Re: Moderator deletion of serious discussion in the Wall Observer
Just my 2 sats. 
Doge sats, obviously. You are not a very good cat; and your ignorance about Bitcoin is astonishing:
in opposite your spam walls (whereof 2/3 aren’t even mentioning Bitcoin in a single word; I could argue about the fluffypony post)
- Newbie protip #0: fluffypony is (or at some point was?) a self-described Bitcoin maximalist. He oftentimes comments on Bitcoin, especially on Bitcoin privacy and fungibility issues. The fluffy tweet that I posted was specifically and only about Bitcoin—which you would know, if you had actually read it.
- Reading comprehension protip #0: You should read a post before commenting on it! That was not “a fluffypony post” (!). It cited Riccardo Spagni as a source, because he had been cited by the Russian-language article which gave me a heads-up on an existential threat to Bitcoin, its privacy, and its fungibility. (And that in turn came from the Russian analysis thread, which has much more serious discussion than WO or almost anywhere else in the English-language forum.)
- Reading comprehension
protipquestion #1: Who taught you to read, so that you could write with neither reading nor thinking?Quote from: Nietzsche, Also sprach ZarathustraDass Jedermann lesen lernen darf, verdirbt auf die Dauer nicht allein das Schreiben, sondern auch das Denken. - Newbie protip #1: Read the rules. WTF is it with n00bs who do not read the rules?Quote from: The “Report to moderator” page for any Wall Observer postSpecial Wall Observer rules: bitcointalk.org moderators do not moderate the Wall Observer thread for multi-posting (except obvious spam), trolling, or on-topicness. Do not use this form to report those violations; instead, contact the thread owner. Reports of other rule violations are OK here.
- Newbie protip #2: Lurk more. (← nullius doesn’t do moar cuter spellings.) You don’t know what the WO thread is about.
Original topic title: Should Bitcoin Wall Observer thread be deleted? (original OP)
extremely toxic community
Cf.:I’m awaiting positivity
So, instead of building what you want, you want to turn the existing thread into something that it is not, and never has been. Instead of advocating that others should file bad-faith reports against the rule stated on the reporting page, why don’t you go make a tempest in a teacup.
<snip nonsense and insults beneath reply>
Your opinions are duly noted, and filed in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️
I was amidst much extending this post, when others popped up. inb4 CT re SwayStar, etc. I may edit this space.