Re: Appeal of Ban Appeal: “hacker1001101001” spammer-sockpuppet menagerie
“bonesjones”, are you seriously quoting the Bible on me? 
I must observe the incongruity of your quoting that particular passage, whereas you are dishonestly attempting to fabricate motes in others’ eyes so as to deflect from the beam in the code-illiterate “hacker’s” eye. This applies to you:
Also, these were written for such smear-mongering liars as you:
But never mind, for I don’t believe in the Bible. It has no authority over me. Go to Hell with your preaching.
In principle, I should neither confirm nor deny such speculation, gossip, and rumour-mongering about my private interactions with other people. It is none of your business.
Whereas the types of rumours that you are attempting to incite are injurious to a woman as they are not to a man. Thus purely for Lauda’s sake, I will point out that as usual, you cite as your “evidence” a thread which says exactly the opposite of what you claim:
As to myself, I get it: You are a prude who is determined to police some twisted version of my private life that exists only in your fevered imagination.
To help you out, I admit: In reality, I am like a cross between Byron and Casanova. I have spent more time studying and practicing kāmaśāstra than science and technology! Now, why don’t you quote that, PM theymos, and ask him to ban me because I like sex, and I am not ashamed of it.
Have fun with that: Harassing me over my private sex life, on a forum whose administrator is a libertarian who runs a Bitcoin virtual sex community (NSFW, 18+). Please be sure to quote Matthew 5:28 at him; surely, theymos will be impressed with his moral duty to ban me with fire and brimstone.
Say what!? According to whom? Did alia tell you this?
This is wildly off-topic, and I will not permit you to derail a thread about “hacker1001101001” into yet another alia scandal thread. But I need to make it clear in no uncertain terms that you are lying about me.
Also, “lost interest” is an interesting way to describe “was exposed as a scammer, temp-banned for doxing and extorting another user (not me), and then permabanned for ban evasion”. And I am quite sure that she had already lost her chances with me by the time I publicly caught her lying straight to my face. In whose delusion did she dump me?
Not for you to say. /you.
Ceterum censeo...
Repeated attempts at derailing this thread having been so disposed, I remind the administration and global mods that:
Granting lenience to such a character makes a farce of the forum rules; and it is manifestly unfair to all the garden-variety idiots who have been banned for copy-paste plagiarism, but were not involved in organized spam operations. The solution on both counts is properly to ban the spammer-plagiarist for both plagiarism and spam.
When any member calls for anothers punishment they may want to consider the passage
Matthew 7:5
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye"
Matthew 7:5
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye"
I must observe the incongruity of your quoting that particular passage, whereas you are dishonestly attempting to fabricate motes in others’ eyes so as to deflect from the beam in the code-illiterate “hacker’s” eye. This applies to you:
Quote from: Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Also, these were written for such smear-mongering liars as you:
Quote from: Proverbs 6:16, 19
These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: [...]
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Quote from: Exodus 23:1
Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
Quote from: Proverbs 10:18
He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.
But never mind, for I don’t believe in the Bible. It has no authority over me. Go to Hell with your preaching.
Lauda sitting their flirting with him in private is gross.
In principle, I should neither confirm nor deny such speculation, gossip, and rumour-mongering about my private interactions with other people. It is none of your business.
Whereas the types of rumours that you are attempting to incite are injurious to a woman as they are not to a man. Thus purely for Lauda’s sake, I will point out that as usual, you cite as your “evidence” a thread which says exactly the opposite of what you claim:
3. Many have noted the obsession nullius has with lauda.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225450.msg53957372#msg53957372
Quote of the referenced post:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225450.msg53957372#msg53957372
It [Lauda’s ambiguous identity] is opsec by someone who is totally uninterested in the types of online relationships for which that question would be relevant. (My own relationship with Lauda is strictly one of arts and letters and Bitcoin maximalism, some mild flirtation notwithstanding.)
As to myself, I get it: You are a prude who is determined to police some twisted version of my private life that exists only in your fevered imagination.
These discussions provide the opportunity for a
didactic exposé of fine art:
didactic exposé of fine art:
To help you out, I admit: In reality, I am like a cross between Byron and Casanova. I have spent more time studying and practicing kāmaśāstra than science and technology! Now, why don’t you quote that, PM theymos, and ask him to ban me because I like sex, and I am not ashamed of it.
Have fun with that: Harassing me over my private sex life, on a forum whose administrator is a libertarian who runs a Bitcoin virtual sex community (NSFW, 18+). Please be sure to quote Matthew 5:28 at him; surely, theymos will be impressed with his moral duty to ban me with fire and brimstone.
We will return to an historical discussion of
Praxiteles’ sexual relationship with Phryne
after taking a moment to appreciate this view of
an anonymous work from classical antiquity,
before Christianity made people ashamed
of the bodies with which they were born into this world:
Praxiteles’ sexual relationship with Phryne
after taking a moment to appreciate this view of
an anonymous work from classical antiquity,
before Christianity made people ashamed
of the bodies with which they were born into this world:
Alia totally lost interest when she realized you were a broke down bum. She asks for 1.2btc you only had 0.01btc
Say what!? According to whom? Did alia tell you this?
This is wildly off-topic, and I will not permit you to derail a thread about “hacker1001101001” into yet another alia scandal thread. But I need to make it clear in no uncertain terms that you are lying about me.
Also, “lost interest” is an interesting way to describe “was exposed as a scammer, temp-banned for doxing and extorting another user (not me), and then permabanned for ban evasion”. And I am quite sure that she had already lost her chances with me by the time I publicly caught her lying straight to my face. In whose delusion did she dump me?
/ thread.
Not for you to say. /you.
Ceterum censeo...
Repeated attempts at derailing this thread having been so disposed, I remind the administration and global mods that:
- In May of 2019, “hacker1001101001” was granted lenience for plagiarism. His ban was reduced to a 60-day temp-ban and two-year sig ban, presumably on grounds of his being allegedly an otherwise good contributor to the community.
- Since then, “hacker” has substantively admitted to being in the spam business. There is evidence of him having been actively involved with paid forum spam as recently as November of 2019. This is his actual big contribution to the community.
Granting lenience to such a character makes a farce of the forum rules; and it is manifestly unfair to all the garden-variety idiots who have been banned for copy-paste plagiarism, but were not involved in organized spam operations. The solution on both counts is properly to ban the spammer-plagiarist for both plagiarism and spam.