Quote from: Yolocoin on September 10, 2012, 08:18:40 PM

Quote from: bitcoinBull on September 10, 2012, 08:01:46 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 10, 2012, 07:30:55 PM

Quote from: bitcoinBull on September 10, 2012, 06:43:44 PM

Are you the same guy who was accusing "team ponzi" of not understanding "investment liquidity" and spreading "pirate FUD"?

Congratulations on answering your own question, and in the affirmative to boot. I haven't seen an ad hominem strawman get tackled like that since the 1984 Superbowl!

But all that has nothing to do with the fact that Matt's "bet" was obviously a 100% trollish prank and people were saying so all along, only to be ignored by the gambling addicts.

OK. So first you defended pirate and now you're defending MNW. ad hominem reasoning is only a fallacy if its irrelevant to the issue. and its only a strawman if i misrepresent your position.

I only quoted you to see if I could establish a pattern. Since you provide no reasoning that met's bet was "obviously a 100% trollish prank", there's no logic to argue with.

If I read his posts correctly (with heavy sarcasm) then I don't believe he's defending MNW or pirate. Rather he's openly mocking the gullibility of the people who invested or bet.

You are correct Yolocoin! It's nice to see some people are capable of replacing the batteries in their sarcasm detectors in a timely fashion.

Christ bitcoinBull, do I have to spell it out for you? I mean, even more than it was already spelled out several times during the course of Matt's bet's drama?

Clues for the Clueless Volume XXII
1) Matt is a minor and can't legally sign a contract
2) Matt had not visible means of repayment
3) Matt is a jocular, arguably immature fellow who likes to make his points via escalation
4) NO ESCROW (yes I am screaming that)

Need I go on?