestions, etc., deprecating DefaultTrust.

Any chance you could add a "Last Post" info on each profile? Wink

Gimpeline

hero member

Activity: 555

Merit: 507

Quote from: Quickseller on February 20, 2018, 02:35:41 PM

Quote from: Gimpeline on February 20, 2018, 08:44:23 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 20, 2018, 08:25:51 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 20, 2018, 03:07:09 AM

Quote from: ibminer on February 20, 2018, 03:04:22 AM

Quote from: ibminer on February 18, 2018, 12:31:59 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 16, 2018, 05:04:43 AM

--snip--
This does not rely upon any confidential sources, so I can share what I have provided confidentiality is promised.

--snip--
I'd love to see the evidence and certainly would provide confidentiality. Keep in mind, I seek truth.

Is it safe to assume I will not be seeing any evidence of the Lauda alts?

Isn't it obvious and expected that he does not? As usual, he made the whole thing up.

Quote from: Lauda on February 16, 2018, 04:55:26 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 16, 2018, 05:04:43 AM

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public.

He claims he has evidence. I do not see evidence after you've explicitly denied this.

Lauda likes to imply that he has denied things that he very clearly did not deny. This is extremely dishonest, and likely plays a part as to why nearly 100 people have specifically excluded lauda from their trust lists.

It's even more dishonest to make accusations without backing it up and then pretend that it is proven
It's even more dishonest to post with several accounts to make it look like more people agree with you.

Its too bad none of that is true.

Further there are very clearly others promoting their own interests, including one person entirely unrelated to the dispute that is the subject of this thread.

Quote

There is no reason to deny things that is taken out of thin air

When you respond to allegations with a request for proof, you give up your right to ignore the accusations.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.30398505

Quote from: Quickseller on February 16, 2018, 05:04:43 AM

I have posted with exactly two accounts in this thread, the other account was really just screwing around, and I don't think was backing my arguments.

Who is dishonest now Roll Eyes

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: Quickseller on February 20, 2018, 02:35:41 PM

When you respond to allegations with a request for proof, you give up your right to ignore the accusations.

So let's see:

1) You post an allegation against someone, let's call her "Cat".
2) Cat requests proof.
3) You don't provide proof.
4) What exactly do you expect to happen here?

Stop digging your hole and show us some proof. Can't be that hard unless you don't have it.

nullius

copper member

Activity: 630

Merit: 2614

If you don’t do PGP, you don’t do crypto!

Quote from: Quickseller on February 20, 2018, 02:35:41 PM

[gasp, choke, sputter]

It would be funny to watch him struggle to keep this going, if the joke hadn’t been old as of a few days ago. It is still amusing to see this level of desperation from Quicksy.

Quote from: Quickseller on February 20, 2018, 02:35:41 PM

Quote from: Gimpeline on February 20, 2018, 08:44:23 AM

There is no reason to deny things that is taken out of thin air

When you respond to allegations with a request for proof, you give up your right to ignore the accusations.

As Grand Poobah of your basement, you may find your peremptory edicts to hold some weight there. Out here in the real world, actual evidence must be at hand before the subject of an accusation can be called to answer. N.b., the word “actual” implies “neither dredged from the fantasies of fellow scammers who got red-handed, nor magicked out of thin air with a wave of your hands”.

* nullius yawns.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Gimpeline on February 20, 2018, 08:44:23 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 20, 2018, 08:25:51 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 20, 2018, 03:07:09 AM

Quote from: ibminer on February 20, 2018, 03:04:22 AM

Quote from: ibminer on February 18, 2018, 12:31:59 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 16, 2018, 05:04:43 AM

--snip--
This does not rely upon any confidential sources, so I can share what I have provided confidentiality is promised.

--snip--
I'd love to see the evidence and certainly would provide confidentiality. Keep in mind, I seek truth.

Is it safe to assume I will not be seeing any evidence of the Lauda alts?

Isn't it obvious and expected that he does not? As usual, he made the whole thing up.

Quote from: Lauda on February 16, 2018, 04:55:26 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 16, 2018, 05:04:43 AM

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public.

He claims he has evidence. I do not see evidence after you've explicitly denied this.

Lauda likes to imply that he has denied things that he very clearly did not deny. This is extremely dishonest, and likely plays a part as to why nearly 100 people have specifically excluded lauda from their trust lists.

It's even more dishonest to make accusations without backing it up and then pretend that it is proven
It's even more dishonest to post with several accounts to make it look like more people agree with you.

