On skype and in irc he has always presented him self as... positive, kind, and funny.
Scam artists and conmen often do.
Topic: The Bitcoin Show on OnlyOneTV.com - page 6. (Read 53427 times)
Scam artists and conmen often do.
On skype and in irc he has always presented him self as... positive, kind, and funny.
He sucks on camera for some reason. He doesn't act like that at all on the phone. In fact, he' pretty down to earth on the phone he is kind of living in his own world.
I haven't watched many episodes of the bitcoin show (seriously if they can't manage the aspect ratio on their show, what are the odds I'm going to get good information from them?)... but he sure does seem shifty lately, did you see how he got angry when someone off camera was getting ready to do something?
I just read this whole thread through and... I'm still not convinced Bruce is guilty of anything. Foolish? Maybe. Misguided? Occasionally. But a bad person? I refuse to believe it. He's always been so open kind and generous to me...
Oh, so you actually know about it outside of the media idiocy regarding it
Yep. It was one of the cases I had to read in my undergrad law class. Fairly short summary, followed by a few pages of actual details.
Ah, so it isn't a lack of information. You're just really that dumb.
Yep. You're probably right.
For the sake of those who don't know:
The summary of the case just says the old lady spilled hot coffee on herserf, sued McDonals, and won.
The details of the case were that the coffee was dangerusly hot, above the recommended safety level. The old lady got third degree burns on her thighs and genitals, and needed hospitalization and surgery. Afterwards she asked McDonald's to compensate her for the hospital bill only (I seem to remember only $10,000?) McDonalds refused. That's when she took them to court. The initial judgement was high, and McDonalds was shown to be negligent in serving way too dangerously hot coffee in really unsafe containers. McDonalds appealed, appelate court still ruled in the old lady's favor, but reduced the judgement.
Oh, so you actually know about it outside of the media idiocy regarding itThe summary of the case just says the old lady spilled hot coffee on herserf, sued McDonals, and won.
The details of the case were that the coffee was dangerusly hot, above the recommended safety level. The old lady got third degree burns on her thighs and genitals, and needed hospitalization and surgery. Afterwards she asked McDonald's to compensate her for the hospital bill only (I seem to remember only $10,000?) McDonalds refused. That's when she took them to court. The initial judgement was high, and McDonalds was shown to be negligent in serving way too dangerously hot coffee in really unsafe containers. McDonalds appealed, appelate court still ruled in the old lady's favor, but reduced the judgement.
No, just pointing out that the court summary shows the old lady as a sue-happy opportunist, and that's what most people with preconcieved notions assume. The details often don't match people's assumptions.
Ah, so it isn't a lack of information. You're just really that dumb.
And you're still making assumptions based on your own preconcieved opinions of the guy. But you have your set opinion, so whatever.
Pot, kettle...
Exactly! Thank you!
And you're still making assumptions based on your own preconcieved opinions of the guy. But you have your set opinion, so whatever.
The judgements of courts and the statements of prosecutors and judges aren't my own preconceived opinions. Your statements, on the other hand, are coming out of thin air. You had a friend who skipped out on his rathole apartment one time, so Bruce getting sued for half a million in back rent was probably a similar situation when you think about it!
It's like you're convinced that Bruce is a heavenly angel and you can't help but look at everything he does in the absolute best light. You're like Latarian Milton's grandma when it comes to Bruce. It's almost kinda creepy.
Friend didn't skip out, but wanted to. I've repeatedly said that Bruce is an untrustworthy and unscrupulous person. The dead horse I am apparently beating is the statement that "Bruce didn't defend himself because he was obviously at fault" is nothing but speculation, and in my opinion no better or worse than the statement that "Bruce didn't defend himself because the business was such a collosal failure that there was no point in wasting any more lawyer money." The only facts we have are that he didn't perform (nothing about whether he even tried), a claim that all of it was a scam, based on false advertising (we don't actually know his real intent for starting this), and that there is a lot of stuff that we don't know.
Also, half a million in back rent? Are you sure you're not mixing up more numbers? Assuming he stayed at the place for two years before running, that's $42,000 a month in rent... This is also kind of what I'm talking about: unchecked accusations end up mixing up and snowballing into wild ones.
Was he a fox or raccoon by chance?
