Maybe I have very strong arguments that are based on facts.
I guess that's why I'm still on DT and you're not.
My statement is correct. I do make logical arguments and Vod has no business being on DT based on how he has acted over the long term.
Topic: Requesting-Vod be prevented deleting posts Self Modded thread/Removed from DT - page 10. (Read 35624 times)
September 16, 2015, 04:06:36 PM
I guess that's why I'm still on DT and you're not.
My statement is correct. I do make logical arguments and Vod has no business being on DT based on how he has acted over the long term.
September 16, 2015, 04:04:54 PM
Hopefully the Bear will feel it is necessary to exclude Vod from his trust list if he is against all this Dox'ing business that Vod was so strongly encouraging shadow_runner to proceed with.
Plus his ratings seem to be more based on personal issues as of recently as opposed to actual scams/trades.
Plus his ratings seem to be more based on personal issues as of recently as opposed to actual scams/trades.
I was attacked today, called a pedo for no reason, by you and Brad.
The entire forum stood up for me.
Did you miss that? Have you read my signature?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
September 16, 2015, 04:03:43 PM
Maybe I have very strong arguments that are based on facts.
I guess that's why I'm still on DT and you're not.
September 16, 2015, 03:58:05 PM
Hopefully the Bear will feel it is necessary to exclude Vod from his trust list if he is against all this Dox'ing business that Vod was so strongly encouraging shadow_runner to proceed with.
Plus his ratings seem to be more based on personal issues as of recently as opposed to actual scams/trades.
Plus his ratings seem to be more based on personal issues as of recently as opposed to actual scams/trades.
I was attacked today, called a pedo for no reason, by you and Brad.
The entire forum stood up for me.
Did you miss that? Have you read my signature?
September 16, 2015, 03:56:38 PM
Hopefully the Bear will feel it is necessary to exclude Vod from his trust list if he is against all this Dox'ing business that Vod was so strongly encouraging shadow_runner to proceed with.
Plus his ratings seem to be more based on personal issues as of recently as opposed to actual scams/trades.
Plus his ratings seem to be more based on personal issues as of recently as opposed to actual scams/trades.
September 16, 2015, 03:53:47 PM
Maybe I have very strong arguments that are based on facts.
September 16, 2015, 03:53:11 PM
Thank you tomatocage. Now either someone needs to exclude Vod or dooglus should remove Vod as well.
what Tomatocage did?
Interesting.
Why did you do that TC?
People accused QS of being TC and QS also
said anyone who leaves him negative trust will be
removed from DT.
spooky.
I'd like to know why as well.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
September 16, 2015, 03:51:58 PM
Maybe I have very strong arguments that are based on facts.
September 16, 2015, 03:39:15 PM
Thank you tomatocage. Now either someone needs to exclude Vod or dooglus should remove Vod as well.
what Tomatocage did?
Interesting.
Why did you do that TC?
People accused QS of being TC and QS also
said anyone who leaves him negative trust will be
removed from DT.
spooky.
Care to give a date when you will leave?
September 16, 2015, 02:52:08 PM
Thank you tomatocage. Now either someone needs to exclude Vod or dooglus should remove Vod as well.
what Tomatocage did?
Interesting.
Why did you do that TC?
People accused QS of being TC and QS also
said anyone who leaves him negative trust will be
removed from DT.
spooky.
September 16, 2015, 02:50:17 PM
Find an instance where I entered into an agreement stating that I am a neutral third party. Signed or otherwise.
The trader would want a party that has sufficient reputation to hold the money until the goods/currency are received.
The trader would want a party that has sufficient reputation to hold the money until the goods/currency are received.
Regarding the bolded:
By the very definition of escrow, and the common definition used on this forum, it indeed is implied that an escrow is a "neutral third party." You know that's how the law (and logic) generally work, right?
It doesn't matter a bit whether you explicitly stated you were a "neutral third party." This just shows you have not a clue how the law (or common decency) works.
A trader who specifically requests an escrow =/= a trader who would have trusted you enough to simply send first. Acting as your own escrow is effectively the latter (in spite of the other party's wishes to have an escrow).
Professional courtesy? Concern for derailing the thread? You are simply adorable.
Good MO -- deflect, deflect, deflect, never respond to the argument. Then walk away. Really effective.
