ATTN: tooloud4tv- Give me my f*ckin money

[Eugenics]

Well, Preston.. like i said a few pages ago.. I'm here faggot. what now? and please, only respond if you have something WORTH saying. not your normal "you're a piece of ****, omfgzzzz" while i do not expect your silly little mind to function on a level high enough to come back with anything remotely good or insulting, its simply getting tiring telling you the truth again and again. i am better than you. in everything. ever. always. no matter what little lies or half truths, or puffed up "facts" you can come up with (without knowing the FULL side to EITHER story) to make yourself feel better.. (or really, i would suspect to be in your sad little shoes in life, it would be a step up to NOT feel like a complete failure.).

Have a good one Preston.

You're right, ignorance truly is bliss.

[donpisto]

You're right, ignorance truly is bliss.

Lol, I did actually get a chuckle out this one. We know that Chad does mess around with others, but his intention here was that rather to state that you jump into threads like this thinking you know everything sharing your two cents when you don't know the entire story or you just dont pay attention to it.

[Eugenics]

Lol, I did actually get a chuckle out this one. We know that Chad does mess around with others, but his intention here was that rather to state that you jump into threads like this thinking you know everything sharing your two cents when you don't know the entire story or you just dont pay attention to it.

What do i need to know. On more than one occasion he promised payment or a product and then lapsed for months at a time. On top of that, to at least one of the guys he was a complete prick.

I don't care what his reason was, his rationale. Nothing. Doesn't justify it.

And i never claimed to know anything about your situation.

[donpisto]

What do i need to know. On more than one occasion he promised payment or a product and then lapsed for months at a time. On top of that, to at least one of the guys he was a complete prick.

I don't care what his reason was, his rationale. Nothing. Doesn't justify it.

And i never claimed to know anything about your situation.

That's bad business though, not scamming. Those are two different things, that's my entire point.

[Eugenics]

That's bad business though, not scamming. Those are two different things, that's my entire point.

Thats your definition and most would agree it is the common definition. Whats the definition of a scammer on the forum though? Do you think it's that specific, or do you think its more of a blanket statement with a purpose behind it -- to protect buyers?

[Loud3]

Thats your definition and most would agree it is the common definition. Whats the definition of a scammer on the forum though? Do you think it's that specific, or do you think its more of a blanket statement with a purpose behind it -- to protect buyers?

Winner.

[Eugenics]

I'm not offering this as an insult, but rather, an insight.

[donpisto]

Not just my definition:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

and fraud in case you need to look it up: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ud&btnG=Search

and swindle: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...le&btnG=Search

So tell me what how these relate to your definition of a scammer 100%?

[Eugenics]

Not just my definition:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

and fraud in case you need to look it up: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ud&btnG=Search

and swindle: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...le&btnG=Search

So tell me what how these relate to your definition of a scammer 100%?

Well, you can disregard what i said about having your own definition, and then having one that relates to context. We can play your game....

Derived from your first link.... scammer... which brings us directly to swindler.... (you either didn't check your own link at all, or tried to piece together the vowels, and couldn't)

Swindler: A person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud

Fraud: Another definition Google provides.... (seems to be your favorite, so why change it up now?)

An act of deception carried out for the purpose of unfair, undeserved, and/or unlawful gain, esp. financial gain; Such an act injurious to another; One who performs such an act

Would you say an interest free loan for a few months qualifies? I.E. You having collateral which you will provide after the loan is paid back. Of course, it is not presented as such.... it's presented as a forsale ad, in which the user will pay you said amount of money, and you will send them the item in question... ASAP. Not months later... THEN!!! right now!

swindler: a person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud

Deception:
# misrepresentation: a misleading falsehood
# the act of deceiving
# Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true, or not the whole truth as in certain types of half-truths.

Perhaps telling someone you would have their product to them by XX/XX/XXXX date? Delivering not weeks, but months later...

Is that not an accurate depiction of him and his accomplices(those trying to cover his tracks.... you?) deceiving someone ... is that not deception? Or was he being completely frank there...!?

Googles first defenition of swindle... by the way (such a tangled web you weave)

A combination involving a trap which the opponent could avoid but doesn't. Often someone who is losing or just lacking in moral fiber will try ..

In this instance, the trap involves a for sale ad. The consumer could've avoided it by doing more research on the sellers past (in theory anyway, but when the seller is just involved in 'bad business' rather than a 'scam' it is much easier to get the thread/evidence in question erased... all the piece of **** has to do is get the buyer to okay it...)

I know you'll get caught up in semantics, and try to avoid it just like chad tried to avoid the front stage question.... No surprises here, dont feel bad.

[Eugenics]

Honestly though, the original question is....

So tell me what how these relate to your definition of a scammer 100%?

And i'm not sure i can answer it... as it makes no sense at all.

[RnK1026]

Not just my definition:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

and fraud in case you need to look it up: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ud&btnG=Search

and swindle: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...le&btnG=Search

So tell me what how these relate to your definition of a scammer 100%?

not only my definition, blah blah blah.your lame as **** buddy. like u actually googled that to put it on here you did the same **** to me on another thread. i think its official. there is no more websters dictionary, it is little boy donpistos dictionary. sorry to tell ya einstein, i know you think your right on everything u say, buuuuuuut try and try again.talkin about your gonna beat my *** hahahahahhaha your mom will quit workin the streets when that happens rich boy

[donpisto]

Well, you can disregard what i said about having your own definition, and then having one that relates to context. We can play your game....

