Confirmed!

1235711

Comments

  • 1) Yes but frustrating for me, knowing that my logic is quite solid and the collective community fares poorly in this field.


    When a person shows, on multiple occasions, that they are not willing to abide by a given set of rules, then the collective that DOES abide by those rules has every Right to take corrective action . . . up to and including the exile of that person.


    2) I don't know where you get this "right", I understand it is a private forum, but I mean where do you get the belief it is morally correct to treat a person in a such a way? It is clearly an extension of Nazism, black slavery, and any other prejudicial roots. We do not want to outcast people ANYBODY. With such a tyrannically approach the collective community is likely to start bowing to individual agendas based on violence and not morality or good of the community.

    Urm . . . Mark has continually called Mike out on his crap. He has equally worked privately with Mike to try and address those issues, so as to "guide" him towards acceptance (if you will). If anything, he should be applauded for his efforts. Mark and I agree on not much, but on this one he actually IS right.

    3) Marks role is clear to everyone even you. He harassed him on this site, and talks about how he helped him privately as if the two could ever cancel each other out.

    As stated, this is a PRIVATE web site. As such NO ONE has a "Right" to post here. We are given a membership based on certain rules and, if those rules are violated, then one can expect punishment to be meted out. Not all will agree with that punishment, as Mark and GTA have indicated, but that is not their decision to make, and they have options of their own if they feel strongly enough about it.

    4) Yes but we also live in a real world that is reality, we live in a collective society. What you and the collective argument boils down to is that bullying online is ok because its online...and as some sick extension the collective and many individuals here spend their time berating people and arguing about what kind of punishments people deserve for being not you.


    1) When you are the only person "certain" of your correctness on an issue, you may want to look at other points of view. There is a reason that outliers are just that.

    2) Society at large determines acceptable standards of behaviour. It is called civilization. So, it is not "my" Right, so much as our "collective" Right to determine how we wish to order our Society. and yes, in certain subsets you will end up with Naziism, or Islamism, but the overall whole will inevitably remove those aberrations.

    3) Cancel? Not the point. It is right and proper to call someone out for going beyond the limits of what is considered tolerable in a given community. It is ALSO right and proper to attempt to guide someone who wishes to remain in that community along a path that will see them staying where they wish to stay. Mark has done both. this is not harassment, it is called "help".

    4) I would not want anyone to be "me", nor would I wish any community to be totally homogenous in it's outlook. That said, certain behaviour will inevitably be deemed "beyond the pale". You cannot possibly be arguing that theft is not among those actions, can you? The fact that people on this site argue and debate what constitutes an adequate censure for bad acts should be seen as a positive. How else does the "collective" progress?
  • Kristy wrote: »
    I'm to waiting to hear.


    I actually said Caveat Emptor to either GTA or Mark on FB re: Fed's BAP thread a few weeks ago, but have now done a 180 because I realize that we can be talking about life-changing amounts of money.
    It why I suggest there is room for discussion on this matter, as WildBill felt there was no reason, we want to ask does the amount matter or not?
    The real purpose or difficult being, he obviously won't be able to pay back 20k. And who is this person that lends 20k to a "scammer" and then runs to the community about it? One could really fuck up a persons life with money like this, and the community shouldn't support either side of it.
    Further, I really don't think we can make an effective caveat emptor case where there is no link to historical posting.

    The very simple logical change is to apply the caveat to all deals. It would fix poker, and this is one of those things that people will argue to the death without actually extending the implications to see the changes it would bring.

    Startles should be directly linked to Darbday
    Fed to Costanza to fedh8er etc
    This is SPECIFICALLY the new technology we have access to in private keys, crypto assets and wallets. So you understand why I like to talk about it, because we didn't have this tech before, and it is incredibly game changing, easy and fun to use. So you see the frustration when you suppress my posts on the subject, yet it is a solution to all these problems.
    This forum's tolerance for name changes makes "due diligence" an unacceptable burden.
    tolerance is not the correct, I don't seem to have the "privilege".
    Wetts1012 wrote: »
    Don't want to derail, but let me be the voice of the population to let you know that this is 100% inaccurate.

    I was taught very early in my professional career to "speak to the audience".

    This forum is filled with people who are the opposite of a Harvard philosophy class. Which is generally why people read what you write and say "wa?". Dumb down the message with the same principles.

    Take this feedback fwiw, we may now proceed.
    This was my words
    I've come to know that my opinion is generally always expressed quite well,
    I understand what you point to, by I am suggesting the community refuses to hear the words properly. The concepts, and I am sure of it by now. My words will ring clearly and clearer as time passes.
  • Are you people fucking insane?

