Quote from: actmyname on December 19, 2018, 02:31:48 PM

Quote from: cryptohunter on December 19, 2018, 02:23:47 PM

marboroza is clearly misquoting me as saying " lauda ass banged the pharmacist"

I believe what you're on about is contained in the following:

Quote from: marlboroza on December 18, 2018, 11:49:46 PM

...so thank you for inviting me to this valuable and sensible discussion which moved from "cryptohunter's problem with the top 200 merit receivers" to "tag Lauda!" and "Lauda stuck it in TP's ass "

To believe that this is an intentionally-contrived misquote is wrong. This is a synopsis of the flow of conversation in the thread dialogue. I see no attack here.

So do you mean to say he is not quoting me there? or he is? who is he quoting and why is it right next to my first quote that is from me?
and why is it related to PT ass kissing lauda?

I need to walk through this entire thing step by step because i accept what you say if you know how to analyse this from some english language rules.

but let me accept that for a moment if we are going by the rules of English language only and not employing any other context or other plausible explanations that I think have considerable reason to lead me to believe he was refering to my first comment and my second comment.

2. so then I say it is a misquote and I do not mange to convey to him enough clues to dictate clearly what I am refering too..... and even specify the quote I am refering to is : Describing disturbing fantasies of his own... this is clear indication of what I am refering to even if he was not quoting me as i believed he was I mean you can't get DT trust for not making it clear to him what I was taking about even after a good effort where any reasonable person would assume in light of the content of what i said it would apply to that quotation... i mean even then if they are unable to understand and make an incorrect assumption you can not get NEG DT for it can you?

I mean if I am getting a red trust for apparently lying or false accuasation ...then surely to say I am lying or accusing you must first understand and make clear to yourself what it is I am saying is the focus of my lie or accusation. I give clear indication of what that must be. How can anyone assume from my statement I could be refering to any other statement he made there in his paragraph I mean by common sense he only said a couple of things so for me to refer to the one i mean as... Describing disturbing fantasies of his own? logic dictates i am refering to the ass banging commment.

3. So we are in a position now that even if I accept (which honestly I believe he was but for this debate but accept i could be wrong) he is not clear about what I am refering to even though I make it very clear i believe by saying Describing disturbing fantasies of his own. So for him to charge me with lying or false accusation he needs to be very clear on what I mean and so since he is not clearly.. then he can not as yet say I am lying or making false accusation? he needs to make sure of what i am saying as much as i should have (and did make an effort to understand what he was refering too)

I am clearly not saying what he thinks i am saying ....he does not seek to make get clarity and rather decides to believe in the face of common sense and all logic that I am actually objecting to him pressing the quote button and presenting that which i just typed 5 seconds before which i can see infront of me right then that i just wrote? does he believe I am saying I never said that? I mean that seems completely crazy. I can see it there an so can everyone else and why on earth 1/ would i refute it it is there in black and white and 2/ it is not a Describing disturbing fantasies of his own? i mean that should be totally illogical to think i am refering to that quote. I am to blame for someone quite illogically for 2 clear reasons jumping to an incorrect assumption.

So of course to give red trust without even establishing my objection and going for the totally illogical option instead of clarifying with me is deserving of me getting red trust in his books?

People believe this is true.

I mean my plausible step by step (not that it actually matters at the crux as much as establishing what someone is referring to before accusing them of lying) is countered by suchmoon saying he believed all along I was saying I did not write what everyone just saw me write and was there in black and white in the box in malborozas post? in front of me in black and white... this is the one he really believes??

Are you being serious such moon did you believe this ??

So because you do not clarify to which quote i am referring to even after my disturbing fantasies clear indication you decide to assume I am lying or making false accusation? based on your incorrect assumption ? and therefore I get RED TRUST??

Get real.

Even if (which seems crazy) I am making an incorrect assumption( lets say i did )

I immediately refute this incorrect statement and will get to the bottom of this nonsense and clear up exactly why he said this. This is the sensible route to establish ...why he is saying i said that, and also to get him to argue his point and change it if it is incorrect . I mean I know i did not say that but perhaps he is confused perhaps he thinks i said it but got it wrong, perhaps anything. So now starts the lets establish what you mean why you said it and get to the truth.

He does nothing wrong assumption red trust? on minor thing... why???

Simply because even though in the meta thread suchmoon claims it is not related to merits.

The corroborating evidence below the final post on this thread by malboroza just before red trust is clearly still anger over this merit business.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086297.msg48750243#msg48750243

I mean he appears from that mispelling in his secret search engine regarding his name just after I say I cant wait for malboroza and such moon to have their scores adjusted for the top 10

Either malboroza gives out red trust usually without clarifying or discussing what someone means first??? or he just wanted excuse to give me red trust for the merit thing he is annoyed over.

There is very strong evidence here it is the latter. Unless anyone can provide examples of red trust for something like this from him before.

I mean to such moon my conspiracy theory which has logical steps and if he can break those steps with hard evidence that is not the case or a probable explanation at any step I will be interested. I mean this link thing yes one small detail but totally out gunned by many other unreasonable illogical assumptions one must make to believe I was

1. denying something that everyone can see i just typed on that very same page that he just put in that exact post and he expects me to believe i was refuting i had just written that and staring me in the face?

2. saying that those quotes in box quotes were his "disturbing fantasies"

this is again like the time travel and other ludicrous and highly unlikely and improbable stuff he always comes out with.

I am certainly not accepting you could possibly believe this you knew full well I was referring as a disturbing fantasy ...to lauda ass banging the pharmacist. Not some boxed quotes that had nothing to do with that.