Topic: poGium argues with nullius (Read 208 times)

holy shit thats a lotta words

Hey, I'm not your alt!

Oh, shit, just realised I forgot to switch accounts

I found strong evidence that you must be my alt account too:

Sent in the last 120 days
    February 16, 2018, 08:07:00 PM: 1 to nullius for Alia’s merit challenge: Forum destiny awaits thee!
    February 16, 2018, 04:28:24 PM: 1 to nullius for Re: Bad Code Has Lost $500M of Cryptocurrency in Under a Year
    February 06, 2018, 11:22:56 PM: 1 to nullius for Re: Rejoice! Actmyname is soon to be demoted
    February 06, 2018, 10:14:25 AM: 1 to nullius for Re: Newbies can now pay a small fee to enable images
    February 04, 2018, 11:46:08 AM: 1 to nullius for Re: Bitcoin not so anonymous?
    February 04, 2018, 09:25:45 AM: 1 to nullius for Re: Merit & new rank requirements
    January 31, 2018, 11:22:39 AM: 1 to nullius for Re: 10 recent posts that might deserve a merit
    January 28, 2018, 09:32:02 AM: 1 to nullius for Segwit vanity addresses (Bech32 and nested P2SH)
    January 28, 2018, 09:28:19 AM: 1 to nullius for Will Bitcoin sidechains kill all altcoins?
    January 28, 2018, 09:23:42 AM: 1 to nullius for Licensing with a Bitcoin Consensus Clause

Received in the last 120 days
    Today at 08:24:11 AM: 1 from nullius for Re: Mod, please check new additions: Reporting copy/pasting, please permban
    February 17, 2018, 08:26:53 PM: 1 from nullius for Re: [19F] [NSFW] A Bitcoin cam girl looking to have some fun
    February 16, 2018, 05:11:41 PM: 1 from nullius for Re: Bad Code Has Lost $500M of Cryptocurrency in Under a Year
    February 11, 2018, 09:55:03 PM: 1 from nullius for Fees are low, use this opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs!
    February 11, 2018, 04:05:40 PM: 1 from nullius for Re: Why changing the email and the password is so easy !!!!
    February 07, 2018, 11:59:02 AM: 1 from nullius for Re: Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22]
    February 06, 2018, 11:51:34 PM: 2 from nullius for Re: Fork wars are déjà vu
    February 06, 2018, 06:23:51 PM: 2 from nullius for Mod, please check new additions: Reporting copy/pasting, please permban
    February 04, 2018, 03:05:54 AM: 1 from nullius for Re: Plagiarism and copy/paste
    January 31, 2018, 10:06:05 PM: 1 from nullius for LoyceV's Merit source application

Am I a troll now, or is this just sarcasm? Is it even possible to go off-topic in off-topic?

Alia also replied to poGium shortly before I managed to make my thread transplant post.  I here reply to her, again omitting nothing from the quoted post.  To make clear the context, I have here fixed attribution of her quotes of poGium.


I noticed that about him.


Well, Alia, since I don’t cheat, I hope you are amenable to what I said above about monogyny. ;-)


(I already covered this, unbeknownst to Alia, whilst she was replying unbeknownst to me.  I would ordinary snip this.  Since this is a thread transplant, I quote for context.)


Actually, in this case, I was being slightly ironic.  It is generally true that a negative cannot be proved, in the sense of the example you just gave.  But in certain particular situations, a negative can be proved to an adequate standard of evidence.  That is why the propositions of nullius = Lauda, nullius = Satoshi, nullius = alia are all absurd to the point of comedy!

For the proposition that nullius = alia to hold true, then someone who is /r/GirlsGoneBitcoin verified by theymos to look like this:



...would need to have and be capable of all the characteristics of my persona, and all the characteristics of your persona—and must be capable of an almost superhuman task of switching writing styles and personalities on the fly.

The proper Internet terminology is, “LOL”.


Well said.  Though your proposition that I am sexy could also use some proofs between us, here omitted because I decided to edit out the [NSFW] subject marker I’d edited in.  Do you wish for me to make an object demonstration on you in private, or later publicly on in our “Ciphersex 101 [NSFW]” thread?  Perhaps both!

Transplanted from here, where it was continuing and escalating an off-topic argument wherein I’d said I’d avoid further reply.  I can’t stop the argument from escalating, since others are involved; so I will transplant it instead.

This thread is self-moderated, because there are too many trolls on this forum; in the interest of fairness, for this particular thread, I will not censor replies by poGium, or censor other replies simply on the basis of disagreement.  [Edit again:  Undid a thread subject edit which was not necessary after all.]


Can you tell me where either Alia or I said you did?  Your initial complaint vaguely alleged that we were “very suspicious”.  Another poster raised the alt-account issue in the sense of “obviously not”.  I’ve recently been accused of being both Lauda and Satoshi.  Alia and I have now been making fun of the idea.  Laugh.  It’s funny.


I posited a grudge, because you had materially misrepresented her as if seeking to by drugs online:


Any reasonable reader would infer from that that she was buying drugs online, which she was not doing in any way, shape, or form.  This misstatement by you was either careless to the point of negligence, or malicious.  I lean toward the latter, because you snipped from your reply to me the part of the quote with a link to the pertinent thread, so as to prevent readers to assessing the situation for themselves.

