Comments by Dougster (page 9)

@25: oh, okay, just because he admitted to being attracted to underage girls on several occasions, and admitted he had sex with at least one of them we cannot know if he is a pedophile or not. Yep, that's certainly not defending him by say we can't know. You were really mischaracterized there.

Fun to watch this morning. I saw a 1000 "buy wall" on ETH get clobbered in just a few seconds. Definitely some profit taking this morning, and all the later comers in the last month or so gonna be feeling some pain today.

@FTS: I'm with you. If Lightning Network is successful then Bitcoin is almost certain to win. I'm skeptical of it, however. And, congratulations on your profits. Well deserved since you were the first big advocate of Bitcoin here.

Who else took profits before this morning?

Hey, @25 here's what I would call spin. You say you are not a runner but run from the key question here of whether or not you think @vincemichales is a pedophile or not. Nice to see you admitted to projecting earlier in this, because it looks like this "spin" thing is you do it again. LOL! Just keep running from that question, runner!

@25 still running from the key question but is not a runner. Makes total sense! LOL!

And @25 again refuses to answer whether he thinks @vincemichaels admitted to being a pedophile. Okay, okay. It all makes sense now. Even though @25 tap dances around and runs from that question he is not a man who tap dances or runs from anyone (or any question!) Pretty obvious why he won't answer. Because if he did it would be clear there was no mischaracterization of his position. And seems like @25 used to find my threads on Bitcoin and politics interesting until I called him out on his position about @vincemichaels. Now my threads are just "uninteresting" and "not intellectually stimulating". Okay, no problem. Is highly amusing!

@txtittyfag: This ledger of @25's sounds amusing. Is that where he puts his tap dancing and running shoes. "Everyone is mischaracterizing what I said and I am pissed as hell!" "Well just clarify what you said then" "Fuck you! I refuse! And quit mischaracterizing me!"

@anon31415: I don't think that's how investigations work. They don't get a carte blanche to go on a fishing investigation and see everything that comes out in the wash. They would need to be very targeted at what they specifically say they are investigating. That's assuming it was handed over due to a legal requirement. If it was volunteered things might be different. Also, so far Founder has only said he was asked for it. Maybe it was just a request without a subpoena and he refused?

@25: You absolutely are running. You won't answer the direct question as to whether or not you believe that @vincemichaels admitted to being a pedophile or not. All you've codemned him for above is being a jerk and an idiot. You refuse to answer the question of whether you think he admitted to being a pedophile or not. Keep on, running, @25! Run, @25, run! Just like the little runner that you are! @BJ99: @25 can say he thinks the statement is creepy and advice him not to be offensive without actually saying he believes that @vm has admitted to being pedophile. All this if he believes that @vm was just making it up to be a liar and a jerk. Until @25 stops running and is willing to clarify he is a tap dancer and a runner. (Who says he runs from nobody but is running all through this thread). Run, @25, run!

LOL! Only wrong once? That ain't so bad.

As I said above, big difference between admitting to being a pedohile and being a jackass. Or are you saying the two are the same thing? Or you don't believe he admitted to being a pedophile? Looks to me like you are tap dancing your way around the real questions here. Actually I should say "were tap dancing" now you are putting on your running shoes.

Also admitted my original take on @SJG was very, very wrong. "Embarrassingly so" I called it. Keep fishing, @25.

@25: "I never saw you admit once in all of my time on this board that you were mistaken about anything and I doubt that you are capable of doing so." Actually, @BJ99 propped me for exactly being able to do that. I guess you have a selective memory/confirmation bias. Here's just one thing I've admitted to being wrong about. At first I thought DoctorPhil and txtittyfag were the same person. I admitted I was wrong and no longer believe that.

Tell me what your position is. As far I can tell it's "He was just lying to get attention". How do I reckon that? Because above you say he is only guilty of "being a jerk and an idiot". So just chill and tell us what your real position is. If, in fact, it isn't what you said above. If I mischaracterized it, I'll admit it. Or you'll have trapped me not admitting to mischaracterizing it when I did. Seems a can't lose situation for you if I really did mischaracterize it. So let's hear what it really is, if I got it wrong.

You know either @vincemichaels cast such a spell on you that, for the first time I can recall, you came up with a completely incomprehensible position: "he was just lying to get attention". OR I misunderstood and mischaracterized what you said. Why not remind us of exactly what your position on this is?

@25: "my problem is that I dislike hypocrisy... but until you agree that he is within his rights to be a jerk, and an idiot," Sorry, I think his admission go a little beyond "jerk" and "idiot" into some versus serious territory? Are you one of these people who is grasping at the straws that he made it all up just to get attention? 25: "but slandering and mischaracterizing what people actually said" We (me, txtittyfag, DoctorPhil) gave directs quotes to what he said including the exact threads, and quoting the context verbatim. People read it and were able to come to their own conclusions. No "slander" or "mischaraterization" involved. 25: " There are enough day to day problems that come up along with associated costs, that unlike the large firms that you appear to be involved with, that I sympathize with his POV" I don't think he has stated his POV on matter: if he feels an LE investigation is warranted given @vincemichaels words or not. Nor whether it is right for LE to ask him for the database. For all we know he might be in full agreement that he should had in it over. Maybe even volunteered it. I would wait to see what he has to say. Although with it being a legal matter it's understandable if he can't comment.

@25: You know I also consider you an intelligent person and have said so before. Normally even when we disagree I at least understand where you are coming and can see why someone could come to believe whatever position it is you have. On this one: don't get your stance at all. Why is it bad that LE is investigating someone who has admitted to being a pedophile? Seems like a good thing to me? Why all the concern about Founder's financial hardship? He has made money for years hosting this site? Seems the cost of doing business of this nature. Tell you what though: if it is a real financial burden for him start a crowd sourcing campaign with ZCash and I'll contribute to offsetting whatever it cost him. Hell he can even charge for his time. As for why I don't spend my time going after the alleged 50 predators withing a few blocks of me? I don't know the statistics on pedophilia. I'll take your word for it. I don't go after the because I have no idea who they are. Since I'm not LE I don't have the tools necessary to do the investigation, nor, frankly, the inclination. So many wrongs with the world and me not devoting my time to all of them. I pick and choose who I help. Won't get into the personal details behind that but you can bet that I am spending my own time on them... If any of these 50 pedophiles within a few blocks of me put in my face like @vincemichaels did on here, then, yes, I would make point of doing something legally in my rights about it.

Oh, now I'm stupid? When I agree with you say I'm smart. Gotcha! I think you let your friendship with @vincemichaels cloud your objectivity. And you certainly aren't the only one. That compounds your inherent inability to admit when you are wrong. Which you are here.

Oh, also, to clarify the above. If LE was interested in the board because it was sheltering a pedophile then when stuff started getting deleted, then, yes, it's very likely that's would prompt them to act. The threads themselves weren't evidence, but once the deletions started who knows where it would end.

doctorevil: "it detracts from the board and shows a total lack of consideration for the other members, not to mention the Founder who has clearly expressed the opinion that it should stop." In this case it was justified though since it served a high purpose. One that we seem to have won on the end too. But tell you what: now that we have LE looking into it: I agree no need to barrage/spam the board about it anymore.

@doctorevil: Let me guess. You're a real life friend of @vincemichaels, right?

I think the fact that mark94 has been completely annihilated so many times when it comes to Bitcoin analysis clouds his objectivity. I have little doubt that it was the deleting of threads that would have prompted LE to act.

@25 well go watch the cryptocurrency tickers if you want excitement. LOL!

... as if there is any comparison at all to being a pedophile and "spamming" an internet message board. Who is dropping horse manure now?