Topic: REEE: [NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content (Read 1006 times)

Some one's chance!
http://bitcoindrama.org/

I've learned a thing.... Here at bitcointalk.org drama never ends .

Unbelievable.

I'm surprised people are still reading his nonsense...

You guys really should take a step back, self-reflect and ask yourself how many hours you've wasted argueing over nothing in the past few years. It's getting really sad to watch.

First step is identifying the problem.   

I was asking a question as well. I keep forgetting that you can't really hold a conversation without shitting your pants. Man projection is fun and easy!

Just keep repeating your baseless projections, maybe some one will believe you and forget all your years of documented trust system abuse.

I don't even bother trying anymore.   It's not like he can seriously deny abusing the trust network. 

I was asking a question. I keep forgetting that you can't really hold a conversation without melting down. Carry on.

Not even sure what you are babbling about, good try at forming a cohesive thought though. Nice save not responding to my question by just moving on as usual BTW. Are you accusing me of fabricating that original quote or did you make it?

EDIT: Future Vod - "Man Brings "Emotional Support Clown" To Meeting Where He Was Laid Off"

So if you like something, you do all you can to stop liking it?   You are a very negative person techy; it's not good for your health.

I don't need to save face, but thanks.   

What are you trying to say, that these are the same statements?  Trying to help Vod save face before he catches himself in another provable falsehood are we?

What exactly are you trying to say there? You seem to have copied that text from the Maggiordomo notification but it's there in the post as well: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52456799

What do you think Vod edited?

You denying you said that now Vod? Be careful... it is logged even if there is a short window for you to edit after your post before it shows as "edited". Are you accusing me of making that up?

You like my imaginary edits, eh?

You gonna catch yourself Vod? If you don't like my point, simply reply to the point you wish I had made. BTW still waiting for those lies Vod.



BTW, I like your edit here Vod:



Was that pathetic attempt at sarcasm a bit too truthful to sound convincing enough towards impugning my character? Wouldn't want anyone stopping to consider valid reasons now would we?

So unless I can catch ALL the scammers in the world, I shouldn't catch any?

You're still a trust abuser even if profiles you dislike also do it....

You add everyone after they add you.  - Demonstrably false. See Hhampuz
You exclude everyone after they exclude you. - Demonstrably false. See The Pharmacist.
If you add someone and they don't reciprocate, you un-add them. - Demonstrably false. See Loyce & others.

Even if this were true, I find it interesting this level of scrutiny is not applied to you or your finger pointing friends. If I cared to gin up my own critical examination of your trust system activity using the exact same arguments, you would fail all of these same tests. These aren't purposeful lies are they Vod?

Speaking of lies, please do quote these lies I have perpetrated. It is almost like a conclusion has been made first and you are trying to build arguments around it rather than building arguments based on evidence.

You add everyone after they add you.
You exclude everyone after they exclude you.
If you add someone and they don't reciprocate, you un-add them.   

Of course, maybe you do have valid reasons for this mounting abuse, but I can't see it...

So I guess we have different definitions of trust abuse.  The world is a wonderful, diverse place.  

Well shit. I added people. Serves me right for thinking I can use the trust system like everyone else. Case closed! I am sure your documentation of my "lies" is equally as convincing.

https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx

It exists there too...  weird.  :/

My "lies" and "trust abuse" are only documented in your minds in the form of suspicions and posted accusations. I have been one of the most if not the most vocal opponent of trust system abuse. My crime is resisting your minuscule amount of authority given to you by an apathetic user base, not lying or "coordinated trust system abuse". Having found no actual malfeasance no matter how hard you look over years, you are now forced to just pretend it is true and hope people are too dumb and lazy to actually check for themselves knowing no one wants to get involved in the drama you create.

There is a reason four fingers would be pointed back at you.   Your coordinated trust abuse is well documented in the DT change log.

Good quote. Perhaps now you could:

May I remind you that you made some statements in topic of this thread and in thread linked in topic of this thread, you got caught lying several times in past few days and you are making bigger fool of yourself at the moment, correct and best thing you can do right now is to do what you said you would have done and also to lock this topic.

Of course you don't, you just prefer to take easy potshots from the side lines then run away at the slightest hint of push back. Its really easy to criticize when you aren't the target. It is way easier to just turn a blind eye to systematic abuse then poopoo at the results having personally done nothing to change it.

“No matter how much we ask after the truth, self-awareness is often unpleasant. We do not feel kindly toward the Truthsayer.”

― Frank Herbert, quote from God Emperor of Dune

I've never been called a jellyfish. I'm just fed up with juvenile bitching, and attempts to turn Bitcoin Talk into a clone of the UK parliament in Westminster. I think it's time to stop throwing bread rolls at each other ( reference to the English public schools system ), and get on with the real mission, and I think that this is to encourage economic change in the world.

That's the end of my comments on it, and I don't want to be drawn any further into discussing specific members and problems that they may or may not be causing. I'll leave that to the BT police.

If only I could stand aside judgmentally and point my finger with well documented trust system abusers on my trust list like you, things would be so much easier. You cry and cry about the conflict you desperately want to avoid as you enable it.

