That's hardly a point when all we have are our opinions. Who's to say that an account posting links to a malware-laced wallet client for their shitcoin is a scammer? Isn't that just an opinion as well? In a non-scientific based nor rigorously tested environment like this one, what differentiates a fact from an opinion other than opinions?
Now, this is a legit argument.
I thank you for this nutildah.
This is how people decide things and not by twisting words and changing narratives.
Outcomes differentiate a fact from an opinion.
How can you tell the wallet is malware-laced? If you ran it through virustotal.com, it's no longer an opinion.
It's a fact.
Well, my faux argument wasn't whether the wallet contained malware or not, it was whether that fact rendered the poster of the link a scammer. Do we have to wait until the account was proven to have profited from introducing malware onto the computers of others before we can justly tag them as a scammer? Because I'll tell you right now: theymos bans them right away.
Regardless, I do appreciate your appreciation.
I'm pursuing the interest of the community as a whole.
JollyGood is also pursuing that interest.
If I was tagged, how can possibly someone with no proof behind him to prove his credibility defend against this allegations?
By stating a rational argument I suppose, similar to your own.