Its too bad none of that is true.

Further there are very clearly others promoting their own interests, including one person entirely unrelated to the dispute that is the subject of this thread.

Quote

There is no reason to deny things that is taken out of thin air

When you respond to allegations with a request for proof, you give up your right to ignore the accusations.

InvoKing

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1065

✋(▀Ĺ̯ ▀-͠ )

Quote from: jackg on February 20, 2018, 11:20:30 AM

-snip-
What's the '~' for in that list? Trusted or untrusted? If so then what's up with jonald and shorena?

Code:

Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network.

Read Lauda or shorena/jonald trust comments and/or references for more details.

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: Lauda on February 20, 2018, 10:55:05 AM

Quote from: jackg on February 20, 2018, 10:50:46 AM

Mine says -241, not the -9999 (just saying)

Fix your trust list to one that isn't played due to greed and whatnot. Here you go:

Quote from: suchmoon on February 20, 2018, 10:37:07 AM

I see QS has updated the title of the thread: "... 100 people excluded lauda", which brings all sorts of philosophical questions, e.g. are forum sockpuppets "people"?

Predicted answer (context wise) by the forum's Iago: If they exclude Lauda, yes. Otherwise, no.

I don't go off overall ratings anyway if I do a trade I go through everyone's history. Technically I should remove everyone from my trust list (as DT1&2 are added by default) although sometimes it's a good interim warning.

What's the '~' for in that list? Trusted or untrusted? If so then what's up with jonald and shorena?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: jackg on February 20, 2018, 10:50:46 AM

Mine says -241, not the -9999 (just saying)

Fix your trust list to one that isn't played due to greed and whatnot. Here you go:

Quote from: suchmoon on February 20, 2018, 10:37:07 AM

I see QS has updated the title of the thread: "... 100 people excluded lauda", which brings all sorts of philosophical questions, e.g. are forum sockpuppets "people"?

Predicted answer (context wise) by the forum's Iago: If they exclude Lauda, yes. Otherwise, no.

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

Quote from: suchmoon on February 20, 2018, 10:37:07 AM

~
I see QS has updated the title of the thread: "... 100 people excluded lauda", which brings all sorts of philosophical questions, e.g. are forum sockpuppets "people"?

The majority of those are probably just random newbie scammers Lauda has marked and they have reciprocated for no other standpoint.

Quote from: Hhampuz on February 20, 2018, 08:29:24 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 20, 2018, 08:25:51 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 20, 2018, 03:07:09 AM

Quote from: ibminer on February 20, 2018, 03:04:22 AM

Quote from: ibminer on February 18, 2018, 12:31:59 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 16, 2018, 05:04:43 AM

--snip--
This does not rely upon any confidential sources, so I can share what I have provided confidentiality is promised.

--snip--
I'd love to see the evidence and certainly would provide confidentiality. Keep in mind, I seek truth.

Is it safe to assume I will not be seeing any evidence of the Lauda alts?

Isn't it obvious and expected that he does not? As usual, he made the whole thing up.

Quote from: Lauda on February 16, 2018, 04:55:26 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 16, 2018, 05:04:43 AM

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public.

He claims he has evidence. I do not see evidence after you've explicitly denied this.

Lauda likes to imply that he has denied things that he very clearly did not deny. This is extremely dishonest, and likely plays a part as to why nearly 100 people have specifically excluded lauda from their trust lists.

Nice trust!

Mine says -241, not the -9999 (just saying)

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: ibminer on February 20, 2018, 03:04:22 AM

Quote from: ibminer on February 18, 2018, 12:31:59 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 16, 2018, 05:04:43 AM

--snip--
This does not rely upon any confidential sources, so I can share what I have provided confidentiality is promised.

--snip--
I'd love to see the evidence and certainly would provide confidentiality. Keep in mind, I seek truth.

Is it safe to assume I will not be seeing any evidence of the Lauda alts?

Get in line LOL

Quote from: suchmoon on February 16, 2018, 08:29:49 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 16, 2018, 05:04:43 AM

[...] I can share what I have provided confidentiality is promised.

[...] Please share. I promise confidentiality.

I see QS has updated the title of the thread: "... 100 people excluded lauda", which brings all sorts of philosophical questions, e.g. are forum sockpuppets "people"?

Topic: overwhelming consensus excludes Lauda, remains in DT2, went in2 buz w sold act - page 11. (Read 11923 times)