Topic: [POLL] The Official Dirty Turds Poll - Which DT needs flushing first ??????????? (Read 5168 times)

So back on topic ... to TMANs auction scamming defense. Where is xtraelv .... ran away again??

Since actmyname has not edited his post then we are happy to leave this as it is. The important points there we seem in agreement with

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on November 20, 2019, 12:29:40 AM
Certainly you would have less problem presenting your point as clearly and undeniably valid with many other posts here by other members.
That is true but this has already been addressed in the first post.

That seems to be the crux of the matter along with the observation that this needs to be addressed so that to appear neutral and not supporting a group of scammers ( apart from including them on default trust) the counsel needs to be applied regularly to both sides when it is applicable to both sides.

So now that we have established that nobody here can or will dare offer and alternative explanation for tmans auction scamming (deception for financial gain) although many have tried to falsely claim it is not scamming and rather he should be on default trust. We can see therefore this is misleading and a clear case of scammer supporting and protecting.







 

As far as I can tell, he started out by suggesting that a legitimate conflict of interest arises whenever DT members and merit sources have sexual relations with each other*, but he seems to gotten carried away. In particular, I don't know what he has against scum bags - they serve a vital function in waste management (if anything, this forum has too much scum and not enough bags).

*Either that or he's just jealous that we're getting more action than he is.

Not quite as beautifully as I would like. He seems to be focusing way too much on the wrong fox hole.

Foxpup is getting a nice ROI with these avatar ads. All this subliminal stimulation is working beautifully on cryptohunter. Sadly for me, even having CHIP in my signature doesn't help. I mean come on, chocolate chip cookies etc - the puns write themselves.

I made the list and you didn't?  There's something inherently wrong with that.

Actmyname did a remarkable job scouring for foxpoop, but he also missed moronbozo (my personal favorite,) so don't take it personally.  It is monumental task he so brazenly volunteered to undertake.

saving this spot to reply directly to actmyname... we are scooting out for a bit this evening but don't wish reams of scammer supporter drivel injected between our two posts.

We immediately notice a couple of small points...

chode is not our word or one we were familiar with, we copied that from nutildahs fun poll about CH on his account sales thread. I think that context need be examined again by actmyname. That I recall was clearly a shout out to his poll and a clear reference to his use of it ...

The goal posts seem to have been moved from us claiming the single post in question (to which we referring)  was not clearly ad hominem to apparently claiming we have indulged in a little cathartic ad hominem retaliation here and there in the past.

There seems to be a multiple query next to the same foxpoop terms. Is there need for more than one example? Not that we mind of course but it was just an unexpected elongation of a list that could have been filled with more variation perhaps.

When debating with actmyname then clear examples and analogies can be useful since it is not always clear to us what point he is making. It does become clear when examples are used.

However, these kind of interactions are always interesting and we like to work with others to arrive at the optimal solution or outcome.

This part is also confusing...

"Refer to the above for examples of non-scammer insults and attacks."

since then the explanation is given, would it not be best to remove those that are  scammer/scammer supporting  related from that list in this instance?  Once those are removed and the foxpoopers are consolidated, then the list will be significantly shorter ... and none if any at all would remain that are directly relevant to our defense of the post singled out for an actmyname selective counselling of the use of ad hominem.
Although we would be willing to present context where those others would by our " current" opinion not be ad hominem attacks.

These kinds of debates are useful even if not strictly on topic so better to go with those and enjoy them rather than constantly debunking the excuses and deliberate attempts at derailing and diverting of the same old scammer supporters over and over.

Later we can get back to the analysis of the observable instances in the initial post and as to whether people such as those should be in positions of TRUST.

I mean the thread has been so derailed and diverted and corrupted by  (as actymyname clearly seems to acknowledge) undeniable and indefensible accounts of sustained ad hominem attacks of other members we can take a break from that now to debate on something a little more sensible,more cordial/measured and reasonable way.

We ask actmyname looks over his post and then decide if any edits are required. If they decide not, then fair enough we shall seek to answer as is.


Although two wrongs do not make a right as you say actmyname, i think it is sensible to counsel as frequently and fairly as you possibly can both sides. I mean fair is subjective but I think it would be universally accepted that to counsel/chastise  one child constantly when both ( in your opinion) are doing wrong would indicate some form of bias even if not a conscious act.































 

I don't know what this is and I can't be bothered to read the walls of text to find out but it looks like a list of cryptohunter's best friends so I'm deeply offended that "fat slob" is not in the list. Did I eat all those cookies for nothing? Will sue for discrimination and damage of my fragile ego.

This paragraph was constructed due to a miscommunication.


Unless you want to twist meaningless semantics, there are no partial fallacies. The idea of a threshold should be no different than "is" or "isn't" - a binary state.

Depending on how you define 'ad hominem' you could falsify this point by attacking a premise. Nevertheless, I shall state: you should not see a non-quoted statement that is a character attack, to then subsequently change your opinion and decide that it is in fact not a character attack, once you uncover preceding events.

How would context make the following remarks not ad-hominem?

• chode
• mutated tourettes
• filthy dirty skanky scammers
• degenerate asskissing servile scummy scam supporters
• disgusting shit stain ass kissing scammer supporters
• scum bags
• observably low functioning plebs
• Turd world desperate scum bags
• Morons
• idiots
• filthy gambling sig spamming scammer supporting fucking loser
• public tman ass feltcher
• shit pumpers
• turd word scanks
• dregs
• Tourettes poet
• terrified little scamming bitch
• imbecile and useful idiot
• all that you splurge out here as if it is moronic spew
• lauda ass feltchers
• dirty little scumbag club
• Shut up scum bag
• dirt bags
• the rest of their useful idiots could still make it out
• smarmacist a sneaky snake like fool
• Get on with it scabby little exit scamming exchange pusher
• you and your scamming pals
• Got to love the defense here by these scumbags
• agent foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• foxpooping
• foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• foxpoop
• foxpoop
• foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• agent foxpoop
• foxpoop
• foxpoop
• foxpoop
• Foxpoop
• foxpooping
• agent foxpoop
• foxpooping
• agent foxpoop
• foxpooper
• foxpoop
• FOXPOOP
• foxpoop
• foxpoops
• agent foxpoop
• direwolf supports tmans tourettes syndrome [...] Direposting assfeltching burger flipping dreg that he is.

And then once you answer that...

---

Refer to the above for examples of non-scammer insults and attacks.

s^nide

A single point, an individual conclusion... it is either true or false.

These are justifications, are they not? If they were not justifications, it would be not as bad. An objective statement as opposed to a subjective statement. This is simply downplaying severity, which is on a binary scale.

Addressed above.

That is true but this has already been addressed in the first post.

Neutrality does not necessarily mean addressing both sides equally.

I have better things to do.

Yes.

I have always been fair. Blunt and fair.

Well, we are not expecting you to go through all of the posts on the forum, but perhaps a sensible analysis of just the posts on the thread that you are choosing to comment on would be optimal.  It seems unlikely that a time constraint would consistently lead to your sole selection of our posts only that need to be criticized especially where there are higher frequency and higher density of other users on those thread using ONLY ad hominem attacks that are not even mixed among/based upon valid and irrefutable points.  It is not impossible that a time constraint could result in such selective or randomly allocated criticism ending on our doorstep alone, but each time that it does pass over everyone else and does land on our door step alone it becomes increasingly improbable that could be the sole explanation.

Also I don't believe that our comment meets the threshold for not as bad fallacy in this instance. As I explained that particular post and many of the terms and statements made are not strictly ad hominem when you take the full context of the thread including the points raised in the initial post and other subsequent revelations. Therefore there are certainly posts contained within this thread and the other thread that your point would have been clearly more relevant and clearly stronger in terms of no opposition could have been forthcoming that would stand up to scrutiny. That is keeping in mind that our understanding is that ad hominem are personal attacks (even if factually based) that have no direct influence on the central points being made or that the central points being made are certainly not dependent on those personal attacks/statements of fact. I'm not even sure that one can say that calling a skunk a skunk is an attack anyway, no more than calling an undeniable scammer and undeniable scammer, especially when discussing skunks being present in places they have no business being and scammers being in places they have no business being.

That's not to say your points are disputed in full, but only that your points seems to lack the accuracy and indisputable relevance and strength they may have had if directed as any of other numerous members on this thread relying on PURE and undeniable clear ad hominem. Therefore the impact can be seen to be reduced or even nulled in full.

