Topic: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. - page 17. (Read 92656 times)

The onus moved onto you (at least partially) when you made a thread claiming I'd libelled you.  To support that claim you need to prove that what I said was untrue.  I'm suggesting a means to solve both claims at once.  I'm i no way inclined to make a new post, spend a load of time reiterating what I already clearly laid out here (in respect of the insurance issue) then just have you respond with "Go away Troll, I already explained this before.  Mods please give him a scammer tag".

Let me reiterate about the burden of proof:

YOU made a scammer accusation thread with MY name in the title.

I posted my accusation in an existing thread here made by someone else - and only did so after YOU told me to do so as you didn't want to discuss it elsewhere.  In fact I'm on the record as saying that I didn't think a scammer thread about you was even a good idea (not because I believed you innocent - but because I believed that by hanging on you'd provide more evidence making it easier for mods to award a tag).

But the burden of proof is on me somehow?  You don't have to prove your allegation (that I lied) but I have to prove mine (that you lied)?  How about YOU make a thread (or even a post) and explain the BMF/CPA contract - and how every time you made a decision on BMF's behalf it was in the best interests of BMF investors (I'm charitably assuming you know that when deciding on behalf of BMF investors you have to act in the interest of BMF - whether or not it disadvantages CPA).  Then I'll point out just how it doesn't make sense - and that you clearly lied in the past and are continuing to do so now.

Usagi is positive that if he keeps churning enough words out eventually people will just give up and leave him be.

Is it enough yet? Has there been 60k words avoiding defining CPA yet?

I can't even follow this anymore due to the sheer overwhelming use of every logical fallacy known to man, in line by line and SENTANCE BY SENTANCE breakdowns that summarize to: "I have proved plausible deniability of all actions I have taken running multiple companies here and have personally obfuscated enough information that nobody knows anything for SURE. Some people have seen some things and they don't even understand those things anyway and can't even come up with proof that they ever saw any contract in the first place. Can you even define 'proof'?!?! (insert 800 word essay meandering around about what the word 'proof' means, inadvertently demanding people define 'contract' as well)".

So in other words, just gonna keep doing what you've been doing?

As I've said before, you should make a new post with a clear explanation of what your precise claim is, and containing whatever evidence it is you have. Until then, the onus is not on me to defend or show anything. The onus is on you to explain yourself otherwise it appears as if you are just crying wolf.

Just because YOU say something is clear doesn't make it so.  Heck, if you said the weather forecast was for clear skies I'd take an umbrella with me.

The other thread you made accusations then locked it without giving those you accused the option of responding.  In the case of the accusations against me you posted links to where I said something, claimed I was lieing, and somehow expect that to be PROOF that I was lieing.

When you specifically raised one of the various accusations against me in the thread I addressed it in detail.  You even admitted that what I was true - rather than the libel you'd claimed.  Then you locked the thread before we'd even started discussing the other 9.

If I make a thread, accuse you of various things then lock it, should Mods give YOU a scammer tag - just on my word?  If not, should they do it to others on the word of a scummy fuck like yourself?

If you ever actually wanted to get to the TRUTH then we could do it any time you choose.  Here's what I propose - maybe a mod or two would like to chip in.

1.  We'll take a specific few of the claims I've made about you - which you claim are me making malicious libellous statements about you, and I claim are just me telling the truth about your dodgy business practices.  I'd suggest we take two - the insurance one (as that's my favourite) and maybe the one you just now reiterated was libel etc (my accusation - which I don't deny making - that nyan made interest free loans to CPA which you cooked the books to disguise).

2.  We'll agree on what my accusation is - kind of important to do that before going further.

3.  I'll break the basis on which my accusation was made down into the following:
a) Simple statements of fact - which you can agree with or disagree with (e.g. : usagi told BMF shareholders that they were insured by CPA against NAV loss).
b)  Simple questions that can be answered in a few words.  In some instances my assertion is that I can demonstrate you made inconsistent statements - but only YOU know which (either or both) were the lie(s).  An example of this would be "When the contract between BMF and CPA was signed did you intend BMF to claim from CPA if the conditions to do so were met?".

Dealing with a) will let us quickly narrow down to where it is we disagree (if anywhere) on facts.  b) will avoid me unnecessarily arguing the case for two different sets of lies from you (when I know only one applies - just not which) - when you can point me towards the places where you actually were lieing.