No, just pointing out that the court summary shows the old lady as a sue-happy opportunist
Bullshit it did. Just because Joe Blow on the street had that uninformed opinion doesn't mean the court *that awarded her millions of dollars* did.If anything, you're proving exactly why we should trust the court.
And you're still making assumptions based on your own preconcieved opinions of the guy. But you have your set opinion, so whatever.
Pot, kettle...
Exactly! Thank you!
And you're still making assumptions based on your own preconcieved opinions of the guy. But you have your set opinion, so whatever.
The judgements of courts and the statements of prosecutors and judges aren't my own preconceived opinions. Your statements, on the other hand, are coming out of thin air. You had a friend who skipped out on his rathole apartment one time, so Bruce getting sued for half a million in back rent was probably a similar situation when you think about it!
It's like you're convinced that Bruce is a heavenly angel and you can't help but look at everything he does in the absolute best light. You're like Latarian Milton's grandma when it comes to Bruce. It's almost kinda creepy.
Friend didn't skip out, but wanted to. I've repeatedly said that Bruce is an untrustworthy and unscrupulous person. The dead horse I am apparently beating is the statement that "Bruce didn't defend himself because he was obviously at fault" is nothing but speculation, and in my opinion no better or worse than the statement that "Bruce didn't defend himself because the business was such a collosal failure that there was no point in wasting any more lawyer money." The only facts we have are that he didn't perform (nothing about whether he even tried), a claim that all of it was a scam, based on false advertising (we don't actually know his real intent for starting this), and that there is a lot of stuff that we don't know.
Also, half a million in back rent? Are you sure you're not mixing up more numbers? Assuming he stayed at the place for two years before running, that's $42,000 a month in rent... This is also kind of what I'm talking about: unchecked accusations end up mixing up and snowballing into wild ones.
And you're still making assumptions based on your own preconcieved opinions of the guy. But you have your set opinion, so whatever.
The judgements of courts and the statements of prosecutors and judges aren't my own preconceived opinions. Your statements, on the other hand, are coming out of thin air. You had a friend who skipped out on his rathole apartment one time, so Bruce getting sued for half a million in back rent was probably a similar situation when you think about it!
It's like you're convinced that Bruce is a heavenly angel and you can't help but look at everything he does in the absolute best light. You're like Latarian Milton's grandma when it comes to Bruce. It's almost kinda creepy.
And you're still making assumptions based on your own preconcieved opinions of the guy. But you have your set opinion, so whatever.
Pot, kettle...
This is amazing. You managed to turn scamming desperate people out of their last dollars and jetting off to Thailand for hookers into a sob story. Just how many "illegal mistakes" do you have to make before it starts being on purpose?
And you're still making assumptions based on your own preconcieved opinions of the guy. But you have your set opinion, so whatever.
1) I believe there is often more to the story than what the court summary presents (remember the story about the lady who spilled McD's coffee on her lap?),
I'm honestly curious what you think about that case. Everybody who has no idea how the law works and just heard a joke about it on TV tends to pick the same side on that case, so lets hear yours.
For the sake of those who don't know:
The summary of the case just says the old lady spilled hot coffee on herserf, sued McDonals, and won.
The details of the case were that the coffee was dangerusly hot, above the recommended safety level. The old lady got third degree burns on her thighs and genitals, and needed hospitalization and surgery. Afterwards she asked McDonald's to compensate her for the hospital bill only (I seem to remember only $10,000?) McDonalds refused. That's when she took them to court. The initial judgement was high, and McDonalds was shown to be negligent in serving way too dangerously hot coffee in really unsafe containers. McDonalds appealed, appelate court still ruled in the old lady's favor, but reduced the judgement.
So Bruce is innocent because a jury decided that McDonalds were 80% at fault for serving coffee so hot that a woman suffered third degree burns and was hospitalized for 8 days receiving skin grafts?
Ok.
Ok.
No, just pointing out that the court summary shows the old lady as a sue-happy opportunist, and that's what most people with preconcieved notions assume. The details often don't match people's assumptions.
So Bruce is innocent because a jury decided that McDonalds were 80% at fault for serving coffee so hot that a woman suffered third degree burns and was hospitalized for 8 days receiving skin grafts?
Ok.
Ok.
Oh shit, he used the MickyDee defense on us 'If the skin graft don't fit you must acquit'.
(...) Do like his show and the contributions he has made to the group so far.
Ok, this explains a lot.
So Bruce is innocent because a jury decided that McDonalds were 80% at fault for serving coffee so hot that a woman suffered third degree burns and was hospitalized for 8 days receiving skin grafts?
Ok.
Ok.
1) I believe there is often more to the story than what the court summary presents (remember the story about the lady who spilled McD's coffee on her lap?),
I'm honestly curious what you think about that case. Everybody who has no idea how the law works and just heard a joke about it on TV tends to pick the same side on that case, so lets hear yours.
I just think that either he is a sock puppet or being deliberately disingenuous. I spent a bit of time reading over those things and there is proof of: Judgement against him for deliberately misleading people into believing that he could fix their financial problems with 0 positive results shown by his defense to refute this; fleeing the jurisdiction of that judgement without paying that judgement; conviction for prostitution that was plead down; confirmed judgement against him in 1 state for fleeing with sums of money owing in rent; current proceedings in another state for the same thing; current proceedings in that state for an assault as part of that.
This is not made up, the documents have been found.
That is just the stuff we know about, it is worth noting he confirmed that he is the same person in the first case - that IS the same person in the other ones - so it is him. That is a fact. The silly part is that when looking at all of that proven information, people fasten onto some animal/child sex thing that only the trolls came up with to ignore the rest. They have to be either sock puppets, deliberately disingenuous or completely dense.
Come on, how can you defend any of those things in good faith?
This is not made up, the documents have been found.
That is just the stuff we know about, it is worth noting he confirmed that he is the same person in the first case - that IS the same person in the other ones - so it is him. That is a fact. The silly part is that when looking at all of that proven information, people fasten onto some animal/child sex thing that only the trolls came up with to ignore the rest. They have to be either sock puppets, deliberately disingenuous or completely dense.
Come on, how can you defend any of those things in good faith?
Nope, not a sock puppet. Don't know Bruce personally, never met him, don't know what makes him tick. Do like his show and the contributions he has made to the group so far. Do still want to meet him and find out what kind of a person he is.
A judgement is a judgement, but 1) I believe there is often more to the story than what the court summary presents (remember the story about the lady who spilled McD's coffee on her lap?), and two, the judgement only told us what it did, leaving out too many details. I don't like people extrapolating that to things they only assume. If you want to accuse Bruce of anything, feel free to accuse him of things that were found during the fact finding portions of the trial. I'm fine with that, and will support you, even if our opinions of the person himself end up slightly different. Just don't forget that mine is an opinion, as is yours, and neither are "correct." No, I don't care about prostitution or any other consentual sex acts, nor speeding tickets. Yes, the rest of the stuff makes him out to be even more of an unscrupulous person. My parents have rental properties and have dealt with people trying to get away without paying rent. I also have friends who ended up in such shit holes that they wished they could abandon their property without having to pay for the rest of the lease. All this tells me is that Bruce has led a rather difficult and "interesting" life (growing up gay, especially in his time, I'm sure hasn't helped much, either), is not to be trusted easily when it comes to money and business, and is prone to stupid and possibly illegal mistakes (again, all of this is my opinion, based on my interpretation of the limited facts). Within that context, I don't think it has much of an influence on his just doing a talk show where he interviews guests, or organizes gatherings. People with that kind of charisma are extremely rate, and among geeky computer types are almost non-existant. So, despite his colorful past (which, as i said, I am curious about, since I like people who's lives are not borning), I am willing to forgive, or overlook, or ignore it, for the sake of continuing my own entertainment in watching his shows and learning about developments in the Bitcoin world. Had there been alternative shows, or other people willing to take up the rather difficult job Bruce volunteered for, I would not be defending the idea of his show continuing as much. But so far, he is pretty much it.
Besides, although he obviously has interest in financial things, here he has no involvement with any business or direct involvement with taking other people's money (assuming he is just a spokesperson for the charities, and others are responsible for collecting and distributing money). Perhaps this is finally something he can do in his life where he can be involved in things he loves (finance), without the risk of screwing people over. A way to redeem himself in a safe environment and finally settle on a path in his life (and maybe earn the money to pay all those people back? Maybe wishfull thinking on my part...). He's not exactly young any more, and I admit I do feel kind of sorry for him for being so far in his age, and, from what the court docs say, still having such an unsettled whirlwind of a life. (If Bruce is reading, sorry for calling him old. I know how much of an offense it is for homos)
Jump to: