Topic: Scammer: Dank - page 2. (Read 14368 times)
I would be more inclined to deposit with someone that said... I buy drugs off SR and sell them IRL...
How many accounts does this rarity person have?
I'd be more interested in knowing how many accounts dank has.
Isn't that the same number of depositors your 'bank' has?
How many accounts does this rarity person have?
I'd be more interested in knowing how many accounts dank has.
I agree. Now what do we need to do to get Dank his Scammer tag that he's clearly earned?
Invest anything in his concert, I guess...
How many accounts does this rarity person have?
I'd be more interested in knowing how many accounts dank has.
How many accounts does this rarity person have?
As I said, the part where you proposed a deal, intentionally did not perform as agreed (admitted sabotage), and tried to pass off a sabotaged product as fulfilling the agreement in an attempt to receive payment. No matter what distracting tactics you attempt to try and turn this into some discussion of spirituality or drugs, it is clear that you are a scammer.
Yes, Rarity was clearly right. It's somewhat inexplicable dank has escaped the scammer tag here. According to reviewing what occurred, dank solicited Rarity to take part in this agreement. He proposed it and Rarity agreed. Why an individual should be allowed to go around proposing deals with people, asking them to swear to agree in writing, and then breaking the deal despite all this is bizarre.
dank's defense appears to be a Matthew Wright style of intentionally misreading the agreement in a manner no reasonable individual ever would. That an individual asking for a well known tune, and providing sheet music to illustrate it further, was agreeing to receive a collection of random screeching sounds does not pass the smell test. That any musician would think the song played was the one requested is also not believable.
In fact, dank admits to intentionally sabotaging the song here out of spite, which any musician knows would make it unrecognizable:
This is akin to a painter agreeing in writing to paint a house red, and instead painting a giant red penis on it out of spite and later claiming no breach of contract because the contract was not specific enough. No reasonable person would side with the painter.
That the song was not actually the requested song is not a matter of subjectivity, I have fed it into the music identifying service "Shazam" and it has failed to identify it as the song in question.
dank proposed an arrangement contingent on his delivery of song, he delivered a product he knew to be fraudulent and intentionally sabotaged in an attempt to pass it off as genuine to receive payment. A scam attempt, clearly. That he has not received the tag is baffling to me. It is also baffling that he is allowed to derail this serious discussion with discussions of spiritual healing and drugs while the wronged party is apparently being mocked by individuals such as Psy for some reason.
dank's defense appears to be a Matthew Wright style of intentionally misreading the agreement in a manner no reasonable individual ever would. That an individual asking for a well known tune, and providing sheet music to illustrate it further, was agreeing to receive a collection of random screeching sounds does not pass the smell test. That any musician would think the song played was the one requested is also not believable.
In fact, dank admits to intentionally sabotaging the song here out of spite, which any musician knows would make it unrecognizable:
Rarity, that is my version of Mary Had a Little Lamb, just for you. Perhaps if you didn't spam my threads with the same questions, I would have turned the distortion down and tuned my guitar before recording.
This is akin to a painter agreeing in writing to paint a house red, and instead painting a giant red penis on it out of spite and later claiming no breach of contract because the contract was not specific enough. No reasonable person would side with the painter.
That the song was not actually the requested song is not a matter of subjectivity, I have fed it into the music identifying service "Shazam" and it has failed to identify it as the song in question.
dank proposed an arrangement contingent on his delivery of song, he delivered a product he knew to be fraudulent and intentionally sabotaged in an attempt to pass it off as genuine to receive payment. A scam attempt, clearly. That he has not received the tag is baffling to me. It is also baffling that he is allowed to derail this serious discussion with discussions of spiritual healing and drugs while the wronged party is apparently being mocked by individuals such as Psy for some reason.
This is a blatant attempt to distract from the accusations leveled against him with random nonsense, it's not worth engaging.
What accusations? The joke by Rarity complaining my version of Mary's little lamb wasn't good enough? Not my problem, I liked the way it sounded and think it represented realistic feelings in this scenario. This is a blatant attempt to distract from the accusations leveled against him with random nonsense, it's not worth engaging.
