where is introduction section ?

Why I am offended and offender post is not removed?

My defending answer to his post was removed, but his insults not.

WTF is this?

Why double standards?

Your behavior on this forum is unacceptable, especially in light of the findings by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to the SEC, you have illegally raised over one million dollars in proceeds through the unregistered offers and sales of securities to crypto asset investors.

This is a serious offense, and it's no wonder that you're facing opposition from the community. Your repeated attempts to deceive and manipulate others with baseless claims and fake evidence are not only dishonest, but they also undermine the integrity of this forum.

Until you can demonstrate a commitment to honesty and transparency, and take responsibility for your illegal activities, don't expect to be taken seriously. The community deserves better.

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5497317.msg64127027#msg64127027

Clearly Legendary user Stalker22 is insulting me. I only made reaction to his insulting, which was removed.

This is clearly unfair, his post should be removed and user should be blocked for one month time from posting.

And in any way you should blame me for my reaction where he was first to insult me. Remove the cause, not the effect.

We all already know that you're an idiot, no need to prove that more.

These are double standards here. I spit in your face and your value minimally rises. I won't answer to your bullshit anymore. You're 5yo-kid-minded, that's all we can expect from you.

Personally, I am probably not going to be any good on this one, since I read through your linked thread, and I likely do not understand the topic enough to see the extent to which you might be raising any valid issues, and surely, as Stalker22 pointed out, you can likely recognize that you had been using a bit of drama (or wanting to get some reaction) by both suggesting the "end of bitcoin," and also "let the shitstorm begin" which reasonably could cause others to question your genuineness and even post hostily towards your ideas. 

I might even post hostily towards your ideas if I were to understand the technical aspects well enough to get worked up about it... so sometimes a bit of personal insult might be justified if members consider other members to be trolling and/or not genuine.. which might be a kind of escalating that has been taking place between you and Stalker22 -including that sometimes forum admins will delete the posts of both members, but other times they might not delete both sides of an argument since all posts are not equal.. so if you consider that they are deleting merely on a one-sided basis, that usually would not be the case, and I would need to see more evidence of that kind of an assertion to just accept what you are saying.  Maybe you would need to show the post that was deleted to the extent that might help, or not?

I will say that I have had some posts deleted in the past, and sometimes I thought that the deletion of my post(s) was not fair, but sometimes I can see that there might not have had been very much helpful information in my post that had ended up getting deleted, and maybe sometimes the post ends up getting deleted because the back and forth had gotten into some kind of not very helpful territories.

I think overall forum admins attempt to error on the side of not deleting posts if there might be some actual value in some of the posts besides merely back and forth personal battles.... so maybe the post of yours that ended up getting deleted might NOT have had any substantive value contained therein, yet the post of Stalker22 had some substantive value. You did not say what the deleted post of yours stated..; so in some sense, not all posts are equal.. even if we might consider that Stalker22 might have had some overreactive aspects contained within one or more of his posts that did not end up getting deleted by admins (I doubt that mere insults would be enough to delete posts, but if the ONLY thing that you are doing is insulting, then that might be enough to get your post deleted).

Your specific recommendation of a kind of suspension of Stalker22 for one month seems a bit much, and I would likely need to see more information if there was evidence to support that, and of course, you could make that kind of a report and recommendation to admin or even create a thread on the topic if you believe you have enough evidence to support your claim.... even though surely I don't necessarily want to get involved, since I already claimed to not really know what is the issue, and I am not even much clearer about the situation based on your so far providing of evidence.


Yeah.. threats would be against the rules, even though sometimes the content or the context of the alleged threat is not clear enough in the above example to be read as a threat... but sometimes admins could have a different interpretations of the same words.  I recall one time reporting a member's post that I had perceived to be a threat, but the admin did not perceive that post to be a threat, and so after a few weeks or even a few months, there was not even any repeated interactions in that same direction between myself and that other member, so even my perception of what that other member had said earlier was no longer even in my head as a threat.. .. even though I still believe that there was a bit of a threatening element within the post that had gone overboard.. and so sometimes there can be differing interpretations of something like a threat..

Maybe part of the problem is that you are not even attempting to engage with me and/or other forum members who are potentially critical of the ideas of your posts?  

I gave my off-the-cuff opinion based on whatever information that I had, and even though I looked at the thread that you linked, I did not claim to understand that thread, especially the technical angle.. but I do see that you seem to have some difficulties conceptually separating substance from your desires to get emotional regarding things that you say and the tone that members might come back at you with their posts.  

In participating in a forum like this, there is some value in having a bit of a thick skin, and there is a difference between personal attacks without substance and personal attacks that might be weaved with substance that may well be attacking you for your ideas or your presentation of those ideas rather than attacking you as a person.

Your seeming to conclude that I am attacking you seems quite premature, since I can hardly even recall if I had read very many of your posts historically or interacted with you previously.. and your proclamation that you know the criteria of legendary members also seems quite misplaced, since many of us longer term members are no different than other members, and we likely have our flaws and our strengths, and many of us can gain rank merely by participating over a long period of time, and perhaps contributing here and there along the way, and so sometimes we might receive merits from other members, and some of us might have already been legendary members prior to the implementation of the merit-system in early 2018.

So there is likely a lot of variance in terms of how much any legendary member might participate in forum threads or if any legendary member has any obligation to be nice to you or to any other forum member in terms of responding to posts, to the extent that you personally might have anything valuable to contribute... perhaps you do? and perhaps not?  You seem to believe that your posts are valuable in some kind of way, but your posts may well not be as valuable as you are speculating them to be, especially from the point of view of some other forum members, whether those forum members are "high ranking" or not.

Poor lil ting-a-lee.  I doubt that what I am saying is overly complicated or in need of any further summary and/or shortening.

You say that you cannot understand if there happens to be more than just a few sentences.  Maybe that is part of the difficulty that we are having here? 

It seems to me that if you are proclaiming disparate treatment, then you should be able to deal with ideas that are written, especially if you are proclaiming that you are being treated unfairly and in a supposed double standard way. 

Surely, your failure/refusal to interact on the topic that you presented (except on your own terms) does not help your case.  Maybe there is another member who is going to have more sympathy for you in this matter?

It is absolutely not necessary for me to change any of my earlier responsive posts in any way. 

You are being disingenuine when you are giving me an assignment to do more work for you to be able to potentially understand what I already wrote - which is not ONLY understandable, it is exactly how I chose to say it, which is with as many words as I had elected to use in order to say what I had intended to say. 

If you have any specific question or concern in regards to any part of my earlier posts, then please point out some kind of specific point that you have rather than generally stating that you either did not read it or you did not understand it, since that makes little to no sense and shows you as a bit of a dummy or a twat.. or maybe both.

How does it make any sense at all when I had made at least a few posts already in which you failed/refused to engage in any kind of substantive way besides saying that you did not understand or that you did not read, so why should I do even more work when you are not even making an appearance to be trying.

I don't claim to know all things, but I know that when I type posts, I am intending to say something within those posts, so if you totally ignore my posts and ask me to write one or more of them again, then that hardly makes any sense for you to be dictating those kinds of princess wannabe expectations onto other members, whether me or anyone else.