Not only are Joel Katz's opinions are well articulated, they are also subject to change. To me, that is the defining trait of a wise and learned man.
No homo...
No homo...
I lolled.
Topic: Why I used to trust Patrick Harnett (Read 32654 times)
I lolled.
Not only are Joel Katz's opinions are well articulated, they are also subject to change. To me, that is the defining trait of a wise and learned man.
No homo...
No homo...
I propose a new tag for some members that is awarded to people who detect scammers ponzis and cons and intelligently argue the case long before the scam folds. For people who receive mounds of abuse from said scammers and their shills but just keep selflessly plugging away. Why? I don't know.
Tag: "Bitcoin Defender"
First awardee: JoelKatz
Tag: "Bitcoin Defender"
First awardee: JoelKatz
I second this. What set JoelKatz apart (especially when the scams became obvious) is how articulate and measured he was, even as folks started shrieking at him. People who can't keep their cool might be right in the end, but they're not very helpful.
Light/heat ratio of JoelKatz is excellent.
I don't know what your issue is with JK, but it is clear you have one. Try and rise above whatever spat I'm sure I'll find if I bothered to search the forums.
Or if you had bothered to even read the thread on which you're dumping your "thoughts", such as they are.
Or the thread where I pointed out Pirate is a scam at a time nobody else was doing it.
Or in general if you had a clue about fucking anything. As for instance the fact that had I not called the scammer out with proof JoelKatz would be yammering about nothing in particular to no effect whatsoever to this day.
You don't waltz in trying to pass Katz as valuable on the grounds that he has been sprouting idiocy starting September, when Pirate blew in August and I called it in April. You don't waltz in here trying to pass nobody as important when other people's money and other people's skill was involved in delivering the results. Gtfo.
3) When you invested with Patrick, did you know that a significant fraction of your money would wind up invested with Pirate, which you knew was a Ponzi scheme?
4) If not, should you have?
And I'll add one more:
5) Do you believe this is due to something specific Patrick did wrong that you had no way of knowing? That is, do you think he just failed to screen people thoroughly or didn't ask the right questions? Or do you think Patrick's business model, which you agreed protected from significant Pirate exposure, was fundamentally broken?
I'm just asking you to take some responsibility for the bad decision you made and the harm it did to others. (Or would have done to them, had they been honest. As it happens, the victims of your bad judgment just turned around and reneged on their obligations.)
I don't know what your issue is with JK, but it is clear you have one. Try and rise above whatever spat I'm sure I'll find if I bothered to search the forums.
Or if you had bothered to even read the thread on which you're dumping your "thoughts", such as they are.
Or the thread where I pointed out Pirate is a scam at a time nobody else was doing it.
Or in general if you had a clue about fucking anything. As for instance the fact that had I not called the scammer out with proof JoelKatz would be yammering about nothing in particular to no effect whatsoever to this day.
You don't waltz in trying to pass Katz as valuable on the grounds that he has been sprouting idiocy starting September, when Pirate blew in August and I called it in April. You don't waltz in here trying to pass nobody as important when other people's money and other people's skill was involved in delivering the results. Gtfo.
I propose a new tag for some members that is awarded to people who detect scammers ponzis and cons and intelligently argue the case long before the scam folds. For people who receive mounds of abuse from said scammers and their shills but just keep selflessly plugging away. Why? I don't know.
Tag: "Bitcoin Defender"
First awardee: JoelKatz
Tag: "Bitcoin Defender"
First awardee: JoelKatz
1. No.
2. JoelKatz is something best approximated as nil. There's other people who actually do what you claim your tag is for.
I don't know what your issue is with JK, but it is clear you have one. Try and rise above whatever spat I'm sure I'll find if I bothered to search the forums.
For the rest of you, reread this thread; it is clear he called Harnett out and did so in a reasoned responsible manner. There are other people who called Pirate out and deserve the "Bitcoin Defender" tag: Vanderoy for instance.
