Menu

The LTB Network Forum

Answer to Paul's six questions in the newest BU: Unintended Consequences

Back to General

Jump to bottom
Pages: 123

Comments

brighton36
Offline
Posts: 66
Location: Miami, FL

Probably this belongs in the last post - but we locked that ( so snow can't white-wash ). Here's the show

Unintended Consequences

Alright Phoenix, let's hear you defend this scam.

And Adam... Where's my Liar tag?

Posted on November 24, 2015 at 8:33 PM
0 likes
  • Phoenix
    Offline
    Posts: 32

    @brighton36 @junseth

    Thanks guys for inviting me again. I was a little bit sad because of the thread-lock but I think it made sense (for you), right? ;-)

    About your „show“: Yes, I’m from germany and that's why it’s hard for me to understand exactly what you guys are talking there. What I really would like to see would be that you write your „arguments“ down. I mean, you wasn’t able the last time, but maybe this time? Would that be possible?

    • Because of your accusations I could be a „paid shill“: If anybody would pay me for beating you guys, I would take it. But why would Factom pay me because I’m making therapy with you? You should pay me… ;-)

    • Why do I have no post-history in this forum prior to your last thread? Simple: I came here because of that thread. I saw that you’re talking a lot of bullshit and I saw that you had nothing. It was very easy to show that. Or do you remember just one post you replied on with arguments?

    • And isn’t it enough intention to be invested in Factom - which I said in my very first post? What’s that for an argumentation to implicate that everybody who defends Factom would be a „paid shill“? I’m pretty sure, you both don’t believe that. It’s just another attempt to defend your own credibility through attack and accusation on others.

    Like I said the last time: I don’t believe that it’s really about Factom. You guys made a lot of mistakes, told a lot of lies, and that was proven. So you asked to lock the last thread, and now there is a new one. It’s really simple....

    • it’s out of your own desperation
    • it’s self-destructive
    • it makes me feel kind of sorry for your both.
    • But actually… at least for me it’s kind of fun, too.

    So, because I know that this new thread is the attempt to cover-up that you both sold and ruined your credibility in the last one, I would like to help potentially readers getting an overview about this discussion and the last thread - everybody should have actual knowledge about the situation. I hope you agree with that? ;-)

    About your „time-line-accusations“:

    About the chat:

    Would you please show everybody if you replied? And if yes, how? ;-) I mean, isn’t it funny that you guys now talking a lot of bullshit about it again, but the last time you both were not able to defend yourself?

    That was on page 8. Would you please show everybody where you replied? The thread goes on about another 7 pages…

    By the way, this was my prediction about you: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/post/lets-talk-about-factoms-repeated-lies-and-mistakes-per-cryptonaughts-request?page=8#post-139833

    I told you… you are predictable. ;-)

    So, how did it turn out for you guys the last time? A little overview about that, too:

    But, out of your desperation you had to start again. Oh no, sorry. It wasn’t you. It was @foodtaster ;-) A guy without any post-history before, right? And I made a little bit pressure on „him“, YOU remember? „He“ really tried hard distancing „himself“ from you. What did he say?

    This:

    That was a great mistake, right? I had a good laugh about that. I asked you some questions about that… and finally I said:

    Chris, what exactly was your reaction? Aaahh, this one:

    And foodtaster was never seen again, right? :-(

    And Joshua… he also shared his despair very open with everybody:

    And he cried:

    I think we all agree that you both were never able to discuss the facts. You both did not reply on the questions. But you've tried it with irony, you've tried it with whiny behavior, you've tried it with some new lies and implications and than you asked to lock the thread.. and now you would like to have a new chance. Good luck with that!

    And... You are free to accuse me to be a paid shill or whatever, or being „weird“ (the most used word in your show how it seems), but I won’t lose my focus. I know what this is about. I told you guys… But we can do some therapy again and you don’t need to pay me. ;-)

    Posted on November 25, 2015 at 2:20 AM
    Last Edited: November 25, 2015 at 2:25 AM
    Permalink
    0 likes
  • adam
    Offline
    Posts: 1980
    Location: California, USA

    Once somebody listens to it and either rebuts or concedes your points we can make a judgement based on whats happened so far. If you wanted your answer faster, post your response in readable form which would be easier to go point by point if needed. I'm sure it'll get done either way eventually.

    @brighton36 Probably this belongs in the last post - but we locked that ( so snow can't white-wash )

    I can see why you'd think it was locked because of Paul but it was actually locked because people were tired of your drama when you weren't willing to answer the questions and thus the conversation couldn't proceed in any productive way. Your suggestion of locking the thread was accepted for a different reason than the one you proposed.

    @cryptonaut

    Sure, I'l gladly lock this thread. If you ever decide to actually answer @PaulSnow's questions or bring some evidence to the table rather than trolling eachother, PM me and I may re-open it.

    Posted on November 25, 2015 at 2:28 AM
    Last Edited: November 25, 2015 at 2:29 AM
    Permalink
    0 likes
  • Phoenix
    Offline
    Posts: 32

    @adam

    I can see why you'd think it was locked because of Paul but it was actually locked because people were tired of your drama when you weren't willing to answer the questions and thus the conversation couldn't proceed in any productive way.

    I don't totally agree with that. The thread was locked because he asked for a lock. He implied that I and/or @PaulSnow could have the intention to edit or delete something - which is another funny low-level-manipulative-implication without any sense. Agree with that, Chris? ;-)

    Everybody who reads the thread can see that his question to lock the thread was just another attempt to get out of the situation. And now he needs a new thread, because there is too much proof about his lies in the last one.

    But sure, @cryptonaut was most likely really tired about his drama. So, you're not really wrong with that.

    Posted on November 25, 2015 at 2:34 AM
    Permalink
    0 likes
  • adam
    Offline
    Posts: 1980
    Location: California, USA

    I modified my post for clarity before you responded, added this line

    "Your suggestion of locking the thread was accepted for a different reason than the one you proposed."

    We had been talking about when to lock it but wanted to avoid causing further drama since chris and joshua had also been making claims they also couldn't back up about LTBN censoring them. Chris suggesting the lock meant we wouldnt get more drama from censorship claims, thus the thread was locked.

    Is there any reason we shouldn't continue this discussion there? As nick said, the thread can be unlocked now that you're presenting evidence.

    Posted on November 25, 2015 at 2:43 AM
    Last Edited: November 25, 2015 at 2:46 AM
    Permalink
    0 likes
  • Phoenix
    Offline
    Posts: 32

    @adam I modified my post for clarity before you responded, added this line

    "Your suggestion of locking the thread was accepted for a different reason than the one you proposed."

    Oh yes.. didn't see that.

    Posted on November 25, 2015 at 2:45 AM
    Permalink
    0 likes
  • Phoenix
    Offline
    Posts: 32

    @brighton36: Just by the way... I really like how you try to defend the last thread in your "show", telling it was because @cryptonaut asked for it.

    Nice attempts to distance yourself from that thread! ;-)

    And you call the thread "boring"? You really don't want people to read it, right? ;-)

    And the reactions on your "time-line" is a shitstorm? That's funny... Wasn't it justified to show and let you show yourself that you're a liar? You should reat it again. Besides all the facts that @PaulSnow gave there about Factom it's also very interesting to see how you guys took your own credibility to grave.

    Posted on November 25, 2015 at 2:58 AM
    Last Edited: November 25, 2015 at 2:58 AM
    Permalink
    0 likes
  • PaulSnow
    Offline
    Posts: 30

    So @brightion36 and @junseth have put their "answers" into their show.

    Unimpressive. Seems in your answers you admit we are a real project, producing code, building applications, delivering what we promised, not stealing investment money.... but we are a scam because.... Because....

    Well, really, you don't actually say.

    The "lie" you quote is that we are "going to do" a project in Honduras. As I told you many times (it is in the chat) we don't have a signed deal. But we arecworking towards this project, and the project is not dead.

    You can't provide a reference were we said we did have a contract. And this reference you do quote only talks about a "prototype" that "should" be deployed, and a system that "eventually" will handle land titles in Honduras. That wasn't and still isn't a lie, though deployment of a prototype has been delayed. It deals of an on going process, and accurately portrays the uncertainty of the process we are in.

    You attempt to make hay about epigraph, without actually either proving your point, or even articulating your point clearly. Your patch applied (an investor mentioned Honduras in a press release prior to May 15) to this issue comes with no references. The investor you mentioned did not release information about Honduras prior to the news release that I am aware of. And even if they did, we could hardly be responsible for their description of the project. And what really is your point anyway?

    I encourage everyone to read your chat, and listen to your program.

    Why? Because I've been consistently honest with you all along.

    I'd be willing to answer any questions anyone has. This is simple, obvious, and inept slander and lible blathered about by a couple of guys who, it seems, wish passionately to rid themselves of the terrible burden of credibility.

    Posted on November 25, 2015 at 7:32 AM
    Permalink
    2 likes
  • brighton36
    Offline
    Posts: 66
    Location: Miami, FL

    Here you go @Paul, yet another example of you lying about Hondurus. Here's a comment from you personally on April 8th: "We are working with a central American country to build this system, because the previous system was too easy to manipulate, and resulted in quite a bit of theft and extortion. We have a set of consultants from this space that are building the title application."

    Though the word 'contract' isnt in there, the only two people in this forum stupid enough to believe you didn't present Factom as having secured the Honduras deal is @Adam Levine and @Phoenix.

    Note, again, this comment was from before the Reuters pump.

    Posted on November 26, 2015 at 4:40 PM
    Last Edited: November 26, 2015 at 4:40 PM
    Permalink
    0 likes
  • Phoenix
    Offline
    Posts: 32

    @brighton36

    You remember what I told you (or did I tell it the sockpuppet-account?) about mis-represantation and mis-interpretation?

    I personally don't believe that you really still believe in your accusations. You just can't admit that you are wrong, because your lies and accusations are too extreme and it would be too shameful to step back. So you will do everything to make people believe in your mis-interpretation. Do you really believe that will be successful?

    You claim, that it's just me and @Adam who not believe you, but with that you also know you are wrong. I know that you know! Everybody can take a look at the likes in your previous thread. It's obvious that there are many people who don't believe you, but liked @PaulSnows posts and mine and others who discussed with you. There are only two(?) people who believe in you. One is @Junseth. The other one is your sockpuppet-account @foodtaster. More precise: As far I can see, it's just you and your buddy @Junseth. And you both are liars - provable.

    Regarding your newest problem: As far as I know Factom didn't make a mystery about it that they are working with a country to build a system for land-registry. And I don't understand what's the problem if a project speaks about what they're doing. And, just btw: The Economist also mentions Greece:

    Will Greece be your next point? Is the economist-article also a Factom-announcement for you and you will people tell, that Factom announced a signed deal with Greece? What exactly is your point? You always use a megaphone to tell the people Factom would have lied. But you are still unable to show/prove your accusations. What are you doing here?

    And why did you say this:

    Will there be a fourth thread? Another "show"? Just by the way, and I don't think it will surprise you: I don't like your show. Too much "ooooohhhhh my goooood"...."sooooo weeeeiiiiiiird"..."ONEHUNDREDPERCENT!!!!!!". And worse: It would take hours to rebut all your false claims that just I'm able to recognize. Not because it would be hard, but it's such a high quantity. If it would be just your subjective opinion it would be ok. But it's so much desinfo and it's always "onehundredpercent!!!!". I don't know your other episodes, but if it's always like that it's wasted time to listen to you, because nobody can ever be sure if you tell the truth or if you spread lies.

    Posted on November 26, 2015 at 6:37 PM
    Permalink
    0 likes
  • junseth
    Offline
    Posts: 57
    Location: Florida

    Lol, Adam was being accused of censorship and working to discredit me and Chris. In response, he locked my thread and gave me a liar token. I think that pretty much proves my point. :)

    That said, I am fairly certain that Chris's responses in the podcast do not stand up to the high standard that he and I have set for ourselves, and thus, must be given a Liar token.

    Posted on November 26, 2015 at 6:46 PM
    Permalink
    0 likes
Jump to top
Pages: 123

Post Reply

Please Login to post a reply to this thread.

On Today's Show

Network Forums

© Copyright 2013–2016 The LTB Network. All rights reserved .