Quote from: JoelKatz on November 07, 2012, 09:47:09 PM

Quote from: Zeeks on November 07, 2012, 01:03:58 AM

You are saying that people made a mistake, the same mistake he made. That seems to be true, yes and I don't think anyone disputes that. However, he is the one who owes money and is in default over it, unable to pay it back as he agreed to.

Right. So the next question is who is responsible for this situation and how to hold them accountable. Patrick is certainly one of those people, but he's not the only one.

1) Patrick's business suffered an $X loss.

2) Why did Patrick's business suffer an $X loss? Because two people made a mistake for which they can be held accountable.

3) Patrick is one of the people who made that mistake, thus he's responsible for some portion of that loss.

4) The people who loaned Patrick money also made that same mistake and thus they're responsible for some portion of that loss.

I'll give you a real world example of this same principle. A few years ago, a doctor examining my daughter noticed that her pediatrician had noted a heart murmur in her records but that he didn't hear it. The physician felt that she might have grown out of it, but the only way to be sure was to run a test. He assured me my insurance would cover the test. We had the test, and my insurance didn't cover it.

I refused to pay. The physician argued that I had signed a contract saying that I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't pay. He argued that our contract clearly stated that I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't cover. I agreed with him, but then pointed out that because I was responsible for any amounts my insurance wouldn't pay, his mistake in assuring me that my insurance would cover the costs damaged me. And he was responsible to me for the loss his mistake caused me, a loss that (because both are between me and him) offsets my responsibility to pay him for the test. He actually checked with his lawyer (I think more because he was curious than anything) and he agreed.

It's substantially the same thing here. It's precisely because Patrick promised to pay that money back that the mistake made by those who loaned him money caused Patrick damages for which they are responsible. Because both mistakes are between the same two people, the losses one party's mistake caused the other offset the losses the other party's mistake caused.

Irresponsible lending is just as much a problem as irresponsible borrowing. We wouldn't have had the Pirate fiasco if not for irresponsible lenders.

This is getting more ridiculous by the day. Where the fuck does your stupid little poor man's anecdote figure into this? Did Patrick express doubt as to his ability to repay and MP assured Patrick that Patrick will be able to repay just fine? Damages caused to someone by lending them money? Was it like, poisonous or something? Are you off your meds or somesuch?

Other than that, you are trying to paint as "irresponsible lender" a lender who is in fact the paragon of responsibility in BTC lending. Again: at the time PatrickHarnett got 500 btc at 1% the market rate was 7%.

Irresponsible forum posting, especially when it purposefully and repeatedly misrepresents fiction as fact and idiocy as sense is quickly becoming the top and only contribution you're making to this community, such as it is. Not much of a problem, but just in case you care.