Can someone first explain to the tourettes poet that those are analogies of how we are destroying his arguments and excuses , they are not really us saying we are going to beat xldiv to a pulp in real life.  Good though to see the tourettes has returned. We like prefer him that way. I mean without his "entertaining" tourettes poetry as he says ... there is nothing else really -- well perhaps there is.. auction scamming, supporting scammers on DT, trust abuse, highly probable extortion attempts and spamming his gambling sig.



Well, it looks like we are making some small progress. The analogies are helping you see how silly your claims are that we want to escape this debate. Anyway let us not go on about that, since it looks like you are willing to face our challenge now and have decided to man up.

So full marks for not running away YET. We have not really started though have we. Now let's try to stop hiding behind the little bear pics and get down to the core debate. You will note we are only going use the observable and undeniable instances that any member can verify for themselves.

So you are not and have not been a merit source. Fair enough. We cleared that up. Good to know.  Before we decide on whether you employ DOUBLE STANDARDS or just employ standards that are untrustworthy and net negative as far as protecting innocent members from those that are financially high risk, let's proceed a little further. It seems clear to us that you meet the criteria for both of those to be applicable but we may have somehow misjudged you and this will become apparent as we move along.



Lets clear up a few more things before we proceed so we can be sure that we are on the same page.

Remember you have come this far, don't run away now. Stay until we have finished the public debate.



1. Do you or have you in the last 3 months included on your trust list  lauda, tman or nutildah and do they include or have they included you in the last 3 months?  Please answer in full

2. Do you accept that the purpose of negative trust is to place a warning of " financially high risk" or  " scammer"  ( since those are the 2 messages you get at the top of your threads if you meet certain thresholds theymos has set here for negative trust (old system) or flags (new system)). This is the PRIME and central reason for the negative trust and flagging systems. These are clearly theymos's intentions since they are his own words on the warning banners?


3. Is someone that lies or intentionally  deceives others for their own direct financial gain ..  a scammer and financially high risk? yes or no?