“bonesjonesreturns” shows what “objective standards” mean in Bitch Latin/English
objective standards
Is this the Objective Standards Guild definition of objective standards?
I am open to debate on this matter.
All off topic irrelevant posts will be removed.
All off topic irrelevant posts will be removed.
Nobody has dared try to refute the evidence as yet.
I have refuted all your so-called evidence, as to which you merely dropped links without explanation. I also pointed out your obvious motives. Dare to debate?
Well, that took all of 9 minutes and 37 seconds:
Deleted Post
« Sent to: nullius on: Today at 01:31:37 AM »
Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
I do not usually follow Reputation. But as I was preparing to make this thread, I noticed this:
Subject: Nullius the scammer supporter and dumb fuck wishes to excuse scamming come here.
Post your lauda defense here scammer supporter not on my nutildah thread.
That was said of a post, fully quoted below, which refuted the false accusations against nutildah, before refuting the false accusations against Lauda. Discussion of Lauda was certainly on-topic, for OP had slung even more mud against Lauda than against nutildah.
Subject: DT manipulation & economic warfare targeted against nutildah, Lauda, HHampuz, FJ
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5232406.msg54171749#msg54171749
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5417/54171749.html
Disclosures about my relation (or lack theref) to persons or entities named in OP; I will make these disclosures upfront, because these flamewars typically devolve into such questions:
[...]
[...]
In re nutildah
The linked topic is a 2019 accusation that nutildah put his forum account up for sale in 2016, and then withdrew it from the market. No account sale ever actually occurred.
Although that episode may make me question nutildahs judgment, it occurred almost four years ago; and to my knowledge, no similar behaviour has ever been repeated.
Edited topic title: Not for sale - decided to keep it a long time ago, you fucks.
They don't call him nutildah for nuttin'
Maybe he didn't do any buying or selling or trading with this account so it doesn't matter so much.
You're right, I didn't, and for everybody's future reference the account is no longer for sale. I've decided to keep it.
Although I myself am strongly opposed to account sales of almost any kind, it is absurd to spin this into evidence of nutildah being a willing scam facilitator for pay (!). What scam was facilitated? None. What was paid? Nothing.
OP is lying.
In re Lauda
[...substantial refutation...]
[...]
- As for the primary target of this thread: I amnot exactly friends with nutildah, to put the matter as delicately as I can without being impolite. I trust-exclude nutildah for reasons completely unrelated to the absurd accusations in OP; ~nutildah was a difficult decision for me to reach, because nutildah has many good tags. I think that nutildah sometimes makes some good posts; but I have in my pipeline (to be posted later) a reply to yet another misguided nutildah flame at me, so... I am anything but biased in favour of nutildah.
[...]
In re nutildah
Nutildah the member who has defined himself by both his words and actions to be a willing scam facilitator for pay, he has also started using red tags to deter people from warning others how untrustworthy and dangerous he is.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0
The linked topic is a 2019 accusation that nutildah put his forum account up for sale in 2016, and then withdrew it from the market. No account sale ever actually occurred.
Although that episode may make me question nutildahs judgment, it occurred almost four years ago; and to my knowledge, no similar behaviour has ever been repeated.
Edited topic title: Not for sale - decided to keep it a long time ago, you fucks.
But it would be worth even less once someone tags the account as being sold.
You should of sold using a dummy account first to avoid this from happening.
You should of sold using a dummy account first to avoid this from happening.
They don't call him nutildah for nuttin'
Maybe he didn't do any buying or selling or trading with this account so it doesn't matter so much.
You're right, I didn't, and for everybody's future reference the account is no longer for sale. I've decided to keep it.
Although I myself am strongly opposed to account sales of almost any kind, it is absurd to spin this into evidence of nutildah being a willing scam facilitator for pay (!). What scam was facilitated? None. What was paid? Nothing.
OP is lying.
In re Lauda
Lauda a proven scammer and extortionist
[...substantial refutation...]
LOL. Of course, he also does not know the meaning of either of the respective words objective and standards.
P.S., the Guilds motto is still bitch Latin.