Sorry, I forgot to remark on this before:
~
You know what, time to end this. Let me clear up the negative trust so you won't complain about it anymore. Done. Now the burden of substantiation on each of us is
identical.
Of course, you thus trolled me into checking his trust page.
I see what you did there. It has an elegant symmetry—it is justifiable in the totality of the circumstance—and he can’t even complain about it without showing his usual rank hypocrisy. Of course, that last means that he will whine about it incessantly.
Nullius - myself and a couple others have substantiated the claims against Techy. The proof is in the reference link.
I know! Of course, I read your reference link before I supported your tag; and I read others’ reference links, too. Nothing that I have said indicates even in the slightest that I
can’t answer him.
The gravamen of my reply was that I am not called to answer by the likes of TECSHARE. I made a tag based severally* on other tags, including yours—each of which is well-supported, and speaks for itself. I will not waste my time arguing with a troll on endless forum threads about this. He is beneath reply. Case closed. Direct complaints to /dev/null, and DNFTT.
Vod, I am guessing that you probably remember Usenet, yes? I cut my teeth on
anti-abuse groups on Usenet (and, as suchmoon didn’t notice, I then sharpened them dealing with the slippery twists of actual lawyers in actual courtrooms). TECSHARE is nothing.
(* To emphasize, for those who may not understand the technical meaning of that word: “Severally” means that my tag is good if either or both of Vod’s and Lauda’s respective tags is good. Thus, somebody who trusts with the judgment of the maker of at least one of those tags cannot logically distrust my judgment over my support thereof.)Techy chooses to either ignore or claim he does not understand. He does not have anyone who wants to help him. I don't think you will convince him of anything.
And that is why I ignore him! DNFTT.
OK, yawn. For my part, if I were in your position, I wouldn’t
want any “supporters” who lack the self-confidence to either ignore TECSHARE—or tell TECSHARE to go fork himself, and then ignore him. That would even be a useful filter on flushing out false friends—although it is a weak filter, for this is not even a matter of
courage! LOL, seriously:
TECSHARE is a troll on an Internet forum. That’s it. Anybody who cannot stand up to him is
completely useless.
So, what is he going to do, whine you to death? He certainly tries. Manipulate the trust system and then use it against you? Indeed, Vod, that is why I supported
and continue to support your negative feedback for his trust-system abuse! But I react to that with the relative unconcern of pessimism; for
when I returned to the forum, it took me all of three days to predict the long-term catastrophic failure of the new, “democratic DT” (my own term, BTW, which I am thrilled to see Lauda seems to have taken up :-):
Maybe Theymos can think of some better idea to stop and prevent 'more abuse dt wars'
It's not fun at all.
Well, I infer that was his purpose in neutering the effect of feedback, and essentially
democratizing DT in a convoluted way.
My prediction as to the latter is that it will destroy the trust system. In the long term, it will put DT under control of those who optimize for gaining control of DT by any means necessary, and devote unbounded time and effort to doing so. That is a bad criterion. As for cleaning up these sordid threads, it will backfire and will escalate, not quash the perpetual DT wars: Demagogues, agitprop, and “negative campaign ads” thrive in such a system.
Underlined: Perfect for TECSHARE! But I was expecting it—
this, I was expecting
in the long term.
The following was neither sour grapes nor mere idle talk, whereas I had spent the previous few weeks thinking about my own above-quoted prediction and the problem of “democratic DT”:
Since my life is too valuable to waste on flamewars with no objective other than “arguing on the Internet”, the worst that can happen (the worst—from your [suchmoon’s] perspective) is that I decide that the DT system is broken by design, I mostly withdraw from Reputation in favour of more productive tasks, and meanwhile, I think about perhaps some long-term way to make the forum trust system obsolete. “Cypherpunks write code.”
But
that was addressed to suchmoon, who is the real problem on this thread. I know how you feel about that, Vod; and I do not want to downtalk your friend to you. Please do understand that I must be forthright; and when the first eight pages of this thread are viewed objectively, it is clear that I have cause to say what I have said, and to say more of it.
Speaking thereof, I half-drafted a reply to suchmoon’s latest snarky one-liner. I will finish it and post it later. For now, as a priority, I am replying at some length to make it
unequivocally clear to you, Vod, that (1) I refrain from replying to TECSHARE’s drivel
because it is drivel, not for any lack of confidence in tags that, as you will note, I am still firmly supporting; and, (2) I am unimpressed at TECSHARE’s attempt to coerce your supporters. Some of the names on his hate-list look mighty tough to me. I doubt that they will throw you under the bus to appease TECSHARE, of all creatures (!); and if they do, I hope that others will step up to support you.*
* It seems apropos to remark that, as I have stated somewhere in other threads, my own inclusions list is extremely picky. How picky? I do not include theymos—that’s how picky.
Vod was one of the obvious choices for a shortlist of candidates for inclusion. After whittling the names down, I left him off my trust list for relatively trivial reasons of my own, irrelevant to TECSHARE’s criticisms of him. I will not say what, because I don’t want to give TECSHARE any ammo. I reconsider such things from time to time, anyway. 
