I hope you're aware that I could easily refuse to answer this post, because it absolutely disregards the first rule I had made.
If you want this to be your single "challenge post" for me, though, I'll answer it.
At least it's even less than 500 words

Yes, that is not very precise, but basically correct.
I quoted your post and (superficially) checked each and every single statement I could easily make out against the premise of it being a fact.
For each given "fact", I've given my conclusion wether or not it is a fact or e.g. an opinion.

I did not, that is true.
My post was solely focused on the question "are the statements in this post a fact or not?".

I'm very sorry that you expected otherwise from me, but tbh, then you obviously don't know me very well.
I can be a real stickler and/or know-it-all.
Or "Besserwisser", as we Germans say (tbh, in my case, people often prefer the less polite word "Klugscheißer").

We may both know that.
The truth of the matter though is: you were beginning your OP with the requirement of keeping to facts.
I've shown that I consider your very own post as not compliant with that requirement.


Do continue.

I will. But again, I feel not obliged to, because I don't consider this post to be abiding to the rules.
I'm actually doing you a favor here.
Bathe in my generosity

Assuming your success in establishing a fact, and also assuming the reason of your statement based on the aforementioned fact, I will tell you if it is reasonable?
That's a logical fallacy.
If my statement is dependent upon the reason of your statement, my own statement will tautologically be proof of the reason, thus rendering my judgement of reason moot

Opinions are just that: opinions.
If we disagree, we disagree.
If they are facts, they're no longer opinions.
I will not debate wether or not your opinions are reasonable.
I have not agreed to do that, and quite frankly, I'm not interested in such a debate:


I wasn't expecting that.
I'm not usually familiar with ICOs, tbh, so I consider myself to not be up to the challenge, seriously.

"It"? Did what?
I honestly don't understand at all.
A user called "gostrol" posted something about a user called "eduffield" (mistyping the username, btw)?

"He"? "It"?
Who posted what on which occasions and what were you arguing about?

Now this is a posting by "Lauda", neither "gostrol" nor "eduffield", saying:
Now at least, there's two factual statements by Lauda which are potentially subject to verification.
Regarding Darkcoin, obviously:
- "No pump going on"
- "There was no instamine"

Well, I'll have to guess here, because your post by itself is ambiguous:
Your statement seems to be:
Lauda saying that with Darkcoin there's "no pump going on" and "there was no instamine" is a lie.

Unfortunately, you don't provide any evidence for that.
I myself have not the slightest idea if
a) Darkcoin was "instamined"
b) Darkcoin was "pumped"
c) Lauda had at the moment of her post contradictory knowledge

My conclusion based solely on the presented facts would be:
Inconclusive.


That is a true, yet no comprehensive definition.
It encompasses more than just money:


Again, I just have to assume that you mean to say "Lauda is a liar, because she said Darkcoin was no instamine & not pumped".
You have not provided any evidence for neither part of that statement.

Why do I include Lauda (again, I'll have to guess here) into my Trust List?
The reasons for my inclusion of her is that I find her Trust Feedback useful for newbies.
Lacking a good reason to exclude her, it's logical to include her.

I have, so far, not seen even the slightest evidence that might even lead to the weak assumption that her being on my Trust List could be harmful in any way.


No. I have a life.

I cannot answer this question, since I haven't read those threads.
Even though your sentence seems to imply that now you're talking about a person, where first you've talked about threads.
This is confusing.

Again, I have to assume or guess what you mean.
Is this really the way you want to discuss things?

I thought we had a deal here: you'd provide facts, I'd answer.
Now if I were to call this a "breach of contract", would you agree?


You don't provide evidence, links, quotes, as agreed upon.
Breach of contract?


I have obviously read about the "extortion" and "escrow" allegations against Lauda.
I never considered them worthwhile to find out more, though.
The reason was mostly that they are covered under layers upon layers of bile, bickering, bitching by people like e.g. you.

If you ever wanted a serious discussion about these allegations against Lauda, you had more than your fair share of chances.
And that is my opinion.


You've utterly failed me, young padawan
You failed to establish facts.
You failed to follow a few basic ground rules.
You failed to write up a "readable" post (again, my opinion).


Again, I'm flattered, but unfortunately, flattery will only take you so far.


Now that may not be a fact, but an opinion we both share.