Poor old perv nullius failing to pull together his biased sexually motivated brain farts into a cohesive and strong argument.
Pump the pillow harder nullius. No cyber sex from lauda tonight for you old man. Lol
What a thrilling line of productive and rational on-topic debate.If I were “hacker1001101001”, I would be shouting from the rooftops that this is a false-flag “defence” designed to destroy my reputation by making it look like my best friends and associates are disgusting cretins.
(Of course, if I were “hacker1001101001”, there would have been neither plagiarism nor ICO-bump spamming in this case; but I digress...)Nobody can control what others say about him online; and also, for my part, I don’t generally agree with or even like everybody who ever says anything favourable to me. Of course not. On the flipside, I surely do not speak for everybody of whom I may speak positively from time to time; indeed, I have on occasion said some good things about people who personally dislike me,
intensely dislike me, and assuredly are not my friends.
But this is beyond the pale—and it is indeed from “hacker’s” buddies.
“hacker1001101001” has this obscene lunatic troll-alt persistently defending him day in, day out with twisted personal attacks on other people. He has had TEC
hSHARE make
literal shitposts with photographs of feces to smear others on his behalf, to describe only the most memorable of all TEC
hSHARE’s posts—the epitome of classic “Techy”.
(We drink to forget...) And—it’s all fine with “hacker1001101001”.
“hacker1001101001” has willingly associated himself with these characters via TEC
hSHARE’s so-called “Objective Standards Guild”, more properly called the Poo-Flinging Anti-Standards Guild. He certainly has not complained about the behaviour of his “Guild” leader and companions.
A man is known by the company he keeps. It goes to character.
~
Ridiculous.
Your entire post deliberately diverts away from the central point I am making that you are seeking to avoid.
You do not want your begging for hacker0101000101s ban to be fairly considered and evaluated in the full context of " dangerous" and " scamming " behaviors that you support and excuse when it's your pals.
The inconvenient truth that you have demonstrated yourself to be a creepy old perv that ass kiss those you believe are female here is also relevant to my claim that your call for a ban is biased. I am hoping that this strange "I will protect scammers and support them on default trust but want people punished for showing empathy or ico bumping is just motivated by sexual urges and not because you are a scammer yourself.
That is not my central point though. It is a pertinent point that should be considered.
If there are those that are looking at this debate wondering why nullius does seem to be sheltering scammers and including them on default trust whilst begging for bans for lesser evils of members that have had recent disagreements with those same scammers nullius shelters?
Then your previous dealings with alia (assumed female scammer nullius was slobbering over) and lauda ( purported female and certain
scammer who nullius is slobbering over). It is important to note nullius came out of long period of inactivity and went straight after laudas the scammers prime critic on the bogus claim of him showing empathy? Red trust for empathy.Now going after hacker 01110111 after he recently fell out with your scammer pal lauda.
So in summary
1 nullius wants to employ clear double standards to justify a ban for hacker and pass it off as a total fair and consistent action on his part.
2 . Nullius wants to label " context" and his independent verifiable observable actions towards others as
Trolling and off topic because he knows once we take a deeper look at his actions they will be unfair and biased.
3. Nullius has started to realise you can not claim something is fair and consistent without context so changes his focus to a less central point which is his possible motivation for trying to push double standards.
4. I say to those reading and wondering why nullius is trying to label context as trolling and off topic. Or why nullius is including scammers, and willing scam facilitators for pay on default trust and concocting weak and silly excuses for their directly dangerous behaviors? It may not be that nullius is stupid ( I see that looks likely) or that he is motivated by financial reasons , it seems to me be a pattern of predatory sexual frustration. Motivation for trying to unfairly punish another member is important to note.
I don't want poor old incel nullius to be considered an actual financially dangerous scammer. More of a pitiful sexual frustrated ugly old man who knows Latin and neeeechy or smeeechy who every that is he keeps trying to impress people with. Just wants a bit of cyber sec ffs which we should not judge.
To put nullius own behavior in context. I think punishment for scammer protecting motivated by intense sexual frustration should not be a ban, but a post limit of 50 words and no double posting. A signature saying ugly old man posting, female members beware of me in English not latin.
Context is fundamental to this discussion. Stop trying to prevent it nullius. Perhaps we will put your past into the context? How do you like that?
I am the " friend" or pal of nobody and not hacker0101000101 at all. I don't even care about hacker0101000101 since I never seen him speak up for others being abused by these scammers.
Still. Fair is fair. I want to see transparent and consistent treatment of all members. Nothing more nothing less.
At least nullius is starting to accept context is unavoidable when discussing appropriate punishment.
Let's get to that part.
We can leave the possible or probable motivations of nullius for trying to avoid context ..once he stops trying to prevent context right?