    Startles, at no point do your ramblings approach philosophical wit and intelligence. You are a horrifically unpalatable writer. You RARELY have a hidden layer that, if a smarter person than you REALLLY digs for, and heavily interprets-- while giving you ALL the benefit of the doubt for bad syntax, quick and thoughtless ranting, and being stoned--VERGES, on something that conceivably construes a mediocre amount of common sense.
  • Startles wrote: »
    My words will ring clearly and clearer as time passes.

    In before forum Jesus pipes in.
  • Startles wrote: »
    Yes we understand this, and I think we should be investigating the concept that certain individuals should be outcasted. Or how this group or any group came to the collective belief that outcasting individuals, stoning them, taring and feather, berating, throwing tomatoes...any of the sort is the correct thing to do.



    Its not in some peoples eyes, its clear, but the messed up part is that pm-ing and skyping him to you means that "targeting" him is ok.
    No this is where the community could be helpful to point something out. You are not "right", you have a big hand in his demise, by both encouraging it and not helping him out each and every time he required it. And the wetts principle I outlined. You have not acted morally in this sense, you have clearly and simply acted in a way you feel you can justify to this community.





    We know this about you, which is another unfortunate thing, and unfortunate that you attempt to spread such a belief. More unfortunate that you attempt to sway the public opinion to the point that others are outcasted. Its the difference between me and you, I will fight for your rights to post here always...


    We have a logical inconsistency on this forum, amongst this community...outcasting allegedly prejudice people.

    The difference between you and I is I'm accused of only seeing my opinion as valid while you are the actual one that does so.

    Wetts example, where you jump from some kid with issues and slavery? Maybe if you stop and see Wett's passive acceptance of Fed's universally accepted bad idea for a "better approach" than openly bashing him as others might as the morally correct thing to do, instead of hyperbole.

    Note too that your prediction of my intents is laughably biased because you have a dislike (earned, granted) for me. So, you know, don't speak for me - you have enough trouble doing that for yourself.

    I meet the kid, talk to him trying to help him out and you think it's for my own justification? You don't know my motives, you don't know the timeline, you don't know fuck all about me except what your fucked up viewpoint generates. For a guy looking for a second chance, you certainly aren't putting in the work. Kindly continue to go fuck yourself.

    Mark
  • Ut oh, if Kristy is truly on her game, darb is in trouble..>:D
  • Milo wrote:

    1) When you are the only person "certain" of your correctness on an issue, you may want to look at other points of view. There is a reason that outliers are just that.
    Its one way too look at it, but also one might to decide to stand behind ones own beliefs regardless of the masses. This would prove important and morally right throughout many events in history. I hope we don't feel society has already outgrown its atrocious behavior. It hasn't
    2) Society at large determines acceptable standards of behaviour. It is called civilization. So, it is not "my" Right, so much as our "collective" Right to determine how we wish to order our Society. and yes, in certain subsets you will end up with Naziism, or Islamism, but the overall whole will inevitably remove those aberrations.
    Yes we do seek to remove these aberrations, and Naziism is terrible, but we cannot then hate the Nazi's out of existence can we? Don't we then become that which we despise?
    3) Cancel? Not the point. It is right and proper to call someone out for going beyond the limits of what is considered tolerable in a given community. It is ALSO right and proper to attempt to guide someone who wishes to remain in that community along a path that will see them staying where they wish to stay. Mark has done both. this is not harassment, it is called "help".
    It wasn't very useful help. Or rather it was very NOT useful help.
    4) I would not want anyone to be "me", nor would I wish any community to be totally homogenous in it's outlook. That said, certain behaviour will inevitably be deemed "beyond the pale". You cannot possibly be arguing that theft is not among those actions, can you? The fact that people on this site argue and debate what constitutes an adequate censure for bad acts should be seen as a positive.
    I would like you to tell me what Gibran means:
    [FONT=garamond, times new roman] And the robbed is not blameless in being robbed. [/FONT]
    How else does the "collective" progress?
    By sincere investigation in this question you ask. Thank you for it...
  • compuease wrote: »
    Hey not fair, you changed yours as well. Our moderator status only allows us some leeway in this matter. Once banned permanently a name cannot be resurrected as far as I understand it. Pretty common knowledge re both of them tho.

    JimmyHo and I changed ours officially. All of our old posts bear our new name, and can be accessed through our profiles under "find more posts". I don't sell pieces, but if I did someone could find all of my non-gimmick history and make a good choice.

    I can't help that "permaban" doesn't mean perma to you.
  • I know we're way of topic but what the heck, it's not like that has ever happened before....

    Darb, so who do you feel are the intelligent people on here? And where do you rank yourself in that list? How do YOU define intelligence? Does experience have any bearing on intelligence or is there no relation.. Love to hear your thoughts.
  • Wetts1012 wrote: »
    In before forum Jesus pipes in.

    Me H. Me!

    I'm resting-- what in Dad's name do YOU want?
  • Kristy wrote: »
    Are you people fucking insane?

