Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 300 results by I.Goldstein
I'm a victim. I'm still waiting for that BTC you owe me for that "Whoever posts last" thread where you kept changing the rules in retrospect so you wouldn't have to pay out.
Semantic loopholes are disingenuous. You're no victim. You're just a conniving fraud. No victims.
Show me one victim of my purported crimes.
Asking me for 'proof of victims' without commenting about your denial also adds weight to the proof that you are in total denial. Think about it
Nobody won that thread. So moot point.
Nobody has committed to working with me on one of my projects.
No victims.
You two are just making it worse for the both of you. Have you considered calling each other to resolve this?
Matthew, what you're doing in this thread is a low blow. You are already aware of my opinion about it.
Atlas, Matthew seems like a nice person, and since he's giving his time away to you so freely, you should consider taking advantage of his free counseling when he calls you. Otherwise, try finding someone in real life to help you out. You need to get out of this state of denial.
This post does not represent the opinion of the moderation staff of Bitcointalk.org.
Matthew, what you're doing in this thread is a low blow. You are already aware of my opinion about it.
Atlas, Matthew seems like a nice person, and since he's giving his time away to you so freely, you should consider taking advantage of his free counseling when he calls you. Otherwise, try finding someone in real life to help you out. You need to get out of this state of denial.
This post does not represent the opinion of the moderation staff of Bitcointalk.org.
Maged, you're wrong.
Denial Detected
You two are just making it worse for the both of you. Have you considered calling each other to resolve this?
Matthew, what you're doing in this thread is a low blow. You are already aware of my opinion about it.
Atlas, Matthew seems like a nice person, and since he's giving his time away to you so freely, you should consider taking advantage of his free counseling when he calls you. Otherwise, try finding someone in real life to help you out. You need to get out of this state of denial.
This post does not represent the opinion of the moderation staff of Bitcointalk.org.
Matthew, what you're doing in this thread is a low blow. You are already aware of my opinion about it.
Atlas, Matthew seems like a nice person, and since he's giving his time away to you so freely, you should consider taking advantage of his free counseling when he calls you. Otherwise, try finding someone in real life to help you out. You need to get out of this state of denial.
This post does not represent the opinion of the moderation staff of Bitcointalk.org.
Maged, you're wrong.
Matthew, I'll give you one final chance before you embarrass yourself.
I haven't aggressed against nor defrauded a single individual. You have nothing on me. I am absolutely spotless. However, what you are doing here can only tarnish your record.
Feel free to reconsider your decisions and plans at any time. You can't hurt me but you can certainly hurt yourself.
I haven't aggressed against nor defrauded a single individual. You have nothing on me. I am absolutely spotless. However, what you are doing here can only tarnish your record.
Feel free to reconsider your decisions and plans at any time. You can't hurt me but you can certainly hurt yourself.
If anything, Matthew, you are on your way to being sued for defamation. I've never threatened suicide on here.
However, I was suicidal at some points in my life. I won't deny that but to classify that as threats is slander. I have every damn right to express my feelings as they are.
However, I was suicidal at some points in my life. I won't deny that but to classify that as threats is slander. I have every damn right to express my feelings as they are.
I thought it was entertaining, until it got sad and pathetic.
Everything you said on something awful and your thoroughly backed up forum history is being fine tooth combed. Try to resist saying anything else until we're done as it's time consuming to track every illegal and questionable action with such a small amount of volunteers.This is just getting creepy. Heh.
You may want to call them now, Matthew. It's getting a bit late.
No rush. Plenty of illegal activity to collect evidence of before bothering. Stop sweating and keep blabbing.
Dude, grow up. This is getting pathetic, and you are getting down to his level, if not way lower.
Heh. We're all friends here even though some may disagree.
Yeah, I publicly admit that people LOSE MONEY ON PONZI. They can also win.
This full disclosure makes ponzi NOT A SCAM.
This full disclosure makes ponzi NOT A SCAM.
If things were as easy as that, then why are numbers rackets illegal?
Anyways, in general, it's for the same reasons that harmless drugs and victimless crimes are made illegal.
So do you pay income tax on your ponzi winnings?
I'll tell you when you scan and upload a copy of your tax filings.
Yeah, I publicly admit that people LOSE MONEY ON PONZI. They can also win.
This full disclosure makes ponzi NOT A SCAM.
This full disclosure makes ponzi NOT A SCAM.
If things were as easy as that, then why are numbers rackets illegal?
Anyways, in general, it's for the same reasons that harmless drugs and victimless crimes are made illegal. The state has never made law on what's right. They make law to sustain and grow themselves along with their true constituents.
The aforementioned poll has no relevance. It's based on intangible traits. All I am referring to is numbers, shapes and sounds. How we perceive these visual things has a lot to do with genetics.
Numbers are visual. They are processed a lot like shapes.
Numbers are visual. They are processed a lot like shapes.
The realm of human logic is far, far away from the realm of human basic impulse processing and classification.
Example of human reasoning: "I'm unique, there are not a lot of people like me. So if I pick 21-35%, there will probably not be a majority of people voting this."
People reasoning like this is not unthinkable.
According to you, because humans have consistent behaviour, there would always be one clear winner in elections.
What if the 60% of the people thought 21-35 was correct, and the rest thought 51-99 was correct?
This would be peculiar and possibly a coincidence. If people always chose 21-35, it would have to be correlated with a common behavior which I doubt exists. It's very unlikely this will happen and be a consistent result over various sample trials.People reasoning like this is not unthinkable.
According to you, because humans have consistent behaviour, there would always be one clear winner in elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_presidential_candidates
Presidents are usually the tallest of society during their respective period. If you look at top candidates in recent elections, most of them stand over 6 ft.
You give no reasoning why it is rational to choose the majority. Actually, you're trying to prove that that is the rational thing, which makes this whole thing a circular reasoning.
It's the rational or rather the determined response because it requires a majority to fulfill. Thus it makes it the most likely one to be correct. If you're wrong, the poll will be a mess in the end thus showing there is no consistent human behaviour in this test.
If your axioma is: "Humans have consistent behaviour." Then that would be an okay reasoning. Also, your axioma would be horribly wrong.It's the rational or rather the determined response because it requires a majority to fulfill. Thus it makes it the most likely one to be correct. If you're wrong, the poll will be a mess in the end thus showing there is no consistent human behaviour in this test.
Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect
If the poll is going to have any stablility in the end, the majority will have to go with the 51%-99% answer. This is true objectivity.
Why? What makes you say that is stable? What if the 60% of the people thought 21-35 was correct, and the rest thought 51-99 was correct? There's nothing unstable about that, it would result in a poll with 60% of the votes on 21-35, and 40% of the votes on 51-99. That is not unstable! Sure, there's no right answer, but no one said there was.I am not saying that couldn't happen in one poll but if it happened once it would be very little. It would have to be repeatable to have any meaning in a scientific sense.