⭐ Merited by nullius (2)
Very interesting and relevant quote in another thread in reputation:
...
That's not even related to me. The guy is butthurt that actmyname tagged him. ...
...and why can't Lauda just deny it? ...
When there is no evidence, why would I? To please the very sick obsession that OP has with me? My explicit denial of anything is not enough for OP anyways, thus it's pointless unless there is evidence for any accusation (in that case, I'd need to regardless who brought the I get all of that. I'm not saying you have to defend yourself to every account that comes along, I'm just looking at it from the perception of other members that may not know anything about QS's history who may just see you as dodging or side-stepping the claims. In your situation, I almost see it as better to not respond at all unless valid evidence were presented upfront.
True. However, when the busted baboons jump on the bandwagon along with OP's shills, then it might seem *unusually convincing* for the reader who doesn't know him and/or the others. Classic smear tactic. Spread a bad rumor here, spread another bad rumor there and hope something spreads into the likes of "a "continues to help the community"... by selling DT accounts to known scammers.
I did say a little exciting. You have pushed boundaries I don't think I've seen pushed before, in relation to what is acceptable and unacceptable use of the trust system, so the conflict is not surprising to me, just good to see the activity I guess... I neither confirm nor deny whether I agree with said activities. 
That may very well be, but that's still not close to where we need to be (with various policies; also non trust system related) if this place is to *work decently* again. However, with very little input from theymos and no input from almost any DT1 member there's only so much that can be done.