Quote from: EcuaMobi on March 19, 2018, 04:41:46 PM

Quote from: owlcatz on March 19, 2018, 04:18:59 PM

And everyone questions my motivations?

I'm just trying to understand what happened. I'm saying here that I understand why you assumed OgNasty was accusing you. Therefore I don't understand at all OgNasty's: "seemingly admitted to being the scammer impersonating me on Telegram".

Understood, my apologies. Basically, I read in his escrow thread that he provided info on the "telegram scammer" to get police involved.

I don't know where he thinks I admitted anything, he's just using his usual deflections because 1. He knows he is in the wrong 2. His ego is too large to admit it.

Quote from: owlcatz on March 19, 2018, 04:18:59 PM

I did troll him for a bit, but this is crossing the line

Quote from: EcuaMobi on March 19, 2018, 04:13:56 PM

It does seem that initial trolling started this. And a lot of things between you have crossed the line.

Quote from: EcuaMobi on March 19, 2018, 04:13:56 PM

I can agree that some arguments/threads against Og have perhaps been taken too far, however I don't see owlcatz being at fault whatsoever in this case.

I agree. Both of them have taken things too far several times. In this particular case I see OgNasty is in the wrong, unless I just don't understand something

Fair enough, agreed, but again, I never sent scammed newbies from my own threads after him on other services to harass him, without any evidence other than "I dislike him" or whatever. Just like the trust abuse below on Mini. Roll Eyes

Quote from: EcuaMobi on March 19, 2018, 04:41:46 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on March 19, 2018, 04:29:05 PM

I said I reported the info I had on the Telegram scammer to Telegram (scammer's user ID, the conversation screenshots, etc.) and for some reason owlcatz then said I threatened to report him to the police, which is either a lie by owlcatz, or it means he is the scammer

No, there's a simpler explanation:

You advised Telegram to file a police report against their user who had scammed
Michael said you pointed in ow's direction, i.e. you accused him of being the scammer

Therefore you think owlcatz is the scammer and reported him to the police.
I'm not saying that necessarily happened, Michael could have lied, he could have misunderstood you, there were several assumptions and some of them could have been wrong.
But that is a much simpler explanation why owlcatz assumed you reported him to the police.

Concluding this means owlcatz admitted to being the scammer doesn't make too much sense.

Quote from: OgNasty on March 19, 2018, 04:29:05 PM

Actually, he's a liar about me reporting him to the police either way, because that's not what I said...

So you're saying he's wrong at assuming that's what you said?
And you assumed he confessed to being the scammer? Have you thought maybe you're wrong at assuming that too?

Edit:
I see you left negative trust to minifrij for making a wrong assumption. Does making wrong assumptions deserve negative trust? I strongly disagree.
I think correcting him is enough, especially when the assumption does make at least a little sense, even if not completely right.

1. You are 100% correct Ecuamobi about your "take" on the above, thank you once again for seeing the truth amidst deflections and twisting words.

I don't want anything out of this, other than maybe a simple apology for sending scammed newbies at me, he knows he wrote that PM to silver815/Micheal, he just won't admit it.

I really would like to see some answers to these myself, especially 1.

Did you point Michael to owlcatz as he said on this screenshot? Do you have any idea why he said that? Or was he lying? This is very important at it seems to be the base to owlcatz (an partially minifrij -it seems- and me) wrongly assuming you said owlcatz was the telegram scammer
Do you recognize there's a chance you're wrong at assuming owlcatz seemingly admitted to being the scammer?
Do you recognize there's a chance minifrij made the wrong assumption in good faith and not to "spread lies"? Does making any wrong assumption deserve negative trust?