Quote from: Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย on September 26, 2012, 01:56:32 PM

Quote from: LoupGaroux on September 26, 2012, 12:50:42 PM

Quote from: SysRun on September 26, 2012, 04:56:26 AM

LG what's the timeline for "almost immediately" I'm just a spectator on this one, but I would like to know. How long did it take nefario to retract his statement? And why is it now deleted?

Warning came out within 72 hours of the asset being listed. This all happened over a weekend, and if I remember correctly, it was at the time that Nefario was relocating to the UK from China and had only very spotty access. It was caught and identified. There was immediate reaction in the GLBSE forum.

The offer to convert (and note it was an offer, NOT a promise or contract!) was made weeks later, and the retraction within a day or less as GLBSE Real owners challenged Nefario's ability to convert without approval of the majority of shareholders, which by all indications was not going to be forthcoming.

We know that the asset was called a scam quickly orniginally but that is not what we need to know about. I bought the stock after Nefario claimed he would make it real GLBSE stock.

Can you tell us what GLBSE owner challenged Nefario and can you please link us to his quote? Was it on this forum or some other website? Also even if Nefario was challenged it does not mean that he agreed (or even knew he was challenged). He let the stock trade for months. He even let it move to GLBSE as a tradeable asset. Either Nefario is just retarded and can't read a contract or he was involved in fraud. Either way it is not good for him.

Also why did Nefario delete his posts? What does he not want us to see?

Also you say he was challenged but you did not say Nefario made a statement. So when you say almost immediately you really mean almost a year?

Sorry Goat, but taking my responses out of context to serve your agenda is not honest.

To address your points:

Nefario said he would convert. He categorically NEVER stated it would become "real" stock, the conversion was undefined.

Yes, I was the GLBSE owner who challenged it, and had a lengthy communication with him through the GLBSE forum and PM's as to the resolution of the matter. Note for the record that I am not the one calling this a scam. And no, I will not link you to quotes or share private communications. If you are not able to do your own research to carry out your hysteria, far be it for me to advance your agenda. And the private communication are just that- private. They are none of your business or any other party who was not a part of that conversation.

GLBSE Fake was never a "tradeable" asset after the conversion to GLBSE 2.0, that's why you, and only you as far as anyone can tell, were originally offering to sell them at grossly inflated prices as a transfer. There was no trading in the interim.

Adding ad hominem insults like "retarded" only diminishes your statements. This entire debate is not about mental capacity. Luckily for you! If it was you lost when you established the thread.

Nefario has only modified one post that I can see, by removing a direct and tasteless insult and replacing it with a sarcastic image.

And finally, no, Nefario did not call a press conference and make a statement. There was clear communication in both this forum, and in the GLBSE forum within two days of the offer to "convert" that it was not acceptable to the majority of GLBSE Actual shareholders, and there was a lively debate amongst them concerning it.

A debte, I would point out, that any owner of GLBSE Actual was welcome to be a part of in the private forum dedicated to the actual ownership of GLBSE Actual. Since you were not a part of that community, at no time were you holding real shares of a real company. You were scammed, but scammed by the parties unknown who created GLBSE Fake, not by anyone involved with GLBSE Actual.

And tangentially- your assets have been locked down because you are acting erratically and dishonestly. Your statements have given the owners of GLBSE Actual, the market, clear and compelling reason to de-list your assets as you are acting in a manner that follows a classic scammer profile, and to date have refused to address the concerns that you yourself might be involved in the creation and sale of fraudulent assets.

That is not scamming by the market, that is considered action, after consultation with counsel, and reflects due diligence and sound business practice. That you did not take due diligence in buying an asset that was utterly without value, and are now seeking to steal further funds from people who did not create the scam says volumes about your business ethics. Personally I think the markets are far better off without your brand of "business".