I agree. Now what do we need to do to get Dank his Scammer tag that he's clearly earned?
This is a blatant attempt to distract from the accusations leveled against him with random nonsense, it's not worth engaging.
I know plenty of people that agree with my philosophies. It's because they're true.
Dank, you can't count your 'headmates' as people who agree with you.
I know plenty of people that agree with my philosophies. It's because they're true.
You trolls are so silly.
You're the one who thinks people believe your bullshit - who's the silly one? I can't wait until 4chan discovers that you exist.
You trolls are so silly.
They unbanned Atlas, and haven't taken action on Dank. It just goes to show you what the moderating staff think about these forums.
Quote
Did I miss something? Rarity got banned?
Links please!
Links please!
Quote
It's somewhat inexplicable dank has escaped the scammer tag here.
It's not inexplicable. Rarity was under attack by the moderators for criticizing Theymos so of course they aren't going to hold anyone responsible for blatantly scamming her. dank just got lucky here.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/censorship-on-bitcointalk-118154
This thread should be renamed to
Quote
Banned: Rarity
Did I miss something? Rarity got banned?
Links please!
Yes, Rarity was clearly right. It's somewhat inexplicable dank has escaped the scammer tag here. According to reviewing what occurred, dank solicited Rarity to take part in this agreement. He proposed it and Rarity agreed. Why an individual should be allowed to go around proposing deals with people, asking them to swear to agree in writing, and then breaking the deal despite all this is bizarre.
dank's defense appears to be a Matthew Wright style of intentionally misreading the agreement in a manner no reasonable individual ever would. That an individual asking for a well known tune, and providing sheet music to illustrate it further, was agreeing to receive a collection of random screeching sounds does not pass the smell test. That any musician would think the song played was the one requested is also not believable.
In fact, dank admits to intentionally sabotaging the song here out of spite, which any musician knows would make it unrecognizable:
This is akin to a painter agreeing in writing to paint a house red, and instead painting a giant red penis on it out of spite and later claiming no breach of contract because the contract was not specific enough. No reasonable person would side with the painter.
That the song was not actually the requested song is not a matter of subjectivity, I have fed it into the music identifying service "Shazam" and it has failed to identify it as the song in question.
dank proposed an arrangement contingent on his delivery of song, he delivered a product he knew to be fraudulent and intentionally sabotaged in an attempt to pass it off as genuine to receive payment. A scam attempt, clearly. That he has not received the tag is baffling to me. It is also baffling that he is allowed to derail this serious discussion with discussions of spiritual healing and drugs while the wronged party is apparently being mocked by individuals such as Psy for some reason.
dank's defense appears to be a Matthew Wright style of intentionally misreading the agreement in a manner no reasonable individual ever would. That an individual asking for a well known tune, and providing sheet music to illustrate it further, was agreeing to receive a collection of random screeching sounds does not pass the smell test. That any musician would think the song played was the one requested is also not believable.
In fact, dank admits to intentionally sabotaging the song here out of spite, which any musician knows would make it unrecognizable:
Rarity, that is my version of Mary Had a Little Lamb, just for you. Perhaps if you didn't spam my threads with the same questions, I would have turned the distortion down and tuned my guitar before recording.
This is akin to a painter agreeing in writing to paint a house red, and instead painting a giant red penis on it out of spite and later claiming no breach of contract because the contract was not specific enough. No reasonable person would side with the painter.
That the song was not actually the requested song is not a matter of subjectivity, I have fed it into the music identifying service "Shazam" and it has failed to identify it as the song in question.
dank proposed an arrangement contingent on his delivery of song, he delivered a product he knew to be fraudulent and intentionally sabotaged in an attempt to pass it off as genuine to receive payment. A scam attempt, clearly. That he has not received the tag is baffling to me. It is also baffling that he is allowed to derail this serious discussion with discussions of spiritual healing and drugs while the wronged party is apparently being mocked by individuals such as Psy for some reason.
This thread is extremely important!
This thread should be renamed to
Quote
Banned: Rarity
And yet, Rarity was right.
Was he? Tell me more...
Jump to: