Quote from: wildemagic on August 11, 2012, 05:05:08 AM

Quote from: Vladimir on August 11, 2012, 04:54:56 AM

Pirate claims many things. Most of them is a lie. Given the facts, even if they are not, they should be assumed as such until an irrefutable proof that his operation is not a ponzi is presented. The same goes for everything pirate's shills say.

I can claim that there is a celestial teapot orbiting the sun, doesnt mean its true just because no one can disprove it.

Thank you for supporting my point. It is pirate and his shills claiming the teapot not me. Hence the burden of proof is on them. Also note how some sentences of your post contradict others sentences of your post.

I can clarify why whatever pirate and his shills say must be assumed to be a potential lie for the purposes of ponzi/non-ponzi argument. The logic is simple and undeniable.

1. Ponzi is form of fraud and is based on lie(s).
2. Hence, whatever alleged ponzi operator and his shills say without providing objective evidence supporting their claims cannot be asserted as true. i.e. they are not reliable witnesses.

Simply, words of ponzi operators cannot be relied upon as a valid argument in this matter. Only objective evidence can.

Quote

this is a pass through not a ponzi, have a read up on the difference.

I would suggest that assuming pirate is operating a fraudulent investment scheme (which is a reasonable assumption) pass through operators are complicit in fraud.