Topic: Re - "FAIR TREATMENT FOR ALL." (Read 664 times)

Does anyone know difference between rhetorical question and question? I told you my opinion and you don't like it, well, that is fine, go and ask for another opinion until you find person who will agree with you.
Ok. If you can point me to delete button I will maybe delete my account.

Well, there you go. You are too low functioning to understand the basic principles or even basic English and yet seek to present a bogus argument that falls to pieces under mild scrutiny.

You call something factual that is indeed observable INCORRECT.

You clearly have no understanding of the concept of defamation.

Asking hhampuz if he is knowingly hiring liars and scammers and then presenting credible and undeniable evidence of their prior lying and scamming is not defamation you poor retarded dreg. He actually replied that he was not responsible for hiring the person in question in that instance anyway.

There was no attack there was legitimate and credible questions asked. There were NO refutations or rebuttals to any of the evidence we presented. If it was untrue then why was it not debunked?

Please don't waste your time further or our own precious time. You are clearly not able to grasp even simple concepts. It could be your lack of English comprehension or just because you are a full on moron who can say. Either way your lack of ability seems to have manifested itself into a net negative annoyance that the board simply would be better without. Perhaps if you really would like to benefit the board the most sensible thing to do in your case is delete your account.

We are more interested in members that are motivated to see fair and equal standards applied to all members. Make your own union where more persons like yourself and other trust abusers just game the systems of control for your own ends whilst you all spam away the highest paying sigs.... oh wait that union has been around for a while

The only FACT here is that you are observably INCORRECT.

You said lauda's tags and flags so lets stick to it:
...to come from vacation and see what they think about it.

I still don't understand the "why" behind blacklisting him though. ..But..  it seems like nobody does..?

1. you first examine the trust abuse against our own account. If you can find no direct instances of scamming people out of money or goods or trying to then you will do your best to encourage these trust abusers to remove their abuse or you will counter it.

2. If you are unable to ascertain which red tags they are (the clue is all of them) then you are obviously not cut out for the union. I mean there is no point people joining if they are unsure of what is scamming people out of money or goods or directly attempting to scam them out of money and goods IS?  I mean you can not help support a movement that wants to ensure people are not accused of things they are not guilty of if you are unable to understand the basic principles.

3. Actually most of our "feedback" is observable untrue since the very wording of their trust abuse describes actions that are false.I mean the difference between vods feedback and the others feedback is contradictory and laughable ...

We may check back here to appraise your progress from time to time. Although not that often since we are busy with more important matters. There is some grass that we like to watch grow and some paint that we like to watch dry ... all these exciting and far more involving challenges.

Follow the drama here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51765169

First time i heard about this? Any link to what happend/why? just curious.

Quite the misplaced analogy, don't you think?

dude it doesnt make sense,anyone can do that,excluding him doesnt justify that he wasnt part of the gang...thepharmacist is like leech,if you dont have blood he wont suck you 

Stop interacting with these idiots.

If there are no objections, I'd like to apply for Lauda's former position. I have the requisite number of DT exclusions and accusations of sockpuppetry and merit/trust/gender-quota abuse, with additional examples of impropriety available on request.

     If you are going to put forth this theory, you need to get some facts straight.
1) Lauda excluded the Pharmacist from her trust list. If Lauda was truly a champion for him, this was an odd way to go about it.
2) Lauda has recently been blacklisted from DT1. (She still is on DT2 though.) With this recent development, the "gang" needs to be reorganized.

dont be an idiot,you know its lauda's gang which includes morons like whom defending abusive members like the pharmacist.

Wait, is it The Pharmacist's gang now? I really need to know who I should report to, now that Lauda has disappeared in mysterious circumstances.

everyone who opposes your gang are trolls what a mindset i really like to mindfuck you guys.

Who is "we"?  And no, you're dumb enough to believe anything and spout incessantly about whatever hare-brained conspiracy theory comes into your tiny little noggin.  You're a troll, so somebody pass the troll spray.

Yeah, and I'm just wondering who's sock this dude is.  Could be any of a number of members with similar delusions.

Hello Mr. sockpuppet, for someone who claim they are not dumb you are very dumb. "And I am here now" because...read topic. If you want to discuss unrelated things create new thread for them.

What you can do is to fix all the your wrongdoings from the past,you know it by yourself which system you abused and do not think countering lauda's feedbacks from the past will clean your hands.You have been part of his campaign to tag those who oppose them,we arent dumb enough to think that you are now opposing him its clearly just because he was outcast from the table  and now losing his power ....and here you are now!

Bumping this because I am not satisfied with answers posted by the-one-above-all. I believe you had enough time to go trough trust feedback, can you come here and clarify questions asked a month ago?

You can't exactly "counter" feedback anymore. It makes no sense to mark someone with positive reputation as there is no effect on the "trust score".

The -1 distinct negative feedback will still remain. Given that theymos wants users to now start relying more on reading feedback, a neutral feedback would be more viable.

I am pretty sure my post is removed:


I might check feedback when you share your opinion about this case https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rambotic-need-opinion-from-community-5105750, give me your review and give your opinion on flagging account Rambotic in that thread.

And, after you give me answer to this question:

Again, which feedback should I counter or remove?

I believe you can create flag yourself. Go and create one, see how it will work.