Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

@qwk
post of 1000 words starts below because the other one was for xtraelv

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 Wink

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

1. you quoted me and it says there... facts and Reasonable conclusions based on evidence or corroborating events then went on to only address each of my points and measure them against what you would consider a FACT.

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.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

You made no further mention of reasonable conclusions based on corroborating evidence/events.

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

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

This was kind of thing I would not expect from you. Let's us be sensible and reasonable with each other.

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").

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

I mean we both understand many things would fail the threshold of a fact but are reasonable or highly probable and therefore still worthy of deep consideration.

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.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

Now to test out if you are going to accept Facts and Facts I must ask you for a 3rd time to review a what I consider to be a fact and see if you will consider it to be a fact too.

Do continue.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

Now since you have promised to answer me I am hoping you will do so now.

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 Wink

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

Then after establishing this I will make what I find to be a reasonable statement based on that fact and you will tell me if it is reasonable or if not you will explain why it is not reasonable.

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 Wink

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

After clearing that up we should move to the other points in my post that you and I shall debate and see if my "opinions" are reasonable or not or if some are indeed facts.

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:

Quote from: qwk on February 08, 2019, 04:41:59 PM

Under these circumstances, I swear to provide you with a satisfactory(2) and concise(2) reply, outlining my opinion on each and every single case in your posting.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

This is regarding a project that annouced a fair pow launch (no premine/instamine)

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.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

It then did this
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg7535561#msg7535561

"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)?

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

he made these comments on many occasions over many months we had quite a few arguments over it

"He"? "It"? Huh

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

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg6748208#msg6748208

Now this is a posting by "Lauda", neither "gostrol" nor "eduffield", saying:

Quote

I'd rather be closed than submit to the foul government. There is no pump going on. We have just started to get the attention of some media, wait for the full impact. There was no instamine, I was there.

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"

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

Now this is clearly a financially motivated lie.

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.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

Scammers are financially motivated liars.

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

Quote from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam

Definition of scam (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : DECEIVE, DEFRAUD
2 : to obtain (something, such as money) by a scam

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

Do you think to have someone on your DT inclusions that has been proven to be a liar and i say a scammer therefore because it is a deception for financial reasons.... so yes why do you include such a person ??

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.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

Have you read the full threads in my sig

No. I have a life. Wink

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

and do you find them to be the actions of a trustworthy person?

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.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

combined with the fact that he is a liar for financial reasons.

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?

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

How about the extortion attempt or the escrow business?

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

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

what are your opinons on those?

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.

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

I am trying to sample your thoughts so that I can see this high threshold of acceptance of facts or reasonable/probable explanation in light of observable /corroborating events and circumstances.

You've utterly failed me, young padawan Sad

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).

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

I would like to hear your detailed thoughts on these things which I say are very relevant to the OP because if you are not politically motivated and you are objective that will be welcome news. I thought we may have got off to a bad start but i was impressed at your cool nature even when I was swearing at you.

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

Quote from: cryptohunter on February 09, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

I need to learn this type of coolness myself. I feel it will certainly help me convey my thoughts to a wider audience.

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