Quote from: supranetico on September 13, 2014, 08:05:27 PM

for everyone asking for my real BCT. Here's something to chew upon: Do facts need a face to be true? If yes, then you are truly someone I tip my hat to.

Quote from: Este Nuno on September 13, 2014, 07:43:30 PM

I might as well cross post this here. It has to be pretty clear to anyone reading this thread what's going on here. Short on facts big on rambling on and large text. Seems like a real intelligent group of people this thread as attracted. Roll Eyes

Quote from: supranetico on September 13, 2014, 02:02:49 PM

...

You've done nothing but make ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims while linking to your post and spreadsheet. Here's a short list of the claims you've made with no evidence what so ever:

Quote from: supranetico on September 13, 2014, 05:37:50 AM

he has asked for 500 BTC for "2000 BTC worth" of his own assets.

Not true as shown above in an earlier post.

Quote from: supranetico on September 13, 2014, 05:37:50 AM

If you are willing to pay so that one can get rich by:
a. buying a shit load of coins, pumping them and then dumping it on you

Evidence? And as far as I know any coins held by superNET are to be held indefinitely. Certainly any sale of assets in the form of coins will go to a vote.

Quote from: supranetico on September 13, 2014, 05:37:50 AM

b. dumping an asset (or coin) held by someone

Again, evidence?

Quote from: supranetico on September 12, 2014, 08:33:47 PM

Now imagine an exchange where you can trade with a flat fee, there are no percentage based charges. And then think you own 30-40% of a coin. How difficult do you think it will be to pump that coin by circular trading? Not much?

Now you're accusing him of falsifying volume and inflating the price of his assets. Evidence?

Quote from: supranetico on September 12, 2014, 08:33:47 PM

This rather seems a ploy to garner enough interest in the assets, which for now is majority held by jl777, to actually for him to slowly dump them out.

...

Quote from: supranetico on September 13, 2014, 02:02:49 PM

Is it a publicly known fact that the assets which he is donating was held by him? Until then general public who vote in are aware of this fact,the voting is rigged.

So now the voting on BTER where people have openly purchased ~3k BTC of TOKEN is rigged?

Quote from: supranetico on September 13, 2014, 02:02:49 PM

And holding a majority of the asset without public disclosure is fine? Had it been coins, no one would touch it with a long pole but it is asset, so fuck it and take my money?

What are you talking about here? He's the one saying he owns the assets and he's often mentioned how much the total asset value of his shares of his assets are. Why don't you think it's a good thing for someone who's producing something that drives the price of an asset(technology, trading, providing a service, whatever) to own a large part of that asset? Isn't economic incentive a good thing?

All you've done is attacked James by accusing him of doing the things above but the only evidence you've presented thus far is your spreadsheet that outlines which parts of jl777 assets are owned by other jl777 assets.

Anyone who's read the superNET thread knows that James holds large portions of his assets and the all of his assets are cross owned in a multitude of ways. It says so right in the superNET OP. Where did he claim otherwise? And why is that necessarily a bad thing? He's the one developing the technologies or choosing what coins to invest capital in those assets, so owning the assets that he's attempting to increase the value of makes sense from an incentive standpoint.

Regarding the typos in the PDF, that document wasn't written by James. If you're trying to claim some intentional deception on the part of James you're going to have to try harder.

Now I am getting tired with your BS arguments. first you are a concerned "objective" observer now you are "SuperNet" defender. First of all, read the thread again you moron, it says things being said are conjecture based on facts. Thats how I interpret them, you are free to do one interpret them as you will. Still I get a moron like you who goes from calling someone a liar, then yourself as a do gooder "objective" observer to calling someone a liar again. Make up your damn mind. Whereas, you could have stated "I disagree and this my interpretation of events" and done with it, instead of calling liar (note, see how I did not respond to someone who said "I did not understand SuperNet" on the other thread...because that is fine by me. Everyone has their opinion and I don't need to go name calling because he disagrees with me.) The second post did try to reason with you but you came around again accusing me of lying. Hell, I have repeatedly said its your money, do what you want. I am not recommending another coin or stopping people from buying. See how the thread says "read before.....", not that "Supernet is a scam". These are facts and my conjecture, had I any mal intent the thread would have been "self moderated" ever thought of that? You are welcome to present facts or conjecture as you wish (and did towards the end of the post where you made own conjecture about people knowing of jl777's holding. Thats your belief and I can't be a moron like you and ask proof of that cause we both know that cant be proven).

In the end, you even outdid everyone with your moronic postings. So how do you expect me to get "evidence" of pumps you dumb idiot. I don't have access to his accounts -- again conjecture....if it was facts it would have been filed in facts section. So if you want to deny facts or present your understanding as you did in the last para, its fine by me.

Can you elaborate why you believe all of the above statements to be true in plain english without resorting to childish name calling?

If wanting to know the truth makes me a "do gooder" then so be it.

I said you weren't telling the truth in the post where you claimed that "he has asked for 500 BTC for "2000 BTC worth" of his own assets." when you know that isn't what is happening. Do you feel that your post that I called out as not truthful was a honest post that attempted to portray the situation accurately?