    Startles, at no point do your ramblings approach philosophical wit and intelligence. You are a horrifically unpalatable writer. You RARELY have a hidden layer that, if a smarter person than you REALLLY digs for, and heavily interprets-- while giving you ALL the benefit of the doubt for bad syntax, quick and thoughtless ranting, and being stoned--VERGES, on something that conceivably construes a mediocre amount of common sense.
    Kristy we are having a dialog about some interesting philosiphical issues, and whether berating people and attacking them is ok, please feel free too join in!

    Wetts1012 wrote: »
    In before forum Jesus pipes in.
    Cause he smokes weed right? I'm not unawares of my writing, but I'm a decent judge of when I am making perfect sense.
    compuease wrote: »
    Ut oh, if Kristy is truly on her game, darb is in trouble..>:D
    She's gonna love digital assets so much though...
  • Kristy wrote: »
    JimmyHo and I changed ours officially. All of our old posts bear our new name, and can be accessed through our profiles under "find more posts". I don't sell pieces, but if I did someone could find all of my non-gimmick history and make a good choice.

    I can't help that "permaban" doesn't mean perma to you.

    lol, I know you both did, I was only razzin ya..
  • Jesus wrote: »
    Me H. Me!

    I'm resting-- what in Dad's name do YOU want?

    Well, could you arrange some sweet JLO Kula ring for me?
  • Startles wrote: »
    Yes we understand this, and I think we should be investigating the concept that certain individuals should be outcasted. Or how this group or any group came to the collective belief that outcasting individuals, stoning them, taring and feather, berating, throwing tomatoes...any of the sort is the correct thing to do.



    Its not in some peoples eyes, its clear, but the messed up part is that pm-ing and skyping him to you means that "targeting" him is ok.
    No this is where the community could be helpful to point something out. You are not "right", you have a big hand in his demise, by both encouraging it and not helping him out each and every time he required it. And the wetts principle I outlined. You have not acted morally in this sense, you have clearly and simply acted in a way you feel you can justify to this community.





    We know this about you, which is another unfortunate thing, and unfortunate that you attempt to spread such a belief. More unfortunate that you attempt to sway the public opinion to the point that others are outcasted. Its the difference between me and you, I will fight for your rights to post here always...


    We have a logical inconsistency on this forum, amongst this community...outcasting allegedly prejudice people.

    And further

    If I was acting in a way to justify to this forum, how come I never fucking mention it? And then you say I'm targeting and used PMing as justfication, but then call me out for not helping?

    You put my in an impossible to win situation and then consider me a demon. Very moral.

    Mark
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    The difference between you and I is I'm accused of only seeing my opinion as valid while you are the actual one that does so.

    Wetts example, where you jump from some kid with issues and slavery? Maybe if you stop and see Wett's passive acceptance of Fed's universally accepted bad idea for a "better approach" than openly bashing him as others might as the morally correct thing to do, instead of hyperbole.
    Yes this is the root of what slavery and Naziism is based on. Naziism is not a german problem you see, its really just a function of hate and lack of compassion, and a collective willingness to outcast peoples. So again me being the only one willing to stand up against such "hate", is the telling thing.

    I don't care if its german hate, nazi hate, jewish hate, mike hate, mark hate, darb hate etc...

    we want to collectively dispeel it and resit the urge to become a lynch mob.
    Note too that your prediction of my intents is laughably biased because you have a dislike (earned, granted) for me. So, you know, don't speak for me - you have enough trouble doing that for yourself.

    I meet the kid, talk to him trying to help him out and you think it's for my own justification? You don't know my motives, you don't know the timeline, you don't know fuck all about me except what your fucked up viewpoint generates. For a guy looking for a second chance, you certainly aren't putting in the work. Kindly continue to go fuck yourself.

    Mark
    Yes it is a second chance from a hate campaign fueled by yourself. Where people were lead to belief I have something against Jewish people. I simple attempted and attempt to make the point that NO group should be outcast, and I am not a prejudice person for that.

    And then if I am left alone to defend myself, should I be punished further for trying to revolt and speak out?

    Someone has to stand up to for change no, where else can it come from?
  • What gives us the right to judge anyone ?

    Ask yourself that ?

    Is this forum, judge, jury and executioner of it's members, be they good or bad,
    in your opinion ?

    I say again. GROW UP and remember the Latin saying " caveat emptor " translated
    " LET THE BUYER BEWARE "

    Are you referring to your poker game structures?
  • Didn't think we'd get to Godwins law so quickly. That about raps it up.
  • Wetts1012 wrote: »
    Don't want to derail, but let me be the voice of the population to let you know that this is 100% inaccurate.

    I was taught very early in my professional career to "speak to the audience".

    This forum is filled with people who are the opposite of a Harvard philosophy class. Which is generally why people read what you write and say "wa?". Dumb down the message with the same principles.

