Edit: Apologies for the apparent double-post. (There was another post here, by OgNasty, which seems to have disappeared.)

Quote from: ibminer on February 18, 2018, 05:31:59 AM

and why can't Lauda just deny it?

Forcing somebody into a position to deny baseless accusations is a classic smear tactic. Quicksellers seeks to destroy Laudas reputation with rumours; and his rapidfire promulgation of such smears creates a witchcraft trial atmosphere. For Lauda to answer to him in the face of no evidence whatsoever would be an error which plays right into his hands. By way of a subtle analogy, consider that to be like trying to use the unsubscribe link in a spam e-mail.

Quote from: Lauda on February 18, 2018, 07:25:25 AM

Quote from: ibminer on February 18, 2018, 05:31:59 AM

...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 ~~tampered~~ evidence up).

Exactly.

Quote from: Lauda on February 18, 2018, 07:25:25 AM

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 ~~friend of a friend of a friend~~ reliable unidentified source" told me Lauda does [insertWhateverLie].

This is a not insignificant problem, as a practical matter. Newbies and casual readers can be easily misled. Few people are savvy enough to recognize smear tactics on the face of things; and fewer still will take the time to dig a bit through forum archives (as I did) before passing judgment, and worse, repeating rumours as hearsay.

By the way, this thread is chock-full of cheap smear tactics. For an instructive example of a smear directed not at Lauda, but rather at an uninvolved person just because of her being (more than) friendly with me, namely Alia:

Quote from: poGium on February 17, 2018, 10:10:46 PM

About every week she opens a new thread. Either she wants to sell something (herself (no reproach!)) or she wants to buy drugs, or she wants to borrow money (in my opinion, for the strangest reasons Roll Eyes

) and so on. Honestly she seems very suspicious to me.

Listing she wants to buy drugs between online transactions is a gross misrepresentation: It insinuates that she wanted to buy drugs online. A link to the pertinent thread is conveniently omitted, such that readers cant easily assess for themselves.

In the thread where she asked about drugs, the second sentence of Alias OP starts, Never tried them (drugs). She said that she intends to travel somewhere that the drugs in question are legal, so as to try them for the first time (and planning to try only once) for the experience. There is explicit discussion between her and others of tourist destinations; Amsterdam is mentioned.

So, on the face of the matter, were talking about a 19-year-old who has never tried drugs and is curious about them. Thats it. (How many 19-year-olds have never tried drugs, including marijuana?)

I myself am strictly against drugs. Id never have anything to do with an addict or regular user. I popped into her thread, and explained in brief why I think its a bad ideaeven if the intention is to try only once. She seems open-minded and thoughtful about the matter. I guess shell think it over and decide what she wants.

Strictly speaking, this is off-topic; I therefore will not bother to dissect several other material misrepresentations in the same post. But it is necessary that a really horrible smear be debunked: How many people read that, and inferred that Alia was buying drugs online? I would have, if I had not already known what that thread actually said. This also serves as a neatly illustrative example of how smears can work; and smears are not only on-topic, but the whole topic of this thread.

Quote from: Deena on February 18, 2018, 11:03:42 AM

[blah, blah]

Thus spake the Master Ethical Mature Expert who believes that a signature containing a sarcasm tag, a forum rules link, and a scam notice can be somehow paid in a roundabout way. You have no credibility for intellect, let alone for integrity; you dont even get three blahs from me. Shoo.

Quote from: criptix on February 18, 2018, 03:05:41 PM

Popcorn stocks raised by 15% because of this thread Wink

I admit, I am being paid under the table by the popcorn carteland so must be Quickseller. Wait a minute. Does that mean I may be a Quickseller alt? Please excuse me whilst I bathe in bleach.