Topic: Reference topic: Why are these members excluded on trust lists? (Read 4229 times)

As I said, not a single argument, but only one value judgments of me, my posts, and other nonsense that does not have to the point of the question.

eddie13 has shown himself to be incapable of substantiating his accusations and incapable of arguing for his words. I asked him a number of questions, but he did not answer any of them.

eddie13 is a liar and is no different from airfinex or scumbuster. They also say a lot of words, and when it comes time to answer questions, they pretend to be fools who do not understand what they are being asked about or simply ignore uncomfortable questions.    

As I understand it, you cannot provide answers to other questions, absurdly ignoring them.

Well, you see, but you are talking about some kind of revenge. It was like this: eddie13 saw a topic in meta and read the accusations against me, then some PM was sent to him and he made conclusions based on everything, where he accused me of having shit tags and I received 3000 merit for google translate. But to check the information that he received, eddie13 considered it superfluous, well, since someone wrote it, then it’s true, eddie13 thought.

So, eddie13, I gave you ~ for not having your opinion, but simply repeating after someone, without checking the information that you are spreading. Since you, eddie13, instead of proofs that confirm your accusations against me, are mumbling something incoherent, you cannot be trusted. Your judgments cannot be trusted because they are based more on hearsay than facts.

---

---

My post was not intended to prove to someone that my trust carry weight. The point of the post was that eddie13 is two-faced - it simultaneously despises such tags and adds people to his trust list who have a lot of such tags.

If he does this, it does not mean that it was precisely these tags, most likely there was a personal disagreement, it is also worth considering that I was in the chipmixer, and eddie13 is a chipmixer hater. He cannot properly answer the rest of the accusations, because he has never verified this information and cannot objectively answer for what he wrote about me.

He now has two ways: either to pretend to be a fool that he does not understand what he is being asked about, or to express himself with some general phrases that can be substituted for any situation.

Bump with an update that will also count as my Reference link for neutral feedback:

I read it, but this isn't the right topic to discuss specific users. I don't mind some discussion, but in this case you have another topic already. This is a Reference topic (which kinda failed I might add: barely anyone explained why they exclude users).

Timelord2067, on this forum, messages are deleted not only on personal initiative. I don't want to get personal, but if you were a little smarter, then you would not be saying stupid things, then maybe those around you would stop considering you an idiot.

And few people care about your preconceived opinion, since you do not see the obvious facts, and I think this is the reason why you were kicked out of the DT.

Perhaps if you didn't keep deleting your prior posts (and from what I can tell, that doesn't include merited posts), then readers might feel inclined to sit up and take more notice of your ramblings (which is all they seem to be thus far).  Others have already suggested you stop, yet you don't.

A lot of time has passed, but none of the DT paid attention to my arguments.

I am sure that if these arguments were published by someone from DT, then exactly the same post would have attracted public attention.

Thanks for pointing that out, I really did accidentally make a mistake.

Fix your fucking quote before you get banned for plagiarism. It would be immensely amusing but I'm really tired of this sockpuppeting shit-stiring drama.

I don't trust Ratimov because:

1. There is no more egregious case of text-spinning with the help of Google translator than the case of Ratimov.

---

---

3. Ratimov is an inveterate liar who publishes deliberately false facts.

(~~~)
That would be very obvious Trust abuse.
(~~~)
To me it seems like a weakness to try to defame the person who made some valid arguments. I still think the plagiarism rules should be adjusted, this shouldn't be allowed (see my reasons why). Big surprise: the guy who first posted about Ratimov's plagiarism received negative feedback the next day:



I can't help but think Ratimov was angry when he tagged those users. Here's another "brain-dead fucker". I don't know why Ratimov left them negative feedback in English, because I can't read the Russian Reference links. I see one very strong connection though: they've criticized Ratimov, so he tags them. And then you wonder why people use alt accounts? Allow me to quote myself: