So far we have
Theymos = it is wrong
Theymos = it is wrong
More like
"Theymos = it is impolite"
But I'm sure your myopic mind is only capable of seeing it the way you'd prefer everyone else interpret it, so I guess your mischaracterisation is to be expected.
vague irrelvant conjecture
Couldn't have been that vague if you picked up on the fact that I was referring to you.
Just grow up already. Try to accept that you have a very unique take on things. Very few people share your views and your methodology in attempting to convince them otherwise is clearly not working. Your constant sniping in new and novel guises does nothing to endear you to the people you seem to be attempting to win over. Forget everything you thought you knew about interaction with other humans and start again. You'll find it's easier to persuade people when they aren't repulsed by your behaviour.
rude = good?
rude = wrong?
rude is just theymos not wanting to put down some sensible objective definable rules we can work from. Ever the anarchist and perhaps even the king of the trolls. Bags of popcorn ready with every new merit monstrosity. Can't wait for the DT1 threshold to be moved up to 500 or 1000 cycled merits. Obviously not enough popcorn stocked yet for that faux decentralized bombshell. Or even a lauda inclusion for extra entertainment. Maybe at the same time with a merit volume switch on meta and rep too. Maybe only scammers can be on default trust? that way they know what to look out for?
I have personally grown impatient with this compounded mess of merit and "trust" but to remove laudas exclusion was simply grotesque. In light of his proven scamming and trust abuse of senior honest and faithful contributors to this forum.
Rude ? more like a complete betrayal of trust in vast majority of cases. If you wanted to say something to another member you can post in on the forum
The truth is the truth. If that is a unique view then that reflects poorly on this forum.
Of course you can present examples of my " views" that you feel are incorrect and we can debate them.
Let's await laudas explanation of this required 180 on " leaking" Private messages.
It was not vague with respect as to who it was you were referring. The others are you friends so you would not be critical of them. The vagueness was in defining the off topic irrelevant bitching parts of the highly relevant and valuable context others were prsentinf that were strictly on topic.
Anyway, has anyone seen lauda? his explanation is taking nearly as long as the one explaining his scamming and trust abuse. Almost like he is afraid to present it because it will immediately be debunked as a pack of feeble excuses to push double standards on other members when they stand up to his untrustworthy corrupt antics.
Your suggestion that incontrovertible proof, the plain truth, and other arguments no member has been able to debunk are simply unique opinions is quite telling.
There is no winning over people to abandon their unfair advantage over others. There is only providing warnings to others outside of the corrupted and broken systems of control.
There is also the satisfaction of watching them run away and hide like roaches when the spot light is focused on them. If you can not debunk a persons arguments or demonstrate any of their core points is incorrect then to run for the cowardly ignore button is all they have.
Doomad you are Doomed if you continue to openly support scammers, their double standards and abuse of the trust system. These posts will be read by millions of people as the history of bitcoin is examined by future generations.
I'm sticking with
Only lauda of the admins or prior admins claiming (now it suits him) that it is fine.
If theymos wants to come and say rude = fine. then he can. Until then I will take rude as wrong