Post
Topic
Board Meta
Re: I've got accused of scamming - Thanks Vod - Suggestion for the future
by
Armis
on 18/05/2015, 11:27:47 UTC
Vod is using a scammy account to give the false impression that he speaks for PICISI, but worse than that he is also actually lying when he claims that any sponsor requested a refund, not sponsor requested any refund.  In fact 1 has indicated that his next new business will also be a PICISI sponsor.

This is outrageous, not only because Vod is purporting to be associated with PICISI, but he's claiming that I said things that I didn't say in that post.  Note that the thread is locked and apparently only unlocked when Vod want to make a new entry.   That is not free speech that's libelous misrepresentation:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1060460.0

So LaudaM  is what you see there necessary drama?
Is the foolishness that Vod is doing necessary drama?

Is it necessary for him to create accounts in order to mislead people into thinking that he is representing PICISI when he doesn't?
Why would you even demand proof of anything when you had sufficient proof of gross malfeasance right in front of your face.  
It goes directly to Vod's credibility, I didn't make it up, those are his words, that's his admission of malfeasance.  

You pointing out Vods right to give neg feedback is "unnecessary" because that wasn't the subject, what was addressed was
vod's false witness, was his scammy behavior, was his fraudulent and misleading use of accounts to damage the character of
my username and the name of PICISI.  Do you believe he has a right to do that?
Let me rephrase this again: Please provide real evidence.
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-real-evidence-is-it-the-same-thing-as-physical-evidence/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_evidence

Exactly how are you going to prove to me that that account was created by Vod. How do you know that it was not someone else; maybe it was me? Hopefully you get what I'm aiming at.
Without hard proof these is no story here. You call upon some 'sufficient proof' that is in my face. Try using this "proof" in a real trial and see what happens.

Unless you can really prove that Vod did create this account (which you can't), you're making false accusations. This is also something that usually gets 'rewarded' with negative trust.


So you are saying that what I already gave you is insufficient proof to proved that Vod  created scammy/fraudulent account?  
And you feel perhaps someone else did it.

Oh, and you said "making false accusations is deserving of negative trust right"?

Ok, so let's say I search the site, and I find an iron clad proof that Vod has a trolling/misleading/fraudulent/scammy account and that he is using it to troll?  
Then what?  What do you believe is the reasonable solution for him or anyone doing such a thing?

Do you think they are trustworthy?