Disclosure: I have made no investments, deals, PMs etc, with Harnett or JoelKatz and know them only through what I read in these forums.
I propose a new tag for some members that is awarded to people who detect scammers ponzis and cons and intelligently argue the case long before the scam folds. For people who receive mounds of abuse from said scammers and their shills but just keep selflessly plugging away. Why? I don't know.
Tag: "Bitcoin Defender"
First awardee: JoelKatz
1. No.Tag: "Bitcoin Defender"
First awardee: JoelKatz
2. JoelKatz is something best approximated as nil. There's other people who actually do what you claim your tag is for.
While I've got your attention, I have a few questions for you:
1) When you loaned money to Patrick, did you know Pirate was operating a Ponzi scheme?
2) If not, should you have?
3) When you loaned money to Patrick, did you know a significant fraction of it would wind up invested in Pirate?
4) If not, should you have?
I propose a new tag for some members that is awarded to people who detect scammers ponzis and cons and intelligently argue the case long before the scam folds. For people who receive mounds of abuse from said scammers and their shills but just keep selflessly plugging away. Why? I don't know.
Tag: "Bitcoin Defender"
First awardee: JoelKatz
Tag: "Bitcoin Defender"
First awardee: JoelKatz
1. No.
2. JoelKatz is something best approximated as nil. There's other people who actually do what you claim your tag is for.
I propose a new tag for some members that is awarded to people who detect scammers ponzis and cons and intelligently argue the case long before the scam folds. For people who receive mounds of abuse from said scammers and their shills but just keep selflessly plugging away. Why? I don't know.
Tag: "Bitcoin Defender"
First awardee: JoelKatz
Tag: "Bitcoin Defender"
First awardee: JoelKatz
Three words : the long con.
Mark my words.
Mark my words.
Marked and credited (if, as seems likely, he liquidated his clients' money to bail out his own bad Pirate debt). I don't think he intended to scam people a year ago, and so maybe he's a tragic figure for actually believing Pirate, but the tag seems well-earned now. Too bad.
Wonder if we hear from "wife of starfish" again.
So someone starts a passthrough, they are responsible just as much as pirate but those who invest in said passthrough are not? what sense does that make? at least be consistent
I never said passthrough operators were "responsible just as much as pirate", nor did I ever say that "those who invest in said passthrough are not". (At least, I hope I didn't say either of those two things.)So someone starts a passthrough, they are responsible just as much as pirate but those who invest in said passthrough are not? what sense does that make? at least be consistent
Someone who starts a pass-through is risking other people's money, not their own - we generally hold people dealing with other people's money more accountable than people risking their own funds even if the "investment" involved is stupidly high risk.
So someone starts a passthrough, they are responsible just as much as pirate but those who invest in said passthrough are not? what sense does that make? at least be consistent
People who operated pirate passthroughs paid Pirate to make their customers the recipients of fraudulent transfers. They are responsible to the victims even if Pirate did exactly what they paid him to do. (This requires that they knew or should have known that Pirate was making fraudulent transfers. I think it was totally obvious all along, but I'm willing to accept that this one time people might have thought it would somehow be different. But if this ever happens again, you can expect zero tolerance from me.)
There is no excuse for those who publicly stated that they knew or suspected that Pirate was operating a fraudulent Ponzi scheme yet nevertheless operated passthroughs -- knowingly and intentionally paying Pirate to commit fraud on their, and their customers', behalf and profiting from it, they are no better than Pirate.
If someone bought a passthrough from X, X is only responsible in case pirate does not default. Doing anything extra is charity ... fine if you can afford it, but certainly shouldn't be expected.
I don't agree. If I help you hire a hit man to kill your boss, am I only responsible if the hit man fails to kill your boss?People who operated pirate passthroughs paid Pirate to make their customers the recipients of fraudulent transfers. They are responsible to the victims even if Pirate did exactly what they paid him to do. (This requires that they knew or should have known that Pirate was making fraudulent transfers. I think it was totally obvious all along, but I'm willing to accept that this one time people might have thought it would somehow be different. But if this ever happens again, you can expect zero tolerance from me.)
