As was the case with an outrageous claim about a pill addiction, you started it with zero evidence (but the possibility of good evidence) and ultimately just made statements about a secret source whom you would never name nor present any evidence the source gave you.
You are mistaken. In the thread I made exposing Lauda's pill addiction, I made it very clear what evidence I had, and I made no promise to break my promises of confidentiality by outing sources, who would no doubt be retaliated against shortly thereafter.
I also made it very clear that, even if my sources were to be named, evidence against Lauda would still be hearsay. I pointed out that those types of chat logs cannot be verified.
The evidence I presented was my word that I was personally told by someone I believe to be credible that he has good reason to believe that Lauda has a pill problem (I forget the specifics, they are in the other thread). You can decide to believe me, or you can decide that I am someone who should not be trusted, or you can decide that my judgment is diffident, and therefore even though you believe I am telling the truth about receiving this information, you do not find my evidence credible.
Vod is [saying] TF sent you 20BTC [...] I'm curious what your stance is here?
The title to this thread very clearly states I received $200k, which is a baseless accusation that does not warrant a response.
I'll agree he began the same trollish-like behavior on these threads that have been done in the past with other threads attacking him, which could be interpreted as a hypersensitive reaction for someone who is frequently attacked with threads of this nature.
I would disagree with that. There have been many threads opened by people who have received a negative rating by lauda who opened threads attempting to discuss said rating that were met with trolling. Surely you believe in a person's right to defend themselves, and their actions?
I would say that lauda is the subject to attacks because he is a bad person. He is a criminal. He tries to take money/property that does not belong to him. He takes strong affirmative steps to silence his critics. He has endorsed and advertised for companies that are very clearly scam attempts. The list goes on....
Lauda implicitly or explicitly denying the allegation is a denial of the allegation.
Whether he said he was or was not going to respond beforehand doesn't seem relevant.
It is relevant because it very much gives him a way to argue he was not lying regardless of the outcome. Also, he did not say he will not deny the allegation and subsequently change his mind. He said he will not respond
after an implicit denial (and a very weak one at that), which would give credibility to a denial of lauda that he was in any way denying that he has a pill problem.