So that is what we meant by not as bad, perhaps not as applicable, not as relevant, not as clear cut, not as indefensible  etc.

We appreciate ad hominem is ad hominem, we simply dispute that post is clear cut as adhominem in the full context. Certainly you would have less problem presenting your point as clearly and undeniably valid with many other posts here by other members. Or even just for a change to mix things up a bit with a view to being neutral and all of that kind of thing.

I have no idea why you do not just join with the debate. I suspect it is because you have enough sense to realize they are trying to defend pretty much indefensible positions that they have put themselves in due to the observable instances in their post histories. Or again it could be a time constraint or lack of interest. Those are certainly possibilities.

As we say we have no direct issue with you actmyname, and are always willing to be cordial and fair. We ask the same.

On a technical basis, I am being selective. If I had both the free time and the desire to go through all posts and extract only the non-ad-hominem fragments of the replies, then I would do so. The latter is the bigger factor in this.

Refer to my post's comment about "two wrongs don't make a right".

Selective truths are still truths. Whether I nitpicked the ad-hominem attacks of JUST you or everyone else doesn't take away from the fact that the post was an egregious display of ad-hominem argumentation.

True of all boards.

"Not as bad as" fallacy.

True. Doesn't mean it's warranted regardless.

---

Any questions?

Well, taking the full context of this thread, I think that there is far greater value to that post to the discerning reader. That may have not read ALL pages thus far. Many of what you may consider ad hominem attacks are not meeting the definition of ad hominem at all in our opinion in the context of this thread. (of course you could present an arguement we would openly consider and evaluate)

When one has clearly and undeniably been demonstrated to support scammers then calling them out as scammer supporters in a thread focusing on scammers and scammer supporters that are infesting DT then there is certainly value. The reader can always ask for clarification and validation.

However, ignoring that for the time being.

Are you seriously going to continue to selectively apply your counsel in our direction whilst saying nothing at all to the myriad of others that engage in far more clear cut adhominem attacks (that are also going to fall apart under even mild scrutiny not highly credible statements such as our own) that occur instantly on our threads that seek to derail and destroy any real chance of a debate on the central and core points being raised?

I would only ask that you appear early on in our threads and give the same counsel to ANY member that starts with ad hominem attacks or going off topic and relevant at all.

If you refuse to do so then we ask respectfully that you refrain from selectively injecting your criticism in our specific direction.

In the notes we have it says to treat you with respect and it goes on to say that your posts should be carefully appraised before tackling your central points fairly and clearly with no form of undo aggression and certainly no ad hominem attacks regardless of whom or what you are giving support to at that current moment.

I mean if you are to objectively remove all valueless content and that of negative value then meta would likely be a very sparse place.

I think you will find that if you are really taking ad hominem then we are far less guilty than most ( that do not receive your counsel)

A discerning reader will almost always cut away ad hominem anyway , however unless they are privy to the truth and history in all cases it is impossible to cut away trolling and scammer supporting.

I am going to cut out all the ad-hominem attacks so you can see the substance of the post.

---

Even if others use ad-hominem against you, it detracts from your post substantially when you decide to enter the same path of argumentative logic.

Lot of fortune jack alts and pals all joined around the same time didn't they.

Things that may seem incoherent to idiots and non achieving scammer supporters or worse like yourselves are perfectly comprehensible to those that are way smarter. Just so you know. Although even that concept may be out of your league.

What a filthy gambling sig spamming scammer supporting fucking loser we have here.  Can you imagine being so low and worthless on the scammer league table you are a public tman ass feltcher and scammer defender... hahaha

@TMAN, I'm going to spare you the rest of his incoherent nonsense but you were right.

Just popped in to say I heard the word observable in a movie just now and it triggers me so hard. Even though TAS is on ignore I’d wager the fuckwitt wanker has used the word observable at least once in the trolling shitpost above.

Also.. 2nd in the poll... come on fucko you can spin up more alts than that surely

More words with zero substance behind them. Mr ar15 tough guy haha

I think it's more of a sustained and continuous attack on undeniable scammers and their supporters. One of which is your very low functioning self.  

The only thing clear here is that you are too much of a pussy to come and debate with us, so have to pretend we are on ignore.

