Requesting-Vod be prevented deleting posts Self Modded thread/Removed from DT - page 12.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: Quickseller on September 15, 2015, 11:51:17 PM

Vod is now engaging in the locking of topics immediately after making a libelous post about my character. A topic in which there was significant, on-topic discussion being engaged in.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12437450

You are one sick fuck, Cody. Angry

This is all I'm going to bother to post since you've repeatedly stated you are leaving the forum today, after you return your last collateral.

Quote from: ?? on ??

I previously said a number of times that I am leaving once a loan that I am due is repaid so I can return the collateral....

tspacepilot

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1081

I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.

Quote from: Quickseller on September 16, 2015, 12:16:21 AM

I am ~~a person~~ an account who cares most about results, so...

FTFY.

ABitNut

hero member

Activity: 764

Merit: 500

I'm a cynic, I'm a quaint

Quote from: Quickseller on September 16, 2015, 12:16:21 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 15, 2015, 11:59:09 PM

you kinda brought it on yourself with the whole
'we should listen to what pedophiles have to say" angle.

My point was that doing this will potentially stop others from falling victim to rape, which I do not think is a bad outcome.

I am a person who cares most about results, so if that means showing a small amount of respect to what I believe to be horrible people, if that results in potentially less victims of a very heinous crime then so be it.

The fact is that Vod is clearly demonstrating that he is unwilling to even listen to the viewpoints of others, and will continue to negatively affect others once he has made up his mind. This kind of behavior will only result in people leaving the community, and deciding not to do business within the community when they may or may not be actual scammers. This is certainly not something that is good for the community, nor is something that is good for bitcoin

Quote from: Quickseller on September 15, 2015, 11:30:21 PM

... is my personal viewpoint ... going to change after engaging in a discussion on the matter? I can say that the chances of this changing are as close to zero as they get.

Hypocrite. "Hey, Vod will not listen to my 'arguments'¹" and yet you engage in discussions with preset views that you will not change.

¹ Vod, and many others for that matter, have read your arguments and found them unconvincing. Rehashing the same failed arguments won't help.

Reynaldo

legendary

Activity: 1143

Merit: 1000

Post ripoffreport sounds like a copy pasta from twitch.. its just so hilarious.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 15, 2015, 11:59:09 PM

you kinda brought it on yourself with the whole
'we should listen to what pedophiles have to say" angle.

My point was that doing this will potentially stop others from falling victim to rape, which I do not think is a bad outcome.

I am a person who cares most about results, so if that means showing a small amount of respect to what I believe to be horrible people, if that results in potentially less victims of a very heinous crime then so be it.

The fact is that Vod is clearly demonstrating that he is unwilling to even listen to the viewpoints of others, and will continue to negatively affect others once he has made up his mind. This kind of behavior will only result in people leaving the community, and deciding not to do business within the community when they may or may not be actual scammers. This is certainly not something that is good for the community, nor is something that is good for bitcoin

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Quickseller on September 15, 2015, 11:51:17 PM

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12434433
^^^Vod is now engaging in the locking of topics immediately after making a libelous post about my character. A topic in which there was significant, on-topic discussion being engaged in.

Furthermore, Vod's last posts in the above referenced thread sufficiently imply that he is unwilling to even consider an opposing viewpoint to that of his own. This is clear and concise evidence that Vod will not adjust any ratings that he leaves when it is shown that the person he left negative ratings for is in fact not a scammer.

haha... Vod did cherry pick part of your post and locked the thread.
kinda a low blow there Tongue

but to be fair we listened to all of your arguments already.
you kinda brought it on yourself with the whole
'we should listen to what pedophiles have to say" angle.

worhiper_-_

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: Quickseller on September 15, 2015, 11:51:17 PM

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12434433
^^^Vod is now engaging in the locking of topics immediately after making a libelous post about my character. A topic in which there was significant, on-topic discussion being engaged in.

Furthermore, Vod's last posts in the above referenced thread sufficiently imply that he is unwilling to even consider an opposing viewpoint to that of his own. This is clear and concise evidence that Vod will not adjust any ratings that he leaves when it is shown that the person he left negative ratings for is in fact not a scammer.

