Topic: REEE: [NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content - page 3. (Read 1042 times)

Maybe OP should lock thread? Doesn't look like he will be active here?

Don't forget:

Not really a question, but the question mark is there so that I could later weasel out with some bullshit like this:


Learning from the best.

Is this a rhetorical question ?


Remember:

NFI but it's small so I'm guessing Lauda's whole gang wouldn't fit:

This is getting confusing. Is the whole clown car thing the new 'Lauda gang'?

Forget about logic, jump into clown car wagon, have fun with clowns! I have special red nose designed for new clown car members!

---

REEEEE:


Changing subject quoted for record.

REEE:
REEE:
REEE:

Now, as we resolved this misunderstanding by simply using your own words, I am politely asking you to address this:



REEE:





REEE over and out.

Careful now. If you apply logic in a TECSHARE-related topic you will be assigned to the clown car and will have to wear makeup and a wig for the rest of your life.

The original thread was okay in the meta but this one, it's all about TECSHARE so, my understanding is that it's a reputation issue.

Same topic but more concentration to the reputation of an account.

PS: Please do not get me wrong. I am just trying to fit my understanding that I have learnt from all those years in this forum. I am off by the way.

Yes, of course rules only apply to those you oppose, even though this is literally about the same topic.

Its Meta (the original thread, anyway) because it pertains to what should or shouldn't be acceptable criteria for adding/excluding someone to/from a trust list.

Excuse my off-topic (if it really is): Isn't it reputation thread?
I do not see anything meta related here.

Yeah, I noticed the original thread.

You knew I had him on my trust list. The fact that you knew months ago is publicly documented. You knew this when you posted the OP, then attempted to give the impression this was not the case several times to distract from the fact this was about targeting me directly rather than about BitcoinSupremo.

You posting it without attribution was just your way of rehashing a subject that we have already been over in such a way as to maximize attention while also not having to take any responsibility for directly accusing me of anything. Then one of your clown proxies steps in shortly after and names me by name, and looky loo you get to deny this was targeted at me while still being the ringmaster of your own personal 3 ring circus.

This is what is known in journalism as "information laundering".  This is the same exact technique DireWolfM14 used to exactly the same effect in this thread. Amazing all these coincidences, you both making a thread "not directed at me" at the same time, using the same deceptive and misleading technique, talking about exactly the same scenario. Of course we can't forget the sad party magician making his thumb disappear too. This is not how organic events by individuals occur. This is how group coordinated planned events occur.

All this is meaningless anyways. The fact is, every one in town can see you brought the whole carnival when a PM would have been any reasonable person's first step. This subject was already raised months ago in a similar 3 ring manner. Just be sure to pick up all the trash from the fairgrounds when all the carnies are done looking for clues in my toilet bowl.

After reading the final contents of the locked thread I clicked on Meta predicting to see this thread, and here it is. So thanks for that, because I really wanted to respond to this:


Quote from: TECSHARE on September 09, 2019, 09:02:19 AM

Like that's ever a great reason to add somebody to your trust list to begin with... 

You keep getting mixed up in your lies.

Techbadge?

Anyway, I am particularly interested in this part:
I am still waiting for correct quotation from locked poll, seems TECSHARE is making things up.

You got it all wrong. Getting your own personal REEEE thread is a badge of honor bestowed upon you by His Techcellency.

Yep, I'm jealous.

Where did I say that I didn't knew? Quote me correct post or you are lying. As far as I remember, there was question mark at the end of each sentence so it has to be a question - your words, not my.


So you added him because he was "target" even thought it is not true, and he stayed in your trust list because someone pointed that you have him in your trust and you thought this is targeting you?  

Yes, that is exactly why I posted link in public forum. I hoped no one will notice....

---

Why is this thread in meta?
This is personal attack against me!
Upps...source:tecshare

If ONLY THE SAME USERS keep criticizing someone for behaviors that warrant less negative attention than their own, and they appear to be worried personally about the out come of his behavior since it will take away their absolute domination of DT.  Then you can be pretty much sure that is collusion and gaming of the system by them.

Once again. We ask you to bring your includes and the other DT members ganging up on him,  and match your includes with his includes and we can all compare the implications of your trust list "behaviors"

Each person on your includes can be individually scrutinized in public and you can all say YES or NO to whether their prior behaviors are suitable for DT.

WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF AND WHY DO YOU REFUSE??

Now we notice suchmoon is saying.. perhaps it does not even matter is scoundrels or even proven scammers are on DT. LOL

Yep a trust system full of scammers does not matter at all. Brilliant idea. Sets a great example to the board and I am sure people speaking out against these prior behaviors will surely not mind a nice new scam tag for their efforts. Even scammers are going to say fuck off, if you can scam, I can scam. This is unfair and double standards.

Imagine having judges that were also all KNOWN criminals having committed worse crimes than they are handing down sentences for and never having been punished at all, actually they were rewarded instead. hahaha

Doesn't matter, what advantage does it give them says suchmoon. What is the possible problem here?

and then suchmoon said..... of course I can include a proven auction scammer, a proven and willing facilitator of scamming for the correct prices, a project pumping bag holding scammer, probable extortionists, probably shady escrows if I want. .... What's that tecshare?? call the police, someone said they are tougher than homosexuals. Shut the board down. we are all going to be robbed now. Quick my fellow scammers and extortionists, scam facilitators and auction scammers and their supporters... save our hard earned btc from this tough homosexual thrasher. haha

The twilight zone of meta board.

It is shocking how the worst scammers and their supporters even DARE to start this "we want to analyse the behaviors of people that are being included into the trust system". It is beyond strange. Only theymos the warden can sit by and enjoy the twilight zone he has allowed to spring up here over the years.

What is more strange is that the tecshare does not say to them. Okay scum bags I will openly compare the persons on my includes with the persons on your includes. I can't believe that there can be more hard evidence of financially motivated wrong doing in the past behaviors of his includes compared to MANY DT1 members.

What is this passive pussy board. Bunches of weak knee weasels and wimps. Same for the admin. All pretending this black lagoon is not forming right under their very noses.

Man up ffs.

Financially motivated wrongdoing = NOT TRUSTWORTHY = NOT PART OF THE TRUST SYSTEM.

Supporting those that have clear instances of financially motivated wrong doing = NOT TRUSTWORTHY = NOT PART OF THE TRUST SYSTEM.

Undeniable, and allowing this to happen is immoral and wrong.

This trust system reflects poorly on this entire board. I mean if from 100's of 1000s of members we can not even find 30 people that have zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing or even open scamming. That is a disgrace. I do not believe it is true.

So your theory is that if multiple users criticize your behavior then it must be coordinated? Is it possible that perhaps your behavior is not faultless?


This is just amazeballs. You're so bravely destroying your own reputation just to resist something that you made up.

It is human nature to want to be part of the in crowd. Imaginary? You know for a while just dismissing these accusations as conspiracy theory worked, but you and your face painted friends have jumped the shark. I don't have to convince anyone now of these coordinated attacks, you have all done an exceptionally good job doing that for me, so thank you.

Once again, I wasn't just notified, a tent was pitched, and a 3 ring circus was assembled. That is exactly what I will NEVER respond to positively, because I refuse to incentivize this attack mob type mentality by complying with its demands.