Anyway, just more implicit admission that you are, indeed, a scammer.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
September 16, 2015, 02:49:24 PM
Thank you tomatocage. Now either someone needs to exclude Vod or dooglus should remove Vod as well.
what Tomatocage did?
Interesting.
Why did you do that TC?
People accused QS of being TC and QS also
said anyone who leaves him negative trust will be
removed from DT.
spooky.
September 16, 2015, 02:46:58 PM
Find an instance where I entered into an agreement stating that I am a neutral third party. Signed or otherwise.
The trader would want a party that has sufficient reputation to hold the money until the goods/currency are received.
The trader would want a party that has sufficient reputation to hold the money until the goods/currency are received.
Regarding the bolded:
By the very definition of escrow, and the common definition used on this forum, it indeed is implied that an escrow is a "neutral third party." You know that's how the law (and logic) generally work, right?
It doesn't matter a bit whether you explicitly stated you were a "neutral third party." This just shows you have not a clue how the law (or common decency) works.
A trader who specifically requests an escrow =/= a trader who would have trusted you enough to simply send first. Acting as your own escrow is effectively the latter (in spite of the other party's wishes to have an escrow).
September 16, 2015, 02:45:25 PM
Thank you tomatocage. Now either someone needs to exclude Vod or dooglus should remove Vod as well.
what Tomatocage did?
September 16, 2015, 02:42:53 PM
Thank you tomatocage. Now either someone needs to exclude Vod or dooglus should remove Vod as well.
what Tomatocage did?
September 16, 2015, 02:29:59 PM
Find an instance where I entered into an agreement stating that I am a neutral third party. Signed or otherwise.
The trader would want a party that has sufficient reputation to hold the money until the goods/currency are received.
The trader would want a party that has sufficient reputation to hold the money until the goods/currency are received.
Regarding the bolded:
By the very definition of escrow, and the common definition used on this forum, it indeed is implied that an escrow is a "neutral third party." You know that's how the law (and logic) generally work, right?
It doesn't matter a bit whether you explicitly stated you were a "neutral third party." This just shows you have not a clue how the law (or common decency) works.
A trader who specifically requests an escrow =/= a trader who would have trusted you enough to simply send first. Acting as your own escrow is effectively the latter (in spite of the other party's wishes to have an escrow).
September 16, 2015, 02:26:12 PM
Thank you tomatocage. Now either someone needs to exclude Vod or dooglus should remove Vod as well.
September 16, 2015, 02:21:36 PM
Find an instance where I entered into an agreement stating that I am a neutral third party. Signed or otherwise.
The trader would want a party that has sufficient reputation to hold the money until the goods/currency are received.
The trader would want a party that has sufficient reputation to hold the money until the goods/currency are received.
September 16, 2015, 02:17:16 PM
Sure, go ahead and find an instance where I signed an agreement that included the explicit statement that said I was a neutral third party. Any agreement that I entered into stated that funds would be kept secure until goods/currency was received by the other party. That is what happened.
A contract does not need your signature -- certainly not in the US. And my argument is that the dictionary and legal definitions of escrow are controlling, as opposed to your imaginary definition:
By the very definition of escrow, and the common definition used on this forum, it indeed is implied that an escrow is a "neutral third party." You know that's how the law (and logic) generally work, right?
It's not a rational argument to say: In spite of the dictionary definition and commonly accepted use of the word "escrow," it is fair to assume that one that seeks the services of an "escrow" is not seeking a "neutral third party." You are the one that is incorrectly assuming, in the face of customary language and practice.
It's not a rational argument to say: In spite of the dictionary definition and commonly accepted use of the word "escrow," it is fair to assume that one that seeks the services of an "escrow" is not seeking a "neutral third party." You are the one that is incorrectly assuming, in the face of customary language and practice.
I'm also at a loss for how "funds would be kept secure" when they are being held by the interested second party. What's to stop the interested second party from taking the money and running? He has an interest in doing so.
Why would a trader ask for an escrow, otherwise?
September 16, 2015, 02:01:37 PM
Sure, go ahead and find an instance where I signed an agreement that included the explicit statement that said I was a neutral third party. Any agreement that I entered into stated that funds would be kept secure until goods/currency was received by the other party. That is what happened.
Jump to: