Quote from: TwitchySeal on December 12, 2019, 08:18:51 AM

I did not do that.

It's pretty ironic how you've been defending Og and claiming all of my assumptions are baseless and none of my conclusions are supported by fact (plus all the personal attacks), despite the fact you haven't bothered to look into it. Textbook psychological projection.

But you did in fact do that.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on December 12, 2019, 01:11:33 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 11, 2019, 10:00:02 PM

I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway.

I thought that was the case.
I think it's kind of lame and that you say stuff like this without even looking into it:

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 10, 2019, 07:13:51 PM

None of your conclusions are supported by the evidence and are 100% speculation.

I appreciate you admitting that you didn't bother looking into it though.

I put the quote you selectively edited in bold and underlined the parts where you took what I said out of context and pretended as if it were a direct statement from me as a matter of fact.

What I actually said:

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 11, 2019, 10:00:02 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on December 11, 2019, 04:02:29 PM

~

TL;DR

[I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway. Victims might not have known they were robbed. Who needs victims anyway? We can still use this as an opportunity to allow certain people here to pursue personal vendettas. After all what is important is that we pass judgement on people even if there is no harmed party seeking redress.]

You will notice you removed the context of not only the "TL;DR" indicating it was a summary of another user's post, but you also took the time to remove the brackets which are another indication of such so that you could reply to the comments as if it fit the narrative you are trying to manufacture. You did in fact edit my quote and take it out of context. You can repeat that I have not looked into it ad nauseam, but that doesn't make it a fact. You know what is textbook psychological projection? Exactly what you just did editing my quotes and purposely manufacturing new context to push your preferred narrative.

Just because you have some facts doesn't mean they support your every conclusion. You have established a relationship. You haven't established intent, harmed parties, or even missing funds. Your conclusions rely on speculation, assumption, and suspicion, not facts. You have come to a conclusion first then are attempting to arrange the facts around that conclusion. That is called confirmation bias, and it is a logical fallacy.

Quote from: sbogovac on December 12, 2019, 08:43:33 AM

You're comparing apple's and oranges, I only referred to the two threads who are basically the same petty $%^*(&&...

The one has done a lot of "policing" on this forum (stepping on a lot of toes while doing so) and the other one has mainly used this forum for his own financial gain (making a lot of people look green with envy). Not supporting either one, nor condemning either one (although; yes, the one might have been a bit more tactfull and the other might have used a bit better judgment in appraising opportunities).

But you must admit that both threads turned out to be nothing more than "petty interpersonal battles" (as you say), by both... Lips sealed

PS and doing more harm to this forum and community than contributing...

You are the one comparing apples and oranges. I didn't make a comparison, I pointed out your comparison is a false equivalence because their behavior is no where near comparable. Petty bickering is one thing, perpetual organized attacks on targeted users abusing the forums trust systems and using the force of the state as a weapon is not comparable. One is distinctly more dangerous to this community than the other.