Quote from: augustocroppo on October 13, 2012, 09:15:07 PM

Quote from: Dancing Dan on October 13, 2012, 07:36:20 PM

In what thread are you asserting all this has occurred? Post examples. Where did Rarity derail a thread to talk about philosophy or ideology?

In the second and third posts of the thread The psychology of a con man - Zhou, which was initiated to discuss the psychology of a con man based on the famous user Zhou Thong, the user Rarity decided it was better to discuss the detrimental aspects of psychology and how regulated markets are the solution for economical issues:

Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Bitcoin Discussion > The psychology of a con man - Zhou

Quote from: Rarity on July 27, 2012, 03:55:53 AM

Psychology is a barbaric and corrupt practice, that entire article is just a load of BS. Zhou is innocent, and is acting exactly like an innocent man should by doing everything he can to resolve this unfortunate issue.

Quote from: Rarity on July 27, 2012, 05:10:12 AM

I'm sorry folks around here were ripped off, but that is the inevitable result of the free market beliefs so many people around here believe in, not the fault of an honest man like Zhou tong. A well regulated market with the government looking over our shoulder to keep everybody in line is the only way to solve this scamming issue. Believing in an article about a phony, fraudulent science is just falling for one more scam.

Quote from: Dancing Dan on October 13, 2012, 07:36:20 PM

It seems like you are just spinning and speaking in generalities because you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar banning Rarity for questioning a moderator here.

How do you know that? Are you Rarity? How do you know that Rarity questioned a moderator when no evidence or no user even indicated that this happened?

Quote from: Dancing Dan on October 13, 2012, 07:36:20 PM

The face is Rarity was never banned until this moment, so show us the posts that caused it.

Redundant statement.

Quote from: Dancing Dan on October 13, 2012, 07:36:20 PM

I don't see any recent post where your quote about regulation comes from. She never posted the words you attribute to her. Do you think lying about what has happened is helping your case?

Here:

Quote from: Rarity on July 27, 2012, 10:02:16 PM

Your paranoia is disturbing, your accusations against me are even more baseless than your witch hunt against Zhou Tong. This is why we need government involved in this, every witch hunt will always find new victims and I guess I'm up!

Also here:

Quote from: Rarity on July 27, 2012, 11:04:47 PM

As a socialist/communist and a member of a spiritual group that has had to battle tons of spurious attacks from government I am very familiar with the concept of government witch hunts. No government is perfect and we should always work to improve them, however the safeguards they provide are a huge step up from the unrestrained mob justice you get in a situation like this.

I think you would be surprised how many other leftists are flocking to bitcoin. The concept of being able to track every transaction, as opposed to the total anonymity of cash, is a huge benefit if you are trying to exercise control over the market. Now, you don't actually manipulate the Bitcoin itself, you just regulate it's use within your market by setting up whitelists for approved wallets. Any blacklisted or unlisted coins are sent to the government for redistribution before they can enter the market. That all seems a bit off topic for this thread though, but as I've said before it's very like Satoshi is actually a leftist and not any sort of libertarian at all.

...and here, as well:

Quote from: Rarity on July 28, 2012, 12:18:17 AM

Who said I'm not? I just believe that market needs to be very strictly regulated and people should not take unfair levels of compensation, as many top executives and business owners do today. They should be more like the mining cooperatives were most of the profit is going back to the labor force.

So, if you follow Rarity's posts, I am sure you agree that whatever Badbear suggested with his answer, is based on verifiable and factual evidence.

If that is not enough, I must add that once I got caught by Rarity's rants and a forum moderator thought I was being off-topic. So the moderator moved a few posts to the off-topic section, which proves that Rarity was indeed disturbing the forum discussions by producing misplaced statements and deceitful claims:

Bitcoin Forum > Other > Off-topic > Private war between Rarity, augustocroppo and mlawrence

Quote from: John (johnthedong) on August 03, 2012, 02:41:02 PM

Quote from: mlawrence on August 03, 2012, 03:23:23 AM

This has moved to "Off-Topic" by the mods to let it die. We have stated our opinions - let's let everyone make up their mind.

You have the power to lock the thread, but regardless I won't be paying anymore attention.

I'm 'the mod' who moved this to 'Off-Topic', supposedly to let it die. And no, I didn't get a single bitcent from Intersango, Zhou Tong or any party in this debate.

See this? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97141.0) I don't give a fuck about Chaang Noi being a VIP or Matthew being another staff - what is off-topic goes to the off-topic section in my books. And no, us mods do not get a single bitcent from being a mod - we're just volunteers that help to unclog everything in this forum.

There, I said it.

Let me see if I get this right. When asked for a recent example the best you can do is July? You know it's mid-october, right? We know for a fact nobody banned Rarity in July so we can rule that out as our cause here. It also appears that Rarity was quite right in discussing Zhou Tong's innocence, the moderators here seem to agree at this point and never gave him a scammer tag, did they? Her views on Psychology may be crazy Scientologist bullshit, but I think if this forum wants to stand for free speech that view should be allowed in a discussion of Internet Psychoanalysis.

As for the moved to off-topic, that appears to be Rarity protesting against a death threat posted against a user here. Yeah, clearly she should be banned for that!

If you were attempting to justify the banning here I can only call it an epic fail.