Topic: Re: how do I make new threads? - page 4. (Read 5806 times)

You used what software and sample size to do that collocation analysis? Are you trained to make that assessment? Does your assessment include the possibility an account is shared? It really begins to look more like a coven when none of these accounts seem interested In an open dialog about the issues raised initially or call for the thread to be locked. Seems some accounts are more prone to that sort of tact ONLY in a couple of threads centered on Dogie and Quickseller. Nothing to see here move along just isn't going to cut it.

Excuse me! Mind your words. I am not talking about you who is using a bot but about that other user https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quickselleracctseller-abusing-trust-system-here-we-go-again-1032755

I don'e care about you or any other member and I don't need to be in anyone's good books here. You fight your own battle as I am least bothered about a person who uses abusive language.

I am educated enough to be independent rather than to use abusive language for anyone or praise someone when it isn't necessary.

Just read their posts and you can tell they're written by different people. Come on, even though you don't like QS, you can't tell me you actually believe this. Also, though the distributions look similar, one is shifted by a few hours, which is statistically significant when the distribution is of over 1000 posts.

You just need to look at the posting hours of each account to see that this is an absurd claim.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/quickseller-358020
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/wardrick-85316
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/dogie-87869

Ouch.

Well that certainly is interesting.

What does Dogie have to do with the Quickseller account? That be my next question.


@TheGambler

Currently there is a strong strong undercurrent of covering of threads with these accounts all backing Dogie and Quickseller. Given that there is certainly more digging that should be done into who the hell this Quickseller really is and what sort of trust should be given someone who uses multiple accounts to boost sales and run up prices. Unethical and why would anyone ESCROW with someone you don't know their real name and some sort of identification or IRL meeting. Most of these long con scams in hardware revolve around any number of people being anonymous and shilling the shit out of the hardware.

You start seeing patterns in these accounts all gravitating towards covering each others asses it begs the question is it one person not 4 or 5?

Ask your source about Dogie and his relationship to Quickseller he might know.

Seems there is a connection between the following.

Dogie
Quickseller

Funny how Wardick as well as others are immediately coming to their aid across a variety of threads. Interesting, how recently their interest has turned to these 2 accounts out of left field. It is almost if they are magnetically drawn to the threads with those two names right?

I wonder why someone would see the connection between Dogie / Quickseller and need to defend just those to two accounts given the wide range of other accusations that get made in the these forums Wardick seems overly enthusiastic in very recent time to these two accounts being challenged by the community about their ethical behavior.

I think someone is clearly "biased" towards defending certain accounts. I wonder what motivates such accounts?

I would question the validity of this account being independently controlled by an individual other than Dogie or Quickseller.

Actually there's a big difference between "having scammed" (not my case) and "having been accused of scamming" (which is my case, and yours as well).  So I dunno if you've ever scammed, but I can see that although you've been accused, you don't have to wear a scammer tag.  Cool.

But of course everyone knows exactly why you went after me.  You weren't happy with the fact that I argued with you and called you out for your temper.  You made a promise that you were gonna get me banned from my signature campaign.  And then went through with it.  Everyone on here knows tha I don't trade and that the only reason for your feedback on me is that you have a personal agenda against me.  If it wasn't the case, then you'd have to explain why you would have any interest at all in me, much less in what a known scammer said about me in the past.

I never said that you were a teen, although you do have the maturity of one. I have it on good authority that is your age. IDK if you take my advice but don't complaint to me when you end up in jail.

You are a lot worse at covering your tracks then you think you are.

Any secret that I have on here is nothing more then for my own privacy and would not make me look bad in any way on here.

Okay. What does that have to do with anything? There is nothing wrong with having an alt account and it is against no rule. Having an alt account did not assist in any kind of scam, any kind of lie or in any kind of cheating.
You still have not pointed out any transgression that I have done.
As I mentioned previously in one of the other threads, the first negative was left by ACCTSeller was because of something I felt was untrustworthy (trying to significantly weaken the trust system and to make it significantly easier to scam as a result), and was appropriate that the community be warned, but was not appropriate  for him to have a "warning:trade with extreme caution" tag. Once I found out that he had scammed, I left the more harsh negative rating from this account as anyone who has actually scammed (and not repaid what they stole) should have a "trade with extreme caution" tag.

It seems as though you have created this thread simply to state Quickseller has alt accounts. Creating an "honest" ponzi would be in fact quite profitable. Supported by the fact that the owners could be held accountable in reality if things were to go South. Even if not, it would still be quite profitable.

Hmm, well, I don't know I'm an "enemy of the agenda of Default Trust".  It seems to me that Default trust is a collection of people who probably don't have a very clear and collective "agenda".  However, I am certainly against someone leading a mudslinging campaign against me for personal vendetta.  The fact that that person is on default trust is certainly even more bothersome --- but I'm pretty confident that this is going to be resolved in a few days when Badbear is back in town and QS finally has to account for his actions.

Of course the fact that there's a time-lapse here means that in a very real sense QS is costing me income that I would have earned though advertising.  We'll see if he's interested in paying back the money his smear campaign is costing, I think that'd be right and fair but I'd be surprised if he goes for it.  Since I'm not on default trust it won't matter to him that I wouldn't be removing the negative reputation unless he paid back the BTC he has cost me due to his actions.

An enemy of the agenda of the Default Trust, is an enemy of the forum.

I know there some subtlety to your comment which I'm supposed to get.  But I'm rather slow so I don't get it, can you spell it out for me?

Are you starting to understand what "Default Trust" means?

It was pretty easy for me to tell when in near perfect synchrony QS disappeared from my sig-ad campaign, AS appeared and began trolling me, AS trolled me all night until he found an old accusation of Tradefortress, QS magically reappared and used it as a reason to get me kicked from the ad campaign---which was his stated goal (as ACCTSeller).

Chuck Norris only needs a single dog dare, and even that isn't always required.

Oh, sorry. Not trying to play interweb sleuth, assumed this was clear to everyone. His asking me to prove it kind'a piqued my interest, that's all.
I mean, who could pass on a double-dog dare?

I'm suprised that you were able to identify Quickseller as an alt. Most people haven't noticed the pattern yet. btw, my comment was meant for someone else who may or may not be perusing this thread.

Never in your life
I remember you asking me yesterday to prove that ACCTseller was your sock. And look, the very next day, with no effort from me whatsoever... *poof*! No more need for proof

>I think it is being a little hypocritical if you are saying that it is bad that I have a "sock" account when you are yourself a shill account.
The difference being I've made no claims at being someone who belongs on some cheesy trust list, of being honest, or even of being a decent human being. I'm using an alt account to prove, by example, of just how ridiculous and intrinsically flawed this sort of thing is.

>Also I have never used any account to support my own position.
You've left negative trust from at least 2 of your accounts to whateverhisnickis. If that's not supporting yourself with your alts, what is?

@r3wt: ever since I've discovered right-click->search with Google, comments like yours have lost a certain ...what's the word i'm looking for?

hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform

I think it is being a little hypocritical if you are saying that it is bad that I have a "sock" account when you are yourself a shill account.

Also I have never used any account to support my own position. Even in threads when both accounts posted, I would only post to defend that account.