Thank you so much for digging that up. It was a person promoting a scam so there is that, but if anyone wants to exclude me for it - I'm a big fan of informed decisions so feel free, I certainly wouldn't have a meltdown over this. Some other things to look for in my post history:
- I may have said favorable things about a site or two that later turned out to be scams.
- I've said many many NSFW and plain mean things to pretty much everyone I came into contact with.
- I've been wrong quite a few times and - gasp - may have failed to admit it once or twice.
- I don't like lemons.
Not a comprehensive list of all wrongdoings but should get you started.
Even the people who exclude me don't bother to argue I am a thief. Keep proving how unbiased you are by comparing me to known scammers to argue your extremely weak justification for punitive punishment.
If you were a thief you would have red trust. As it stands, it's your
judgement that is questionable. Your attempts to paint this as being called a scammer show that you either don't understand how the trust system works, or deliberately make yourself look like a victim, neither of which does you any favors as far as your trust inclusions are concerned.
You people sure do love inserting other topics so you can later convolute them. I made it pretty clear the punitive punishment was the exclusion. The "scammer" part was the pathetic attempt to ASSOCIATE me with scammers by comparing me to Quickseller. Learn to read then maybe impugn my words.
Quick question for you ball bags, do you think your exclusions are going to make me more or less of a "dick"?