Derived from your first link.... scammer... which brings us directly to swindler.... (you either didn't check your own link at all, or tried to piece together the vowels, and couldn't)

Swindler: A person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud

Fraud: Another definition Google provides.... (seems to be your favorite, so why change it up now?)

An act of deception carried out for the purpose of unfair, undeserved, and/or unlawful gain, esp. financial gain; Such an act injurious to another; One who performs such an act

Would you say an interest free loan for a few months qualifies? I.E. You having collateral which you will provide after the loan is paid back. Of course, it is not presented as such.... it's presented as a forsale ad, in which the user will pay you said amount of money, and you will send them the item in question... ASAP. Not months later... THEN!!! right now!

swindler: a person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud

Deception:
# misrepresentation: a misleading falsehood
# the act of deceiving
# Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true, or not the whole truth as in certain types of half-truths.

Perhaps telling someone you would have their product to them by XX/XX/XXXX date? Delivering not weeks, but months later...

Is that not an accurate depiction of him and his accomplices(those trying to cover his tracks.... you?) deceiving someone ... is that not deception? Or was he being completely frank there...!?

Googles first defenition of swindle... by the way (such a tangled web you weave)

A combination involving a trap which the opponent could avoid but doesn't. Often someone who is losing or just lacking in moral fiber will try ..

In this instance, the trap involves a for sale ad. The consumer could've avoided it by doing more research on the sellers past (in theory anyway, but when the seller is just involved in 'bad business' rather than a 'scam' it is much easier to get the thread/evidence in question erased... all the piece of **** has to do is get the buyer to okay it...)

I know you'll get caught up in semantics, and try to avoid it just like chad tried to avoid the front stage question.... No surprises here, dont feel bad.

How nice of you to bold the words that would stand out and prove your point, however, you left out a couple crucial ones. In the definition of fraud you bolded deception, but you also forgot to bold "unlawful gain, esp. financial gain" in that same definition. Now, tell me, where was the unlawful and financial gain? IIRC, dragnix got something in return for his money, did he not?

And your definition of swindle relates to chess, check the link, though it still can be used and I completely understand it. However, how many positive transaction has he had in the past? How many negative? Even if one or two deals had gone sour out of NUMEROUS transactions, does that necessarily mean the person is not trustworthy or should be dealt with? No, but it is up to the buyer to be aware of it.

Let's also take a look at this other definition of swindle: an instance of swindling; to defraud (someone); to obtain money or property by fraudulent or deceitful methods .

So tell me, did he obtain money or property fradulently? Go back to what I pointed out in the definition of fraud, and remember, what gain was there?

Why do you insist on thinking you are right. I can admit to when I am wrong, no doubt. I have before. You just won't say it on the forum because you don't want to get "pwnt" as others would call it. Grow a sack and man up, there are many others who would describe the transaction as bad business, not scamming. I have a Bachelor's in Business, I think I would know what I'm talking about. I spent 5 years in the program (an additional year for extra courses in case you try to tell me I'm stupid because it only takes 4 years). I know the games you play, I know you like to aggrrevate others and it makes you feel better to put them down. You can keep trying here, but no matter how hard you try, you're not going to hurt my feelings

And to answer your question of how my definition of scammer does not apply to parkave, well, I did state it is bad business. I also stated he did not just take payment and not give anything back, thus he did not gain anything financially or unlawfully? Yes, deceipt may have applied as you pointed out, but in order for your definition or the one you used as an example to try and prove me wrong to be correct, all parts of the definition must be true. It's like saying a fruit that is green is an apple, there are more fruits that besides apples that are green, thus that definition does not apply and it needs more information to complete its specific definition.

[donpisto]

Honestly though, the original question is....

So tell me what how these relate to your definition of a scammer 100%?

And i'm not sure i can answer it... as it makes no sense at all.

Check post above.

[donpisto]

not only my definition, blah blah blah.your lame as **** buddy. like u actually googled that to put it on here you did the same **** to me on another thread. i think its official. there is no more websters dictionary, it is little boy donpistos dictionary. sorry to tell ya einstein, i know you think your right on everything u say, buuuuuuut try and try again.talkin about your gonna beat my *** hahahahahhaha your mom will quit workin the streets when that happens rich boy

Yeah I'm lame when you sent numerous members here idiotic PM's right? Don't let your stupidity confuse you.

I posted the definitions from google for idiots like you and Preston who need to see the definition and comprehend it fully for what it is, not part of it, to prove my point.

And I didn't use my own dictionary, I used ones that were available online. Don't tell me you don't get any of your information from online or other sources.

I don't think I'm right on everything I say, but in this case I am. Prove me wrong rather than just saying I'm not. Statements without proof are just opinions, whereas statements with proof or evidence are factual.

I don't recall saying I will beat your ***, though if I have, I wouldn't doubt I could. Make the trip over here (sounds familiar, maybe I did say I would beat your ***). You can talk about my mom all you want, but the only streets she worked on are the ones that have building in them, and she was actually in the building. She has been in real estate for over 30 years and just because my parents may be wealthy does not mean I use their money.

What I buy, including my cars, car audio, clothing etc is all me, from the money I make. I'm not going to go about bragging what I do, how much I make, because 1) it's not necessary and 2) it's none of your business.

Like I said, if you want to talk shit and be a man about it, do it to my face. Otherwise, you're just a wannabe e-thug, horrible at that. Now since you have shown to myself and others how retarded you are, why don't you just leave this forum.....and don't let the door hit you in the ****** on the way out.

[donpisto]

bump...he's on now and still hasnt cleared PM's