    Take this feedback fwiw, we may now proceed.

    I demand an option to like a post more than once.

    Mark
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    And further

    If I was acting in a way to justify to this forum, how come I never fucking mention it? And then you say I'm targeting and used PMing as justfication, but then call me out for not helping?

    You put my in an impossible to win situation and then consider me a demon. Very moral.

    Mark
    No what is clear logical and "morally" defined, is that pushing one down with one hand while pulling them up sometimes with the other is not is not a heroic combination. And then professing that you are "right" about him just looks silly to anyone with a clue.

    He is a lost soul, thats clear, no sherlock needed.
  • Wetts1012 wrote: »
    Didn't think we'd get to Godwins law so quickly. That about raps it up.
    Godwins law is legit and real, and it has a solution, that we didn't previously have. The law will be well studied and understood.
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    I demand an option to like a post more than once.

    Mark

    done.. It will be in a future version of VBulletin, not sure which one tho..
  • I woke up one day and saw an extra $3 dollars in my account.. turns out it was fed who claimed it was for Karma.

    Wonder if he still believes in Karma.

    So like how many of these poker stories are true? His running it up on Stars and 888... I mean I only heard of the guy on here and throwing it all away to play 1/2 in Vancouver.. (Why Vancouver of all places still?) but going over that other thread he seems that at least one of his identity's was a pretty big name.
  • Startles wrote: »
    No what is clear logical and "morally" defined, is that pushing one down with one hand while pulling them up sometimes with the other is not is not a heroic combination. And then professing that you are "right" about him just looks silly to anyone with a clue.

    He is a lost soul, thats clear, no sherlock needed.

    This would be "not knowing the timeline" part I mentioned.

    gg

    Mark
  • Macke wrote: »
    I woke up one day and saw an extra $3 dollars in my account.. turns out it was fed who claimed it was for Karma.

    Wonder if he still believes in Karma.

    So like how many of these poker stories are true? His running it up on Stars and 888... I mean I only heard of the guy on here and throwing it all away to play 1/2 in Vancouver.. (Why Vancouver of all places still?) but going over that other thread he seems that at least one of his identity's was a pretty big name.

    No, it wasnt.
  • compuease wrote: »
    done.. It will be in a future version of VBulletin, not sure which one tho..
    In the near future you will be able to give the exact amount of "like" you wish down to the most specific increment, in any form one chooses, exchangeable for any other form fee-lessly and instantaneously. This will create a rapid and intensive database of identity and trust.

    Trolling for example will cost money and can be fined appropriately. Users of a forum will have incentive to protect their community assets.
    DrTyore wrote: »
    This would be "not knowing the timeline" part I mentioned.

    gg

    Mark
    We are looking for life long consitency in our patience and forgiveness for our fellow man (and women), to which EVERY SINGLE one of us on earth is...

    And I am not perfect or an angel in this regard either, it is simply a truth that stands higher than the community.
  • Startles wrote: »
    Quote:
    This forum's tolerance for name changes makes "due diligence" an unacceptable burden.


    tolerance is not the correct, I don't seem to have the "privilege".

    You realize you're on at least your third account name right? Think there's a reason the vast majority of people here only needed one?

    Mark
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    You realize you're on at least your third account name right? Think there's a reason the vast majority of people here only needed one?

    Mark
    Those words are Kristy's if I am not mistaken.

    And yes my identity was taken, for accusations that are clearly not true and an agenda by you and GTA to paint me something I was not and am not. This is the logical inconsistency.


    And not even whether or not I was deserving, but well before that, can someone deserve abuse? I think not, and it seems you think there is a time and place for it...
  • Startles wrote: »
    Those words are Kristy's if I am not mistaken.

    And yes my identity was taken, for accusations that are clearly not true and an agenda by you and GTA to paint me something I was not and am not. This is the logical inconsistency.


    And not even whether or not I was deserving, but well before that, can someone deserve abuse? I think not, and it seems you think there is a time and place for it...

    Hmm..

    Maybe it isn't that you can't express yourself well, maybe you don't understand it either? Have you (and this is legit), ever been tested for some form of learning / comprehension problem such as dyslexia?

    Kristy was saying there that people benefit from anonymity because of name changes, meaning that if fed / OH came back under another name, nobody would know. Therefore, having to do a background check on everyone is too much to ask the common user.

    Not everything's about your perception that you're a victim.

    Mark
  • Waiting for answers to my questions, or at least a "I'm not revealing that". Conversely I have no problem with people knowing who or where I am. Nothing to hide.











    or at least anything I am admitting to.. >:D
  • I've never come across anyone in my life with such middling intelligence trying so hard to appear a genius. Perhaps darb sympathises so greatly with fed due to their shared delusion of grandeur.

    Simply reading this thread it is abundantly evident that their base motivations on this site are identical.
Sign In or Register to comment.