The term “underage scammer” is ridiculous, unless we presume that there is a proper legal age for legitimate scams. Do we start to “card” for it or do otherwise age verification, to make sure that scammers are not underage?
Beautiful strawman. Now show me where I made the "underage scammer" statement that you're so eagerly debunking.
So, ibminer falsely associated me with an “underage e-whore”, and
I am the one smearing
him by calling him out for it?
That is much worse than “pretzel logic”.
(Hostile and defamatory public statements should be dealt with in public. But nice try saying that I should have hushed this up in PM—so that if the issue were not resolved by a “
polite PM” about ibminer’s rude remark, you could accuse me of being untrustworthy if I reasonably needed to publish the PMs to protect my reputation. Not playing your game.)
No one needs to publish any fucking PMs.
1) You PM ibminer (like a normal person, not with a wall of text, not accusing him of any tangential crimes). He says ok, fair enough, and edits the post.
or
2) You PM ibminer (like a normal person, not with a wall of text, not accusing him of any tangential crimes). He says fuck off. You move on or you start a thread whining about it, whatever.
Which part of the above necessitates publishing PMs?
Well, something is not clear here, alia said favours is her 15 years old brother. Who was really behind that account, alia "the cam girl", alia "the 15 years old scammer", alia "the underage brother of cam girl", maybe scammer payed cam girl, maybe he lied about age, maybe cam girl lied. What do we really know except that alia is scammer? Nothing. I would personally go with "shilled for scammer"(no hard feelings @OP) but that's me

I would personally go with not making a mountain out of a molehill but if the OP insists I call dibs on the bulldozer.