There is no excuse for those who publicly stated that they knew or suspected that Pirate was operating a fraudulent Ponzi scheme yet nevertheless operated passthroughs -- knowingly and intentionally paying Pirate to commit fraud on their, and their customers', behalf and profiting from it, they are no better than Pirate.
If someone bought a passthrough from X, X is only responsible in case pirate does not default. Doing anything extra is charity ... fine if you can afford it, but certainly shouldn't be expected.
I don't agree. If I help you hire a hit man to kill your boss, am I only responsible if the hit man fails to kill your boss?People who operated pirate passthroughs paid Pirate to make their customers the recipients of fraudulent transfers. They are responsible to the victims even if Pirate did exactly what they paid him to do. (This requires that they knew or should have known that Pirate was making fraudulent transfers. I think it was totally obvious all along, but I'm willing to accept that this one time people might have thought it would somehow be different. But if this ever happens again, you can expect zero tolerance from me.)
There is no excuse for those who publicly stated that they knew or suspected that Pirate was operating a fraudulent Ponzi scheme yet nevertheless operated passthroughs -- knowingly and intentionally paying Pirate to commit fraud on their, and their customers', behalf and profiting from it, they are no better than Pirate.
It should also be noted that Coblee paid back his ltc pirate pass through investors immediately after it hit the fan. He has taken the full loss himself even though he didn't owe it and through a storm of 'told you sos'. Now thats real integrity in the face of adversity. Top guy (and I'm not just saying that as I'm an LTC fanboy) 
That's a bit too good IMO.
Some people try so hard to "do the right thing" even at their own expense that they end up hurting themselves and their loved ones.
If someone bought a passthrough from X, X is only responsible in case pirate does not default. Doing anything extra is charity ... fine if you can afford it, but certainly shouldn't be expected.
It should also be noted that Coblee paid back his ltc pirate pass through investors immediately after it hit the fan. He has taken the full loss himself even though he didn't owe it and through a storm of 'told you sos'. Now thats real integrity in the face of adversity. Top guy (and I'm not just saying that as I'm an LTC fanboy)
For what it's worth, I believe Patrick wasn't an intentional scammer, just made some bad decisions in a bad situation ... but I don't really know.
That's kind of the problem though. You need to be able to trust people to do the right thing under the worst case scenario. Doing the right thing is easy when everything is going well and you're making money hand over fist. Doing the right thing by others even when you've personally sustained major losses is a greater challenge for many people.
Exactly so. I need a ^ Repentance card.
We know of at least one person (slush) who did exactly this: the right thing by others even when he personally sustained major losses.
For what it's worth, I believe Patrick wasn't an intentional scammer, just made some bad decisions in a bad situation ... but I don't really know.
That's kind of the problem though. You need to be able to trust people to do the right thing under the worst case scenario. Doing the right thing is easy when everything is going well and you're making money hand over fist. Doing the right thing by others even when you've personally sustained major losses is a greater challenge for many people.
Yeah, well put.
For what it's worth, I believe Patrick wasn't an intentional scammer, just made some bad decisions in a bad situation ... but I don't really know.
That's kind of the problem though. You need to be able to trust people to do the right thing under the worst case scenario. Doing the right thing is easy when everything is going well and you're making money hand over fist. Doing the right thing by others even when you've personally sustained major losses is a greater challenge for many people.
blah blah blah - trolls are getting old and rather uninteresting
I was advised recently (last hour or so) that I now have an imposter on IRC. that's getting really sad - I hope whoever it is has a real life
I was advised recently (last hour or so) that I now have an imposter on IRC. that's getting really sad - I hope whoever it is has a real life
So a "real life" = "being a scammer"?
lol
Jump to: