Topic: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia - page 4. (Read 5196 times)

Just passing through.  Don’t expect for me to follow up on a thread that’s not worth my time.  I simply thought that I should drop a note that, quelle surprise, TEChSHARE and his merry crew do not objectively apply theymos’ suggested standard for use of the trust system:

Topic: #28719 “jbreher” is a liar
Deleted per thread local rule (thread moderation archive, Loyce’s archive):

OP on that thread:

Earlier in thread OP:

---

---

---

The Bitch Latin Guild:  Pretentious whiners unite in self-serving, recursively descending hypocrisy!


While I’m at it—what?  As of the sixteenth page of this thread, nobody bothered to point out that TEChSHARE is, objectively judged, a pretentious twit who knows no more about Latin than he does about the English words “objective” and “standards”?  Educational standards are falling.

TEChSHARE’s actual standard:

Quote from: nullius on March 06, 2020, 01:29:50 PM

Quote from: nullius on February 24, 2020, 01:29:30 PM

A Salutary Lesson from the
Gang of Philological Pedants
Membership: 1

Quote from: GazetaBitcoin on February 21, 2020, 02:07:15 PM

Nor you knew Latin (I suppose).

Though you were not addressing me, I should point out that, although I just said that I do not know Latin (according to my own standards, or any reasonable standards of scholarship), I may damn myself with faint praise by observing that I know more Latin than some do.

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 19, 2020, 01:16:44 AM

BRING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS BACK TO BITCOINTALK - TESTIMONIUM LIBERTATUM IUSTITIA

That is worse than dog Latin:  It is bitch Latin.  It exemplifies the folly of mashing together words found in an English-Latin dictionary, without having even the slightest clue about Latin grammar.

testimonium	nominative, accusative, or vocative singular of second declension neuter noun testimonium.
libertatum	genitive plural of third declension feminine noun libertas.  No other options than “of liberties” or “liberties’”.
iustitia	nominative, ablative, or vocative singular of first declension feminine noun iustitia.  Well, I suppose that I could perhaps imagine a way that maybe the ablative could be applied in its instrumental sense to make the whole phrase just a tiny bit less asinine.  (For the beavises and buttheads in the audience, I must clarify that “asinine” evokes an ass in the sense of a donkey, not in the American sense of an arse.)

Quote from: nullius on January 28, 2020, 11:15:13 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 27, 2020, 09:37:34 PM

LOL.  Of course, he also does not know the meaning of either of the respective words “objective” and “standards”.

And of course, I did a brief search to see if he was drawing some stock phrase or motto from speakers of barbarous Latin, or perhaps the worst vulgar Latin of the Dark Ages.  If he was, I could not find it—and anyway, it would only mean he was such as fool as the blind following the blind.

Not that I would expect any better from the same fool whose very name mutilates the Latin digraph representing X/χ (chi) from τέχνη.  Spelling “tech” as “tec” is as stupid as would be, mutatis mutandis, abbreviating “philosophiae doctor” as “P.D.” instead of “Ph.D.”, thus breaking the digraph for Greek Φ/φ (phi).  Cf. [confer, ‘compare’] Ψ/ψ (psi), as seen in English pseudonym (< ψευδώνυμoς).

* nullius condemns and contemns the award of so-called “Ph.D.” degrees to anybody who cannot spell philosophiae doctor without looking it up in a dictionary—or who cannot readily explain the origins and meaning of the term.

Techies who are sufficiently old-school may be perhaps familiar with Prof. Knuth’s TeX (Tεχ), and with arχiv.org (formerly known as xxx.lanl.gov, LOL).  Those are enough of a botch:  Latin X is far away from Greek X.  However, at least the progenitors thereof were sufficiently knowledgeable to squeeze away the CH digraph in a way that makes sense!

As for TE**SHARE’s bitch-Latin, it would indeed look more intelligent to say, exempli gratia, “Techsharius trollus stupidius est”:  That is obviously a joke, and not the empty posturing of a pretentious retard who is obsessed with Arguing On The Internet.

Quote from: nullius on February 08, 2020, 11:37:13 PM

TECSHARE “winning”

But if he really wants to dress to impress, I suggest styling it as such:

Quote

TESTIMONIVM·LIBERTATVM·IVSTITIA

* nullius illum miseret

Quote from: nullius on February 26, 2020, 09:00:11 AM

Of course, the pun is that I made it look to the naïve reader as if I had said, “Nullius pities him”—whereas in a post wherein I had alluded to stock phrases, I used a handy stock phrase meaning, “He pities nobody.”

Quote from: nullius on February 24, 2020, 01:29:30 PM

* nullius illum miseret

Quote

Nullius: nullius illum miseret!

I usually don't read your posts because you are on my ignore list (probably because you deflect instead providing good argument), so call it curiosity. Who is that imaginary scammer which is in my trust list?



Btw, thanks for quoting my post and bringing this trust abuse suggested exclusion account for The Objective Standards Guild to next page.

I really do appreciate what you did here  

Message marlboroza is sending: Me and my scamming DT friends want people excluded that will stand up to us.

Marlboroza includes proven scammers on his list? should we be following his trust inclusion orders?

Suchmoon projecting nicely on to Tecshare. This is borderline stalking if you look at the focused attention suchmoon gives his idol Tecshare.

I hear they are casting for Dumb and Dumber 3. I wonder if there is a finders fee for these two.

Just because you need to have another read
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53961494

You will note that your invalid concerns are addressed there.

Did I attack you for doing the right thing? I apologize if so.

I usually tend to criticize you for claiming to do the right thing and then refusing to do it when it doesn't benefit you or benefits someone you dislike or shit like that.