I think it's quite hypocritical of you to call this out. You were the one that attempted character assassination first. After all, it's Vod's post, he can do what he wants with it. You trying to derail it is a good enough reason to do what he's entitled to do and close it.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12434433
^^^Vod is now engaging in the locking of topics immediately after making a libelous post about my character. A topic in which there was significant, on-topic discussion being engaged in.

Furthermore, Vod's last posts in the above referenced thread sufficiently imply that he is unwilling to even consider an opposing viewpoint to that of his own. This is clear and concise evidence that Vod will not adjust any ratings that he leaves when it is shown that the person he left negative ratings for is in fact not a scammer.

erikalui

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1094

Quote from: Quickseller on September 13, 2015, 08:20:50 PM

Quote from: erikalui on September 13, 2015, 06:28:21 AM

Vod on the other hand has mostly left reasonable ratings (though sometimes I feel they are unfair) but he comes out to be a responsible member definitely more deserving than you. He and TC have been considerate while leaving ratings which makes them both deserving of the DT trust list.

You should take a look at a few of the threads created about Vod. He has a history of trolling those who he does not agree with. If you look at his recent post history you can see just how reasonable he can be when someone is trying to discuss a rating with him. You will also see how he responds to factual arguments.

I know he does get into an argument but I've also seen many instances when he has removed the ratings. Everyone isn't perfect and hence his trolling behavior can be ignored (as many here inhibit this same behavior). Rest there is no other reason why he shouldn't be on the DT trust list as he hasn't scammed anyone whom I know of nor has been involved in a shady trade/transaction.

Quote from: erikalui on September 13, 2015, 06:28:21 AM

You should infact apologize to the members whom you have acted as an escrow while dealing with them using your alts.

Quote from: Quickseller on September 13, 2015, 08:20:50 PM

This was done a long time ago - nearly a week. Both of these people told me they did not feel it was a scam, and neither of them said they had any hard feelings.

Am glad you did it

hashie

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 100

DATABLOCKCHAIN.IO SALE IS LIVE | MVP @ DBC.IO

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on September 15, 2015, 07:03:27 AM

So what I gather from all of this is .....

That if you trick someone out of their coins by having them pay for a service you didn't provide and pretending you did,

Then that is what is called a scam.

Just call me dense but I have tried to look at this in every way possible but I still cannot see it the way that Tradefortress does, that being that QS did not scam.

~BCX~

The "service" provided by an escrow of:

(1) making a bitcoin address
(2) checking if a payment is received
(3) sending a payment

is not really what you're paying someone for. You are not paying for someone to make a bitcoin address. You are paying for the reputation of someone who you trust won't run off.

Like it or not, reputation is a commodity. Escrows are bonds on a commodity.

edit: oops wrong acct, this is supposed to be posted from TF

BitcoinEXpress

legendary

Activity: 1210

Merit: 1024

So what I gather from all of this is .....

That if you trick someone out of their coins by having them pay for a service you didn't provide and pretending you did,

Then that is what is called a scam.

Just call me dense but I have tried to look at this in every way possible but I still cannot see it the way that Tradefortress does, that being that QS did not scam.

~BCX~

Sourgummies

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Never ending parties are what Im into.

Quote from: ABitNut on September 15, 2015, 12:41:49 AM

Quote from: Bobsurplus on September 15, 2015, 12:25:40 AM

Nahh dude.. The buyer or seller, whoever it was who paid the escrow fee got what they paid for.. They paid to have an account, not a person, hold money for them during a business deal.
Who was behind the account has no bearing on the situation at hand because the payer got what he paid for which was an account to hold said funds.

1) They paid for an escrow service. That means an impartial third party providing a service. They did not get it.
2) An account cannot act. Only the entity behind the account can act. Expecting an account to hold money is similar to expecting a rock to run.

Bob, do you feel it's alright to make someone believe you're rendering a service, charge them for it but not (by definition being able to) render said service?

Starting to think that should be a mandatory question for anyone on this forum supplying the escrow service.

ABitNut

hero member

Activity: 764

Merit: 500

I'm a cynic, I'm a quaint

Quote from: Bobsurplus on September 15, 2015, 12:25:40 AM

Nahh dude.. The buyer or seller, whoever it was who paid the escrow fee got what they paid for.. They paid to have an account, not a person, hold money for them during a business deal.
Who was behind the account has no bearing on the situation at hand because the payer got what he paid for which was an account to hold said funds.

1) They paid for an escrow service. That means an impartial third party providing a service. They did not get it.
2) An account cannot act. Only the entity behind the account can act. Expecting an account to hold money is similar to expecting a rock to run.

Bob, do you feel it's alright to make someone believe you're rendering a service, charge them for it but not (by definition being able to) render said service?

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

"Exactly", "but most likely never", LOL perhaps you'd like to spend your time correcting your quotes of my posts instead of equivocating your argument into oblivion. I'm unwatching this topic and don't plan to edit my replies (further than bringing the newest quote trees in line with my older posts) anymore.

Bobsurplus

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1000

Making money since I was in the womb! @emc2whale

Quote from: TheButterZone on September 15, 2015, 12:30:23 AM

Quote from: Bobsurplus on September 15, 2015, 12:25:40 AM

Quote from: TheButterZone on September 15, 2015, 12:21:19 AM

Quote from: Bobsurplus on September 15, 2015, 12:19:07 AM

Quote from: ABitNut on September 15, 2015, 12:17:19 AM

What Bob is pretty much right about is that we have little recourse against an anonymous entity. What Bob is wrong about is that that somehow excuses whatever that anonymous entity did.

And I love the logic, "The victim thought it was a third party at the time so nothing wrong happened."

"The users of Mt. Gox thought it was a great exchange, so nothing wrong happened."

Umm we are not talking about any loss of money here are we?

If so I may be wrong but I did not see where QS had stolen any money or covered up a hack as was the case with mtgox.

We absolutely are. The escrow fees for a non-existent by definition, escrow agent.

You are either bold-faced lying or willfully ignorant. Your choice.

Nahh dude.. The buyer or seller, whoever it was who paid the escrow fee got what they paid for.. They paid to have an account, not a person, hold money for them during a business deal.
Who was behind the account has no bearing on the situation at hand because the payer got what he paid for which was an account to hold said funds.

Stop trying to beat me up here.. This (bct) is a fucking anonymous world, where everyone is using pseudonyms. If you dont like the rules then dont play the game.

More indefensible bullshit from you. An escrow agent is not defined as "an account". The buyer paid for an escrow agent and got their own counterparty instead.

If you don't like being "beat up" then don't play your indefensible bullshit game.

Well on the forum here that's exactly what it is.. Some bullshit nobody behind a computer who you'll most likely never see or meet.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: Vod on September 15, 2015, 12:31:03 AM

This conversation should really be going on in the thread

Is escrowing for yourself using a secret alt OK?

Plus, it has a bonus of being my thread. I could lock it to cool everyone off for a while. Undecided

It's going to be horribly difficult to move all the previous posts over there in chrono order.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

This conversation should really be going on in the thread

Is escrowing for yourself using a secret alt OK?

Plus, it has a bonus of being my thread. I could lock it to cool everyone off for a while. Undecided

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: Bobsurplus on September 15, 2015, 12:25:40 AM

Quote from: TheButterZone on September 15, 2015, 12:21:19 AM

Quote from: Bobsurplus on September 15, 2015, 12:19:07 AM

Quote from: ABitNut on September 15, 2015, 12:17:19 AM

What Bob is pretty much right about is that we have little recourse against an anonymous entity. What Bob is wrong about is that that somehow excuses whatever that anonymous entity did.

And I love the logic, "The victim thought it was a third party at the time so nothing wrong happened."

"The users of Mt. Gox thought it was a great exchange, so nothing wrong happened."

Umm we are not talking about any loss of money here are we?

If so I may be wrong but I did not see where QS had stolen any money or covered up a hack as was the case with mtgox.