If Vod doesn't have any repercussions for his actions he is just going to continue his pattern of abuse of the system, and jellyfish like you will stand to the side and point fingers at anyone daring to speak up about it, because you don't want to be targeted next. Much easier to just grab a pitchfork and join a mob than supporting what is right isn't it? That's fine, it is always some one else that is targeted, and it will never be your turn right?

Normally one would think that this was for sig promotion, but this is obviously not the case here. I wonder if many people send tips to Bitcoin addresses in signatures.

So you are claiming to enjoy this attention? 

That quotation is probably provably wrong, but, if you want to use T's words, this quote is much better:

---

I agree, TECSHARE should probably do what he said:
Nice story, too bad it is not true.
If you don't mind, address this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52433998.

I did. Yet it would not have existed if the original thread was not created or locked. Apparently according to you though defending myself from imaginary allegations and drama = making imaginary allegations and creating drama. I am sure you would have much rather I just hide quietly while you and the clowns create whatever narrative around me you like as the largely apathetic disengaged community just nods their head and agrees to avoid conflict at no cost to themselves. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of complaints about drama that comes from the primary sources of it. I suppose it is an effective propaganda technique to accuse your opponent of the crimes you yourself are guilty of, I mean it worked for Marx, Hitler, and Alinsky.

Except you opened this thread. It would have been easier for you to not, yet you did anyway.


I think so.

Is there a chance we could reduce all these inter-member bitching threads. I actually gave Tecshare some merits for a few "real world" posts in some other threads. I thought that his comments were constructive and useful, and hopefully he will switch to such posts as Bitcoin moves higher in value. All these bitching threads must be putting off some potential new members of Bitcoin Talk, and that can't be good for Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is maturing into a really useful wealth preservation asset, hopefully Bitcoin Talk can mature with it.

Interesting theory, the only problem is I didn't start any of these discussions targeted at me the past few days, the clowns did. As you can see they are far more interested in generating attention that I am. If you don't like the circus, talk to the ringleader.

I think it's best to stop giving him the attention he is so desperately craving. Same as QS, he will just avoid answered questions once confronted and move on to the next imaginary allegation.

Clown Car is an offshoot of Lauda's Gang + some new members. Its kind of like when Peter Gabriel split from Genesis and took some of their studio musicians along for his own solo project.


Why do you keep dragging yourself into this issue? It has nothing to do with you. You know, exclusions and inclusions aren't permanent and I might change my mind about you some day, but you have to demonstrate some understanding of the trust system first. For example, understanding that my exclusions have nothing to do with TS's inclusions.

You too don't seem to have any great reasons to exclude someone from your trust list.

Remember :


Source: TECSHARE

He didn't say that, he asked a question, look:
Although I am not familiar with these kind of conclusion-based questions  

Oh now look what you did... now he will NEVER lock the thread.

Have you found correct quotation yet?

Why should I lock the thread when you are all still busy showing everyone how thirsty to "get me" in any way you can manage?

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.

I can't think of any possible reason "to belong to the clown car" or to any other of your imaginary conspiracy groups for that matter but I'm sure you'll enlighten me on what that reason could be.

You literally said that you (1) would have removed BitcoinSupremo if you had been notified, which turned out to be a lie (you had been notified months ago and you didn't remove him); and (2) you're not removing him now and others (the "clowns") are to blame for that. Whatever narcissistic spin you're trying to put on it, the bottom line is that you're not only misusing the trust system, you can't even man up and own it instead of resorting to playground excuses.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52426883

Since marlboroza is unable to have an open discussion and allow me to reply after trying then failing miserably to drag me through the mud, and has to resort to locking his topic to try to make a point because he knows I will demolish it, I decided to open this topic up to continue any discussion that needs to be had, including my reply.



If you don't like my answers, just make up your own and attribute them to me. The dynamic is the more you lash out at me, the more you give me credibility and lose your own, so I guess I should thank you and all the other clowns for giving me this opportunity to prove my merits and character so publicly and having the grace to disassemble your own reputations so I don't have to do it.

I didn't add him out of "spite", I added him because he was targeted, and he is staying there because it is being used to target me, there is a difference. It's too bad, you seem just a mite smarter than these other clowns, but your need to belong to the clown car seems to override your better judgement.






You know because this subject was already discussed, and you have access to everyone's trust lists. The way you rolled out this attack is evidence enough that it had nothing to do with him, but was designed to "get me", necessitating that you already knew. It is not like you haven't been trying and failing to do similar things for months, no one is buying what you are selling.

You didn't just politely notify me, you pitched a tent and assembled a 3 ring circus. I am not going to reward and incentivize these actions by complying with your manipulation in the form of coordinated attacks.

Thanks for that link BTW, I was looking for that. That is why you locked the thread right hoping I wouldn't notice or post it isn't it?



Sure does look like you knew I had BitcoinSupremo on my list months ago, but here you are swearing up and down to the entire community you didn't know. I especially love it when I can bury people with their own posted sources, so thanks for that. How can anyone trust anything you say when you blatantly and provably lie to all of us to sell your attack narratives?