@TECSHARE are you going to remove account Vispilio from your trust network because of trust abuse and add them to "suggested exclusion" list?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53957784

Message you are sending is: "I am asking users to exclude some users because I don't like them I think they are abusing trust while I have account who abuse trust in my trust network".

Why do you support trust abuse?

How about you just start with not using me doing the right thing as another vector of attack?

Demands? I know better than to demand or even to expect anything of you by pointing out your hypocrisy. You have an unblemished reputation of never admitting any fault.

Brilliant logic though. Don't ever try to do the right thing unless you're praised for it. That'll teach them.

I at no point said he shouldn't be able to leave the rating, so your straw man argument is moot. The point was that even when things are done right, it is turned into another excuse to attack. This is why I will perpetually be as obstinate as possible with people like you and the rest of the clown car, because nothing is ever good enough. I am attacked just the same either way, so why comply with any of your demands?

Since nobody can really guess your imaginary "topic of conversation", we have to go by what's in the thread title and in the OP, i.e. the "standards". In that context it seems very appropriate to point out your duplicity regarding neutral trust that you receive and neutral trust that others receive, as well as all your other "non-standard" behavior. You don't have to like it.

Thanks for another wonderful demonstration of how you break your back bending over backwards to try to set up straw man arguments that not only deflect from the topic of conversation, but are reinterpreted in a way to serve your own goals, not what was actually said. I would report this as off topic, but moderators are only interested in enforcing rules against me, not allowing me to enjoy the protection of them.

Try to read and understand. Ask questions if you get stuck

This addressed and answers your question

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53961494

Chipmixer spammers don't want to have any annoying transparent objective standards do they:)

The lists they cry... not daring to address the core principles. Pathetic Sig spamming scammer supporting weasels.

Focus on presenting a robust argument to retain your subjective red tags. That's the only power you have. Once there is a level playing field and you are held to the same transparent objective standards as every other member you are finished.

Are you going to remove user Vispilio from your trust network because of his abusive trust rating?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53957784 -> please respond here.

Weren't you bitching just a few pages ago that neutral ratings are punitive? I guess now we know that this particular pretzel applies only when the rating is about you.

bonesjonesreturns and truth or dare are already added to my IGNORE list. I will not add TECSHARE to that list just yet but it is time to unwatch this trash thread.

There is nothing out of line with my standards.


If you examine the left ratings by the user "johhnyUA" you can see they make regular use of neutral ratings rather than negative ratings, which is quite appropriate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=623643

It has been addressed several times, but presumably because they want to retain their self appointed privilege to silence whistle blowers and use red tags to continue with their dishonesty and dangerous behaviors, whilst milking the forum with their signatures, they pretend not to have read the replies they don't want to accept.

Let's try one more time.

The guilds core principle and goal is for transparent objective standards to be the only foundation for negative trust.

When there is critical support to push that change through then every member will abide by those transparent objectivev standards.

Your current red tags are not essentially an indication of the way you wish to see the future of the trust system. If you express a desire to see a move to a transparent objective system you may join the guild.

To make this simple for you to understand.
When you are creating an alliance or treaty or ceasefire then all parties will only need abide strictly by the terms once the agreement is made and there is sufficient agreement for the terms to be enforced for all parties.

So the lists are not dependent upon past use of the trust system essentially. If they have expressed a desire to move to the transparent objective standards when it is supported enough to do so.

There is no point crying about the lists until you have the public opinion and desire of a member on the list who will not confirm they have a desire to move to the standards the guild is trying to push through as a foundation for the trust system.

Once there is enough agreement and support to ensure these transparent objective standards are the foundation for recognized warnings here then the lists should be retroactively examined for trust that does not abide with the standards.

I hope that assists you understanding of the lists.

Feel free to join the list to support the guild. I don't see frivolous use of the trust system previously is reason you should be excluded. Simply confirm publicly you wish to move to the transparent objective standards or tell Tecshare if you feel worried you will be targeted before the guild reaches critical support levels required to protect you from the red tags being used as retribution for supporting the objective standards guild.

Only proven scammers and those that have a history of direct financially motivated wrong doing should be prevented from joining.

Feel free to copy this or quote freely to future list queries.

Read,  Re-read, understand and stfu about the lists. Say you want to move to transparent standards and keep to it going forward. We can start analysing all prior tags once the lists once the guild has reached the required support to make a real difference.

Those members generally complaining appear to have used the trust system not just in a frivolous way but have used in an attempt to silence whistle blowing on scammers or those engaging in direct financially motivated wrong doing.  This is treacherous and dangerous.

They will not reliquish grasp on their favorite subjective red tag abuse which they use to crush free speech or as a get out if jail free card for thier own directly financially dangerous behaviors.

I don't think the repetitive cries from malboroza the scammer supporter of 2 proven scammers or nutildah the willing scam facilitator for pay, or JollyGood the pretend scam Hunter who allows his mates to work with scams should be taken at face value ever

Last week you added this user to your trust list, I don't see how these negative ratings are valid according to your standards:


2nd part of this one is Google translated from Russian:




2nd part also translated:



Also translated:


Doesn't seem to be any objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreements, or violation of applicable laws there. Seems like you want to be the beneficiary of Objective Standards but you don't want to enforce them yourself -- especially when it gets in the way of your DT farming.

Of course, you're free to accuse me of digging through your shit, etc., or you could just explain why you included this user when they don't adhere to the standards you have presented.

Maybe you can throw some more circular logic at me. This forum needs objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreements, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating or flagging in order to prevent abuse of the trust system that it self can be used to extort people into removing valid negative ratings or flags. Without this, it is a simple task to simply abuse the system to cover up crimes and abuses.

Tecshare will prove that you are wrong!

I take my words back, you are right. Lolz.

Or maybe just let the topic die already since there's clearly nothing positive coming out of it?  Objectivity was seemingly never the objective, heh.