Quote from: Honestbit on April 04, 2016, 06:13:39 PM

You think I'm a fellow default trust hero member? I take that as a compliment.

You're predominantly struck through on most people's trust list, QS, so you're hardly 'on DT'.

As for you being QS, asides from the obvious personality disorder traits you exhibit, you mean?

Well there is the fact you both keep invoking Dooglus and Salty pretty much at the same time for various purposes. When it comes to your 'Honest' ponzi you attempted to employ appeal-to-authority fallacy by bringing up Dooglus' position to me, being one that he doesn't necessarily see a problem with 'open' ponzis, as though that would require me to change my position on the matter, which is one where I do believe they are not healthy for this community to be promoting and, when that didn't work, you then cited Salty's personal opinion, too. Because as we all know, if one logical fallacy doesn't work, double down by employing it twice, right?

Quote from: Honestbit on March 28, 2016, 01:46:49 AM

For cryptodevil: dooglus is not alone in his opinion:

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on March 28, 2016, 01:16:53 AM

Ponzi's are not a scam by default, just because the people playing the game end up losing in the end, that doesn't mean that there isn't a calculated risk that players can take with the hope to make money. In my opinion, ponzis with express written rules (like all thousand ponzis I've seen pop up) are not scams in themselves, nor when they close down, as long as they do so in a way that abides by what they have stated to the public. I don't think of ponzis any differently than dice sites.

Quote from: Quickseller on March 28, 2016, 03:53:40 AM

I had replied to Salty in my other thread, however it seems that his response was regarding the placement of my thread, so I have replied to him here.

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on March 28, 2016, 01:16:53 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on March 28, 2016, 12:31:18 AM

Salty -

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on March 27, 2016, 09:19:28 PM

I guess if we are trying to get rid of the philosophy of ponzis, and get straight to the question, does Dooglus owe anyone money?

That depends on the jurisdiction of a court in which litigation is potentially taken against dooglus, as well as the tort laws in such jurisdiction, however I would err on the side of "yes". . . /snip

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on March 28, 2016, 01:16:53 AM

Ponzi's are not a scam by default, just because the people playing the game end up losing in the end, that doesn't mean that there isn't a calculated risk that players can take with the hope to make money. In my opinion, ponzis with express written rules (like all thousand ponzis I've seen pop up) are not scams in themselves, nor when they close down, as long as they do so in a way that abides by what they have stated to the public. I don't think of ponzis any differently than dice sites. That said, assuming that the ponzis that used Dooglus' source were in fact scams I'm still not really convinced that he would be liable by association. Not only was his association to fix bugs, but he's not really directly liable. If godaddy makes someone a website and they do something illicit with it, godaddy isn't at fault. To modify your gun manufacturer comparison, in this example Dooglus isn't the guy who manufactured the gun, hes the guy who fixed the crooked barrel that the manufacturer produced.

*usual bollocks*/snip

For a supposedly 'one account newbie who only just turned up a few weeks ago', it is rrrrrrrreal unusual for you to be quoting the same person QS did, around the same time he is actively posting his usual crazed-obsessive-nutjob main account fixation on Dooglus.

You also demonstrate a remarkable knowledge of the forum DT system for somebody who claims to only have the one account. An account created only a few weeks ago. Enough for you to run to Dooglus for your appeal-to-authority attempt against my position in your ponzi thread.

So, yeah, you're QS.