Just because YOU say something is clear doesn't make it so.  Heck, if you said the weather forecast was for clear skies I'd take an umbrella with me.

The other thread you made accusations then locked it without giving those you accused the option of responding.  In the case of the accusations against me you posted links to where I said something, claimed I was lieing, and somehow expect that to be PROOF that I was lieing.

When you specifically raised one of the various accusations against me in the thread I addressed it in detail.  You even admitted that what I was true - rather than the libel you'd claimed.  Then you locked the thread before we'd even started discussing the other 9.

If I make a thread, accuse you of various things then lock it, should Mods give YOU a scammer tag - just on my word?  If not, should they do it to others on the word of a scummy fuck like yourself?

If you ever actually wanted to get to the TRUTH then we could do it any time you choose.  Here's what I propose - maybe a mod or two would like to chip in.

1.  We'll take a specific few of the claims I've made about you - which you claim are me making malicious libellous statements about you, and I claim are just me telling the truth about your dodgy business practices.  I'd suggest we take two - the insurance one (as that's my favourite) and maybe the one you just now reiterated was libel etc (my accusation - which I don't deny making - that nyan made interest free loans to CPA which you cooked the books to disguise).

2.  We'll agree on what my accusation is - kind of important to do that before going further.

3.  I'll break the basis on which my accusation was made down into the following:
a) Simple statements of fact - which you can agree with or disagree with (e.g. : usagi told BMF shareholders that they were insured by CPA against NAV loss).
b)  Simple questions that can be answered in a few words.  In some instances my assertion is that I can demonstrate you made inconsistent statements - but only YOU know which (either or both) were the lie(s).  An example of this would be "When the contract between BMF and CPA was signed did you intend BMF to claim from CPA if the conditions to do so were met?".

Dealing with a) will let us quickly narrow down to where it is we disagree (if anywhere) on facts.  b) will avoid me unnecessarily arguing the case for two different sets of lies from you (when I know only one applies - just not which) - when you can point me towards the places where you actually were lieing.

The the mods only have to look at the agreed facts, your answers and a brief argument from each of us to arrive at a conclusion.  And they can rule on two things:

1.  Whether you should get a scammer tag.  For this to happen they'd need to be sure you knowingly acted wrongly (losing actual/potential value for your investors) and/or tried to cover it up by lieing.  The "or" is there because I believe you should get one even if you didnt deliberately do wrong (i.e. it was just total incompetence/ignorance) but then covered it up by lieing.
2.  Whether I should get a scammer tag.  For this to happen they'd need to be sure that not only were the allegations I made incorrect - but that I knew so at the time OR persisted in making them after you'd explained how I was wrong.

They could conclude that One of us deserved a tag, neither deserved a tag but (I think) not that both of us deserved a tag.

So here's where you either shit or get off the pot.  Do you want to try to get to the bottom of these issues in a clear way?  I'm open to other ways of doing so in an organised, logical manner - where mods can clearly see what it is that is being disputed (without it being buried in pages of long generalised posts by both of us and many others)?    Do realise that on the Nyan one I don't think you even realise what incident I'm referring to yet - I've kept my powder pretty dry on that one.

I don't think you can afford to try an approach where you have to deal with clear unambiguous statements minus rhetoric - as the truth just isn't on your side.  But feel free to prove me wrong.