Quote from: game-protect on July 30, 2019, 01:18:01 PM

Quote from: nutildah on July 30, 2019, 03:14:01 AM

Quote from: game-protect on July 29, 2019, 06:38:34 PM

Quote from: nutildah on July 29, 2019, 07:56:50 AM

He is (by far) the least trusted person on the entire forum

The trust of who did I breach and how?

According to this brain wash story, I am the least trusted person on this forum without ever breached the trust of anyone?

You can be distrusted without having to "breach the trust" of someone. People get the general vibe that you are untrustworthy, and as seen with your handling of this customer's complaint, they are sometimes proved correct.

Quote from: game-protect on July 29, 2019, 06:38:34 PM

1) Believing that anyone dealing with Game Protect is at a high risk of losing money means not knowing!

2) Not knowing that anyone dealing with Game Protect is at a high risk of losing money confirms that this is not the case. Because if it was the case, some bitcointalk accounts surley would know it considering how much effort they have put in within the past 3,5 years to lie about and defame Game Protect! Cheesy

3) Therefore, (at least based on real world rules and logic) everyone who believes that anyone dealing with Game Protect is at a high risk of losing money confirms that this is not the case! Grin

Again, this is not how these words work. Just because somebody doesn't "know" something for sure doesn't mean its not true. You can believe something is true without knowing for sure that it is. That's why they are 2 different words. If you keep repeating this illogical premise as logical then it will just be another feather in your insanity cap.

Yes, everyone can believe whatever he likes, but it is a criminal offense and breach of basic human rights to publicly judge entities based on beliefs!

Though requires a functioning brain to understand it and therefore nothing for extemely mentally ill bitcointalk accounts! Cheesy

That is categorically incorrect, and it's surprising you who claims to understand law would actually believe that.

It's not a "criminal offence" to judge someone on a set of beliefs. But then again, you think absolutely everything is a criminal offence. Being a critic to you is a criminal offence, so the bar is set rather low.

What actually could be a criminal offence (or at-least civil) is your defamation of users suggesting they are criminals w/o trial.

Give it enough time, and you might actually see a class-action defamation case targeted towards you on your hands.