Comments by Dougster (page 4)

@flagooner: Well there were warnings signs about @25 early on that I didn't pay enough attention to. The big differences between what he was telling about his crypto trades just before or after he made them and what he would later tell the board later on. What he told the board later on was always more favorable. It was all very suspicious. Made me not trust him complete, but was not enough to "prove it in a court of law". He did scramble for some explanations when I pressed him on it. Inconsistent explanations with what he told the board he was doing. Again, it did set off the alarm bells, but I decided to just keep it to myself.

Ah, @realDougster only get replies from his other alias txtittyfag(dot) on his own threads. So he had to visit this one.

Oh, sorry, forgot to make the pretentious sound like you: Have you ever read Aristotle and does the phrase "logically inconsistent" strike a chord with you?

@25: "I don't care to weigh in anymore but I am going to weight in some more". Does the phrase "logically inconsistent" strike a cord with you?

Founder knows my wishes. And I believe that if enough people asked for @vincemichaels account to be deleted it would be. Founder has deleted other accounts in the past, but apparently "self-admitted pedophile" is not meeting whatever his criteria is. Only got about 30 hours to ask him though... There is still time!

@orionsmith: Your logic makes absolutely no sense to me. You are equating *convicted, publically known* pedophiles in one context to non-convicted, not well known pedophiles in an other. I said I would be perfectly happy to drop the subject if founder were to add a link "self admitted pedophiles on this board" with a link to @vincemichaels profile. By logic if people want to complain about spammers here they better shut up, unless they are going on a full time crusade against spammers/telemarketers in real life. "You can't complain about spammers here unless you made every effort to put those telemarketers out of business". Nice try. Thanks for playing @orionsmith.

orionsmith: "because a possible sex offender" @orion just as as spineless as @25. @vincemichaels is a self-admitted pedophile.

orionmsmith: " I don't know what they are thinking if they think some rich guy wants to pay them to just hang out with them in public or something." There absolutely are guys rich enough and weird enough that they would pay just to hang out with hot girls. How many is another question. Hopefully it's not many, but they definitely exist. Interestingly girls tend to think of them as "cool" if there real is no hidden sex agenda. If they just say they don't want sex when they do, then they are viewed as losers.

^^^ I like the way you think!

I can't think of a good reason not to at least try it as opposed to strippers. Maybe I could "mentor" some Ivy league girls in the arts of trolling strip club message boards and in crypto-currency analysis.

Was SA the one that got its database hacked?

Yeah, he put thought into yours. Guess he likes you more, even though, being over 18 you are probably too old for him.

Lol! And yes he PMs me every day or two. Generally it's just one sentence. Either "Eat shit!" or "Bye, fag!"

@25: Oh, I'm obsessed? What percentage of your posts in the last half week have been about me? 80%? Ok, but I'm the obsessed one. Got it!

Well why don't you just thank about that rather than spend all the mental cycles you do on ways to defend the self-admitted pedophile @vincemichaels.

Being gay is fine. Defending a self-admitted pedophile, as you do, @25 is not.

Of course it is.

If I was truly a sexual deviant you would be defending me at @25. This is what your track record on TUSCL shows you do when it comes down to a real crunch on a moral issue. Your children would be ashamed if they knew. Same with your ex-wives who are better than you.

Oh finally regarding @txtittyfag. I think @txtittyfag was easily the number one poster on TUSCL in 2017 because of his relentless campaign against a self-admitted pedophile: @vincemichaels. @txtittyfag saw things clearly from the start. Me I was the one with some doubts until close to the end: his statement that "a woman is a woman regardless of her age". Looking back it's embarrasing? Why, when he cried about teenage swimsuit contests going away did I think "well, maybe, that isn't complete proof". Why when he talked about wanting to fuck Sly Stallone's 14 y/o daughter, did I think "well maybe he meant the older ones" even though he refused to deny he was including the 14 y/o. As I said in previous posts. There were periods of time when @txtittyfag was the only one posting reminders of what a POS @vincemichaels is. It @txtittyfag who finally got @vincemichaels to crack and say "a woman is a woman regardless of her age", which was the clincher. He gets 85% of the credit for taking this predator down on TUSCL. Suggesting that I am him is a great complement, but not true. He'll always be a friend though for his unwavering stand on that issue.

This thread is so funny because it's a perfect example of the point I original made. My opponents are advocating positions which are false and hoping they will win by forming a circle-jerk with each other. Let's see: who is in the circle jerk so far? @25, @vincemichaels, @jester214, so other lesser knows. Shows a reason c) why I always won. Even if I explicitly pointed out to my opponents all they were doing wrong, they didn't learned. Just doubled down on losing strategies. Now as for the question of who will give out the advice on crypto-currency investing. Well TUSCL appears to posed to choose @vincemichaels over me. The guy claims he is in MENSA, so maybe go to him? Still time though. If @vincemichaels is gone by Monday I will stay. Also I'll send out contact information to anyone who isn't a POS and, if @vincemichaels leaves after that (maybe gets locked up like he deserves) then I'll return. If not real life calls. 2017 was a huge year for me and this year my ambitions are bigger than ever. Gonna be working with some really great people in the crypto sphere and we will be changing the world for the better. There are good people here and some with real backbone, but, overall, too many spineless losers. @vincemichaels is a sick criminal and @25 his primary spineless defender. If everyone had just stood up and said "we want @vincemichaels gone after he pedophile admissions" he would be gone. Unless anything dramatic happens in the next 36 hours TUSCL has made it choice and I will respect it.

People should just shut up about the fact that we have a self-admitted pedophile on the board. Not discuss it. Now spammers, on the other hand, there's a real problem. That we discuss and warn those people.

LOL!

juice: "Only so much can honestly be said about paying hookers for sex" #truth

Trying to think if @vincemichaels was the least intelligent of all my opponents over the years... Can't really think of any that were dumb. Why I was so reluctant to even engage him at first. Knew there won't be much of a challenge. But his behavior and revelations got so bad, my hand was forced.

Of course I won, @vincegirl: you are exposed as pedophile with your own words. Your board rep has already taken a hit. Think TUSCL meetings will ever be the same for you again? Some may confront you directly, but even among the guys who are acting nice (even @25) one thing will always be at the back of their minds. Like I said before though, you were so dull and witless you weren't even much of a challenge.