on the common understanding that he had no or limited Pirate exposure.
No. It was based on Patrick's representation to that effect. Your attempts to represent this as a "common mistake" are unseemly and quite frankly are doing a lot of damage to your own credibility.
This turned out to be incorrect. It's not clear that this is Patrick's fault. This fault is equally on both sides of the agreement.
If I offer to sell you a house and you pay me money, except my house doesn't really exist would you say that the fault is equally on both sides of the contract? Because in that case I have a bridge....
Patrick has stated in another thread that he is paying this debt back the same way he is paying back similar debts. He is taking responsibility for his share of the common mistake and his lenders should do the same.
Bullshit. "The same way he is paying similar debts", what's that even mean? You make a contract, you stick to that contract or else you are in default. Nobody cares and it makes no difference that you "are doing it differently now". What is this Patrick, the Government of Bitcoin?
Frankly, Joel, I think you just enjoy taking the contrarian stand. That's fine, but just put a label on your stuff "I'm only stating this nonsense because I enjoy trying to make impossible arguments".
Am I the only one who after reading the transcript, does not understand what is wrong other than the allegation that a deposit has not been paid back in a timely manner. Could the OP please summarize what is actually the issue so we can weigh the evidence. Just posting some logs out of context and having someone passionately arguing with the OP using Pirate references is not enough.
I want your argument so I can weigh it.
Appreciated,
Dalkore
Deposit was made, as per an agreement. Deposit was not returned, as per the agreement.