The the mods only have to look at the agreed facts, your answers and a brief argument from each of us to arrive at a conclusion.  And they can rule on two things:

1.  Whether you should get a scammer tag.  For this to happen they'd need to be sure you knowingly acted wrongly (losing actual/potential value for your investors) and/or tried to cover it up by lieing.  The "or" is there because I believe you should get one even if you didnt deliberately do wrong (i.e. it was just total incompetence/ignorance) but then covered it up by lieing.
2.  Whether I should get a scammer tag.  For this to happen they'd need to be sure that not only were the allegations I made incorrect - but that I knew so at the time OR persisted in making them after you'd explained how I was wrong.

They could conclude that One of us deserved a tag, neither deserved a tag but (I think) not that both of us deserved a tag.

So here's where you either shit or get off the pot.  Do you want to try to get to the bottom of these issues in a clear way?  I'm open to other ways of doing so in an organised, logical manner - where mods can clearly see what it is that is being disputed (without it being buried in pages of long generalised posts by both of us and many others)?    Do realise that on the Nyan one I don't think you even realise what incident I'm referring to yet - I've kept my powder pretty dry on that one.

I don't think you can afford to try an approach where you have to deal with clear unambiguous statements minus rhetoric - as the truth just isn't on your side.  But feel free to prove me wrong.

LOL.  Isn't that what I've been saying about you?

I don't think you deserve to be a moderator because you have an observed tendency to let your own personal opinion interfere with the duties you perform as a moderator. Not your duties as a moderator, but the duties that you are observed to have performed. For example, when called upon to issue a statement in a thread with clear evidence such as this one or the one I linked you, you mischaracterize the situation by claiming an opposite of what happened; You accused me of dismissing posts with one liners when it is actually you who are dismissing the well-thought out posts (with lots of supporting evidence) in the link provided. That's not your job. Neither was your un-called-for comment in the kongzi.ca thread that I am a scummy fuck. You want to accuse me of being a scummy fuck in a thread I start about an unrelated business where I offer, out of the goodness of my heart, to donate all profits until all of my company's obligations are resolved? Wat?

Another one of your mischaracterizations is that I have call people stupid fucks, etc. (insinuating therefore my arguments are not valid). This makes you look like someone who is unfamiliar with this situation. This has been going on for over 4 months. Do you realize how tired and annoyed I am about these threads? About the lack of moderation, especially from you in particular? To have a mod come here and start swearing at me for apparently no reason as you did in the kongzi.ca thread, makes it look like you are operating from a position of prejudice and ignorance over what is going on here. If that's the case you really have no business making any sort of comment whatsoever. You need to take a step back and appreciate this situation before you stick your nose in it. People like deeplink have been repeating over and over that I have committed fraud, or that I am under investigation, etc. It's clear neither you nor Theymos really appreciate how serious those allegations really are.

In any real forum or business setting you would be immediately fired for what you've said because as a representative of these forums you're making them look bad. In some cases you may have even opened the forum up to unlimited legal liability. This case in particular, is not a simple open and shut case of theft where someone steals some bitcoins, or where someone doesn't pay for something they bought, or doesn't pay back a loan they took out on the forums. People have begun accusing others of committing some very, very serious crimes. In cases of malicious criminal libel, damage is assumed. You better believe it. This is not a joke. You simply do not sit on a moderator/staff/official/whatever account and show malice, preference, and prejudice in the face of overwhelming evidence as you have been presented with, because it opens up the organization you represent to legal liability. People get fired for that all the time. I'm sorry if you feel that I am being excessively rude or minimizing by using the word stupid in describing your actions but there really is no other word for it. Theymos clearly does not appreciate this nor the damage you are doing to these forums. It came as quite a shock to him when GLBSE wanted to go legal too and he wanted out of that. The same thing is going to happen with these forums and the complacency you and others show one day. It's just a matter of time. It's happened before.. take GLBSE for instance. One of the #1 problems was that they held and released people's information. So one of the big things that will happen when the shit finally hits the fan is this scam accusation forum will be removed. Because what you are doing really is stupid and you need to wake up and realize what a poor moderator you are. You're acting like your responsibility is a joke, and that you don't respect the position you hold or what people expect of you in that position.

Let's deconstruct the 'point' you are trying to build:


Translating: 'I will not review your case because your responses to other users does not sound adequate to me'.


Translating: 'I will not review your case because your responses are not comprehensible by adults'.


Translating: 'I will not review your case because the content of this thread is not readable'.


Translating: 'I will not review your case because I do not understand why you express your opinion'.


Translating: 'I will not review your case because I am just a person expressing my opinion, not a moderator'.


Translating: 'I will not review your case because I do not own you anything at all and I expect you express your opinion as I wish'.


Translating: 'I will ONLY review your case if you ONLY agree with me'.

---

As a fellow forums moderator I would like to use this point to remind the moderator in this thread that internet forums are in fact not democracies but private club houses ruled by tyrannis. Also a reminder that such a  club can and should evict members that demonstrate a propensity for conflict with management.

No.

Edit:  Quoting this before you delete it, it illustrates the point I was trying to make very well. Thanks.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/eskimobob-puppet-deprived-etc-127096

You are a joke and you should be removed as a moderator of these forums.

I am claiming you are a hypocritical moderator, MODERATOR. You voluntarily accepted this position, therefore as MODERATOR you have duties and obligations in this forum. In no moment I implied you are not allowed to express your opinion as a person.


I am arguing over your lack of properly response as MODERATOR, not over your capacity to express your opinion as person.

Are you going to issue a final statement for this thread or are you going to argue that I am not letting you to express your opinion?

Why yes, I do have opinions, thank you. I am a person after all.

It is a little funny though, the last person to make claims that the moderators shouldn't post their opinions was Imsaguy, who was defending Pirateat40. About a month before Pirate defaulted.  

If your only argument is to attack the person behind the opinion you're doing it wrong. That's the same problem Usagi has. 

You are a hypocritical moderator, indeed. You claim your time is precious to deal with 'people who have very little to say other than to call others trolls, stupid fucks, ignorant, dismiss well thought out posts with oh so witty one liners', but you are here, indirectly supporting the 'people who have very little to say other than to call others trolls, stupid fucks, ignorant, dismiss well thought out posts with oh so witty one liners'.

Yes, you have duties and obligations as moderator, otherwise you would be an ordinary user.

Shame on you!

He's said several times (incorrectly) that mods can see/restore his deleted posts. I don't want people to think I can when I can't, or that I'm choosing not to for whatever reason.


I don't usually waste my time with people who have very little to say other than to call others trolls, stupid fucks, ignorant, dismiss well thought out posts with oh so witty one liners, whatever else you've been doing. If you want to throw temper tantrums and act like a child that's fine, but don't expect adults to do you any favors by wasting their time wading through it to actually get to the facts of the matter. The threads where I've made decisions are usually much more readable. I don't know why you always post that way, but I do have better things to do with my time than read that kind of nonsense.

This isn't a job, I have no "duties and obligations". I don't owe you a thing, and if you want others to spend their free time actually reading threads like these maybe you might want to tone down on the histrionics, ad hom attacks, and stop acting like a petulant child making demands of others. Or not, up to you.

You are just asking me to explain if I disagree. Why are you not asking me to explain if I agree? Selective reasoning?

Moreover, I will answer again: I do not know, with no evidence to verify the facts I cannot agree or disagree with your claim.

I claiming that the terms of the contract between BMF and CPA were violated because CPA did not pay out to BMF.

Now I ask you and usagi if you agree. And if you disagree, to explain why.

I do not know, I did not read one single claim of a shareholder indicating the terms of that contract was violated.

Show me a single claim of a shareholder before ask the question, then I will be able to form a conclusion and provide an appropriate answer.

usagi, augustocroppo, none of you have answered that question.

Do you agree that the terms of the contract were violated? If not, why not?

I'm happy you enjoyed it. Yeah one of the phases we went through was everyone started writing songs about each other. I wrote a few songs about romeo rose for example. The guy who wrote that song, BTW, is in hiding because it's his schtick to write libelous songs against people and organizations. Not in hiding from me mind you, but from a lot of others. TO his credit, scientology. But others too, or so I hear. So this guy drops in for like 3 months, is a total jerk to everyone, writes a few songs about people, and leaves. Apparently he didn't even do martial arts. He was probably paid.

So yeah does this mean you don't have any evidence re "Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and  misleading investors."?