You quoted as such:


...whilst omitting this important context (boldface here supplied):


N.b., I myself snip quotes hard—but I am always careful to do so fairly.  (I do not trim down quotes here, because it’s a thread transplant; and I want for readers to see everything poGium wrote.)


You have evidently never heard the aphorism that “the prostitute⁰ protects the virtue of the wife”.  That’s ok.  It is usually only known to leaders, moral/political philosophers, and others who must grapple with the bare fact that the vast majority of men will never be satisfied with only one woman.  In a society which purports to be monogynous (not a typo—look it up), some sort of hypocritical pressure release valve is necessary; otherwise, many men would pursue the nearest available “other woman”, such as the neighbour’s wife.  This is one of several reasons why prostitution has been formally discouraged, but tacitly tolerated throughout history in many (if not most) civilized societies which purported monogyny.

Whatever you might be told at church, I suspect you’d much prefer for your neighbour to ogle Alia online—rather than getting wound up to the point of trying to scheme to seduce your wife.  Yes, that’s dichotomy; but those who understand human nature will know, it is not a false dichotomy.

(0. Alia’s not what many people consider a prostitute, since she only does this online.  I myself will avoid the hairsplitting.  Anyway, I prefer calling her my lovely meretrix.  Advantage to me:  I don’t expect that she would ever be in the least bit interested in my even pretending monogyny.  That’s important to me, because I am Mr. Principled:  I don’t lie or cheat.  That’s right, I’ve never cheated on a woman in the sense of going promising one thing and doing another.  I simply have never promised a woman that I’d be monogynous.  If a woman dislikes that, she is more than encouraged to seek elsewhere from the get-go.)


First of all, you’re mixing different issues.  Deliberately, it seems.

You started this by formally accusing Alia (curiously, not me) of merit abuse,¹ in a thread where DT members are actively red-tagging merit abusers.  To my knowledge, no DT member has ever red-tagged a user for (mis)using the merit system as a “Like” button.  Given the inherent subjectivity involved in a merit award, such a thing would be impossible to enforce!  Then to support your argument, you quote theymos saying what he would “encourage”—right after he said, “we will not be directly moderating this”.

(1. I mean “formally” in a standard format, replete with a section titled “PROOF”.  The standard-form part of your accusation only listed Alia’s profile and merit summary.  Later, obiter dicta, you said, “I think you should watch them” (thus including me).)

On the one side:  DT members (not moderators), enforcing one standards.  On the other:  theymos encouraging a different standard, but not moderating or enforcing it.

Second of all—well, as I said and you quoted:


I did before, because I felt like it.  Now, I won’t bother; for you have not displayed even the slightest comprehension of any of the posts whereby you’ve questioned my judgment.  Readers can make up their own minds.

Third of all, I myself don’t buy into the pretense of total objectivity in merit awards.  It is neither desirable, nor humanly possible; and although objective factors should weight heavily, there will always be some level of subjectivity in such a thing.

By way of analogy:  It is possible for an educated reader for an objective reader to discern the fundamental distinction between good and bad poetry.  But even the most intelligent, discerning readers will not choose the same poems as their favourites.

sMerit supply is limited.  Favourites must be chosen.  I myself look for posts which have a baseline objective level of meritoriousness, then perforce choose my “favourites” between them based on a mix of subjective and objective factors.  Whereas I am more capable of objectivity than most people are, I think I do fairly well with that.


(Red-quoted word addressed below.)

There’s no double-standard.  People who post junk and pump their merit score by trades with friends get red-tagged.  Friends and otherwise-related people who make generally high-quality posts are not red-tagged for finding each others’ posts meritorious.

The part you leave out in your allegation of a double standard is that the people who get red-tagged are posting garbage, and/or awarding merit for their friends’ garbage.  The omission is typical of people who whine about DT actions.  Usually, they whine for a reason—cui bono?  Quoting you:  “That is very suspicious...  I think [DT] should watch [you].”


Many people would find it reprehensible if she were trying to buy drugs online.  (That includes me, by the way.)  You misrepresented her with an insinuation that she was doing that—that she was doing something which many, many people (including me) would find reprehensible.

You also misrepresented her as doing something illegal.  Actually, you misrepresented her as doing something which would be a death-penalty crime in her country—as she has openly disclosed in the drug-related thread you omitted linking.  (There, she made it profusely clear that she would never possess drugs in her home country, ever—Amsterdam OK, at home not.)  I myself don’t give a damn about “law”; but misrepresenting her as doing illegal activity would make her look very bad to most people.

I find it interesting that you’re so outraged that a virtual meretrix does camshows for men who are cheating, yet you seem to think that drug use is none of anybody’s business (you said it’s “her decision”; so I suppose it must be a so-called “victimless crime”, ja?).  I find that morally backwards, insofar as drug use is both individual and social poison—whereas what Alia does is really quite harmless.

Given the attitude about sex, I’d ask if you were American; but your inadvertent use of the word “tolleriert” (quoted above in red) indicates a native speaker of the German language.  Interesting.