Re: ibminer’s factually false, defamatory, and reputationally scandalous statement
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.
OK. For the nth time:
Something that is technically correct
Well, I certainly think the term "e-whore" is broad enough to include scammers whose scam involves (the pretence of) providing sexual services, but I'm neither ordinary nor (according to some people) reasonable, so make of that what you will.
“Pretzel logic”, Exhibit A: “Because he was aware of the circumstance involving a camgirl, it’s a good chance he used the term ‘e-whore’ to refer to a male scammer.”
“e-whore” to refer to an identified male scammer
Considering that ibminer was well aware of the circumstances of alia's scam I would say that it's a good chance he mean exactly that.
Do you (stop pretending not to) get it yet? Or I need to add more highlighting, enlarged size, boldface, etc.?
I would personally go with "shilled for scammer"(no hard feelings @OP) but that's me 
No offense taken. I was fooled; it was cold comfort that “alia” fooled many others, and had even obtained an unprecedented theymos neutral-tag verifying the account as a camgirl. The level at which I had indeed publicized alia did, in my judgment, impose on me a positive duty to spare no effort in actively contributing to the investigation by the anonymous scam_detector, RGBKey (whose red-tag was the warning that jolted me into taking scam_detector seriously), ibminer (which is why I did respect him—and I appreciated what he did then), theymos himself, you, and too many others to succinctly list. I never argued with anybody who made fun of me about this, or said that I made an error in judgment—which I admittedly did, and for which I took responsibility as much as I reasonably could.
"She is underage e-whore". Whatever context might be here, this certainly sound like underage prostitute, not much people will go straight to dictionary to see what e-whore means (nor they will look for more context). I guess it is because focus is on that "underage" part.
Moved/amplified from edited addendum of previous post:
Maybe alia really did have a friend named Dave. That part could be true. In that case, the alia “Dave” scam would have been “technically correct”. It is still wrong—doubly wrong and doubly dishonest, in the context of alia’s claim to know a “Dave” who was “the best” at “wallet recovery services”. Context is important; and it is incredible that I need to explain this, let alone drill it in against arguments tantamount to “what the meaning of the word is is”.