Come. why don't you take your turn at  being humiliated in public whilst trying to debate with us the observable instances listed in the initial post?  Perhaps you will provide more entertainment by explaining how deliberate deception for direct financial gain is not scamming and should not be punished but rather rewarded with default trust positions?

Oh wait you won't. You can see (just from reading the replies) the most silly excuses have been presented and ripped to pieces.

Come here jared and let's get down to specifics. You scammer supporting dreg.

Ready to entertain us further Jesterkaragon?? yes or no.??

I can't believe TOAA is still trying to maintain some sort of defense.....   All I have to do is read your replies to his... not even his (which are blocked) and it paints a CLEAR picture.


TOAA:  GFY.

Which part of

You are deliberately defending and attempting to excuse an UNDENIABLE scammer (which you will not even deny because it is impossible), You are supporting and EVEN CLAIMING he is one of the most trust worthy members on this forum.

Which part of that do you not understand is

Undeniably financially high risk behavior??

Even more amusing you are QUOTING THE WORDS OF ANOTHER SCAM SUPPORTER who was crying because A REAL SCAM HUNTER forced their dev to acknowledge their scamming and offer the entire board a share of a  2 000 000 000 USD compensation offer.

Haha so supporting scammers and scammer supporters is becoming a bit of a theme for you I see?

Thanks for not running away and rather launching into MORE ad hominem speculation of the age of a member you on top of the speculation that you believe we are the same member.

Thanks for undeniably confirming in the post that you are a scammer supporter and excuser. Given the observable evidence you have willingly provided there is no way to refute/deny this.

Keep dredging back to 2014 in the history of REAL LEGENDS with REAL ACHIEVEMENTS and you may find what suchmoon and all the other goons has missed. That evidence of some financial wrong doing ( that does not exist)

Imagine if you dug into the past histories of those scammers you are supporting....spend your time more wisely fool.

When people succeed at things in their teen years that others can not achieve in their lives ..... they are not going to look up to them especially when those demanding respect are undeniable scammer supporters .

You have no credible or reasonable explanation to rewarding and excusing undeniable scammers. If these " own standards" you have allow that then you should have red trust and not be on DT.  Undeniable.

Lets be sensible here and observe that you have been lecturing and trolling to no effect on here.

Each DT has their own criteria.  People did not ask to be on DT.  I will not tag everyone that you demand I should tag. End of story.


Perhaps let those soft baby hairs on your face grow a little bit longer before telling the adults what to do.

Better still go and play some minecraft. Drop the angry young man attitude and contribute positively to the forum rather than long vile abuse laden threads.

https://raisingchildren.net.au/pre-teens/development/understanding-your-pre-teen/brain-development-teens

Shit ..REKT yet again... this is too easy for you guys to prove undeniable instances of scamming are simply to be ignored or even perhaps rewarded if they are your pals?

I think if you also included all of the other 20 spelling/grammatical errors in that post and most other huge posts we make, and coupled with the fact we copied and pasted the correct spelling right underneath it would add to the super irony of it all. Or you could refer to the explanation given already here on this thread that we thrash them out and don't correct the highlighted errors because it would be very time consuming and besides the effort reward ratio would be very low.]

There really was no need to take a little pic, we were not going to do a nutildah on it ffs. lol

Anyway, just to get back on to slightly more important issues. Are you going to investigate the initial post and the observable instances of undeniable scamming and do as you would with any other member, give red trust and exclude them from DT?

Let's be sensible, you know these observable behaviors step WAY OVER the threshold of what most people would consider financially high risk and scamming.

Let's forget the bitchy hair pulling and tit for tat comments. Let's just be sensible and agree that deliberate deception for direct financial gain is scamming , requires red trust and exclusion from DT.

Would you not agree that deliberately defending undeniable scamming even where the scammer does not deny his scamming could certainly be seen as financially high risk behavior? 

Get on the right side of this, why put all this effort hunting minor scammers who will likely just pop up again when you can be clearly observed here to be defending scammers in positions of TRUST (due in part to your enabling them) that can leverage that to do a lot more damage.

Be sensible and start acting like a person that members can trust to be doing all they can to stop financially high risk people endangering the rest of the honest members here.

https://i.imgur.com/eEaujom.png


Perhaps a good one for the irony thread.