We absolutely are. The escrow fees for a non-existent by definition, escrow agent.

You are either bold-faced lying or willfully ignorant. Your choice.

Nahh dude.. The buyer or seller, whoever it was who paid the escrow fee got what they paid for.. They paid to have an account, not a person, hold money for them during a business deal.
Who was behind the account has no bearing on the situation at hand because the payer got what he paid for which was an account to hold said funds.

Stop trying to beat me up here.. This (bct) is a fucking anonymous world, where everyone is using pseudonyms. If you dont like the rules then dont play the game.

More indefensible bullshit from you. An escrow agent is not defined as "an account". A counterparty paid for an escrow agent and got their own counterparty instead of a third party, as required by the definition of escrow agent.

If you don't like being "beat up" then don't play your indefensible bullshit game.

Quote from: Bobsurplus on September 15, 2015, 12:27:48 AM

Ok bro.. now your really coming off like a loser liar. Never ever have I ever had more the 15ml of any alcoholic beverage. Not at the bar, not at the restaurant, not at my friends house, not at the bowling alley. Never ever have I ever.
lmao.

Your libel continues. Perhaps you'd like to libel Penn Jillette a liar too, about his life of non-alcoholic drinking?

Bobsurplus

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1000

Making money since I was in the womb! @emc2whale

Quote from: TheButterZone on September 15, 2015, 12:21:19 AM

Quote from: Bobsurplus on September 15, 2015, 12:19:07 AM

Quote from: ABitNut on September 15, 2015, 12:17:19 AM

What Bob is pretty much right about is that we have little recourse against an anonymous entity. What Bob is wrong about is that that somehow excuses whatever that anonymous entity did.

And I love the logic, "The victim thought it was a third party at the time so nothing wrong happened."

"The users of Mt. Gox thought it was a great exchange, so nothing wrong happened."

Umm we are not talking about any loss of money here are we?

If so I may be wrong but I did not see where QS had stolen any money or covered up a hack as was the case with mtgox.

We absolutely are. The escrow fees for a non-existent by definition, escrow agent.

You are either bold-faced lying or willfully ignorant. Your choice.

Quote from: Bobsurplus on September 15, 2015, 12:20:44 AM

LMAO. 15ml, more like 40oz.

Your choice is bold-faced lies, then. I have and will never intentionally drink more than that amount of alcohol, you're libeling against one of the core tenets of my identity at this point.

Ok bro.. now your really coming off like a loser liar. Never ever have I ever had more the 15ml of any alcoholic beverage. Not at the bar, not at the restaurant, not at my friends house, not at the bowling alley. Never ever have I ever.
lmao.

Bobsurplus

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1000

Making money since I was in the womb! @emc2whale

Quote from: TheButterZone on September 15, 2015, 12:21:19 AM

Quote from: Bobsurplus on September 15, 2015, 12:19:07 AM

Quote from: ABitNut on September 15, 2015, 12:17:19 AM

What Bob is pretty much right about is that we have little recourse against an anonymous entity. What Bob is wrong about is that that somehow excuses whatever that anonymous entity did.

And I love the logic, "The victim thought it was a third party at the time so nothing wrong happened."

"The users of Mt. Gox thought it was a great exchange, so nothing wrong happened."

Umm we are not talking about any loss of money here are we?

If so I may be wrong but I did not see where QS had stolen any money or covered up a hack as was the case with mtgox.

We absolutely are. The escrow fees for a non-existent by definition, escrow agent.

You are either bold-faced lying or willfully ignorant. Your choice.

Nahh dude.. The buyer or seller, whoever it was who paid the escrow fee got what they paid for.. They paid to have an account, not a person, hold money for them during a business deal.
Who was behind the account has no bearing on the situation at hand because the payer got what he paid for which was an account to hold said funds.

Stop trying to beat me up here.. This (bct) is a fucking anonymous world, where everyone is using pseudonyms. If you dont like the rules then dont play the game.

Topic: Requesting-Vod be prevented deleting posts Self Modded thread/Removed from DT - page 12. (Read 35624 times)