I'm not a Dash lover by any means, though I've stated in the past that it's one of the coins I've liked.  I don't own any and have never done anything to seriously hype it, nor have I ever owned more than about 12 Dash at any given time.  I've always said I liked it because of the low transaction fees and quick confirmation times and its somewhat bad-boy reputation as being originally intended for use on the dark markets (which I've never had a part of).  I've always stated that I'm aware of its shady beginnings, the instamining and all of that.

As far as that situation with the 3000 BCH, I did pose a question in the thread about what happens in situations when a deal is underway and then a fork happens, i.e., who keeps the forked coins.  I can also tell you that I don't completely understand what that whole situation was about, much less what Lauda's role in it really was.  I often find myself reading claims on bitcointalk and not knowing all of the background or who's telling the truth, since there are so many scammers and liars here. 

I'm not trying to use ignorance as an excuse in the case you're referring to--I'm genuinely ignorant of what that deal was about, but I knew enough to question whether there was something arranged between the parties involved beforehand about the forked coins.  If you've got an investigation you can bring forth about Lauda, why don't you just do it instead of talking about it.  Then I'd like to hear the honest opinions from a variety of senior and/or trusted members. 

I don't appreciate being called an ass licker of Lauda.  I just happen to be loyal to people who've supported me, but not to the point of endorsing scamming behavior, and if that's what happened in that escrow deal then I don't condone that (but I'll need proof that's dumbed-down enough for me to follow)--but I'll always respect Lauda's scam- and spam-busting activities and general attitude.  But don't think for a minute that I'm in anyone's pocket, because I'm not.