Home Forums Gear Free Classifieds BEWARE of SCAMMER patonyk

I understand what you mean, but there are nicer ways to light up what you call �dogshit�.
You are the one whose chooses how to light it up.

Let me know if I am clear as well.

Bricktop .....U mad bro?

Nope, beaucoup facts. Police agencies aren't actively pursuing internet transactions on behalf of aggrieved parties. That's been proved in spades on here, dumb f*ck. I even provided followup to one of the cases you cited stating that the actual target of your claim didn't have a f*cking thing to do with "internet fraud," but it had a whole lot to do with counterfeiting documents.

I've even provided in previous postings a case of which I have personal knowledge where the person was prosecuted under the charge of misdemeanor embezzlement over a Lincoln arc welder "sold" over eBay. Of course this person was also prosecuted for meth. And manufacturing false driver's licenses. And stealing electricity. And stolen cars. And stealing everything else he could tow or carry away. But you don't think that had anything to do with his being prosecuted for a bad Internet transaction, do you? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO, people just need to straighten up and fly right on the internet.

Can you show where I've advocated doing nothing, [bleep]? Nope. That's your dumb f*cking imagination. Just like that bullshit you posted as your "proof," which also included an Australian court case.

Again, you're wasting my time. Your attempts at "proving" your point keeps falling flatter than an old woman's ass.

Guys I started this thread and after we got things straight and I received the stock I asked Doug to delete this thread which apparently he did not.

Please use another thread to argue about mail fraud and let this one die.

can't do that man....its way too late. it has already been swallowed by that stink black hole called "The Bricktop Show"

BOW777... You may be entirely too gracious with your impression that BT is "well educated with above average intelligence".The usual profane and vulgar rants that he spews on a regular basis denote one of poor communication skills and of low mental capacity.The lesson of the sign: "Profanity is an ignorant mind trying to express itself", that I posted on another thread for BT`s edification has obviously been ignored.He continues to display his ignorance for everyone to see. You can lead a horse to water but you can`t make him drink.
Joe

"A case of which I have previous knowledge"? Oh, now I totally believe you. I wasn't aware that you had "previous knowledge". Why didn't you say so? Ha...What does that even mean?

The cases cited, again...just from the first page of a google search that took all of 30 seconds, ALL had to do with internet fraud. Perhaps there was more to it as well, but that doesn't mean that the internet fraud portion was completely discarded. Obviously, the authorities used that info to help make an arrest. Isn't that the goal? To arrest the bad guys? Clearly, you are a master of picking and choosing the portions of cases/claims/stories/etc that back up your argument while discarding the rest and hoping that a bunch of insults (much like those that one would likely hear during 4th grade recess) will mask your oversights.

yes yes yes freaking...yes

First and only post, 13 minutes after registering?

And after three months of inactivity on the thread?

So, what's your connection to the case?

Care to add more substance than one generic sentence?

Uh, no, dumb f*ck, the cases you cited weren't prosecuted solely due to "internet fraud," that's your f*cking horseshit imagination once again. One was prosecuted due to money laundering for drug dealers, another was prosecuted due to income tax evasion, and another was prosecuted as part of a counterfeiting case. And another didn't even happen on this continent. You are without a doubt a STUPID [bleep]*CKER and you can't make a f*cking point let alone read what in the f*ck you keep posting.

Yes or no, can you provide a case that was prosecuted SOLELY over an allegation of not satisfactorily completing an internet transaction? Yes or no?

I'll just copy and paste my last post since you obviously didn't read it:

"The cases cited, again...just from the first page of a google search that took all of 30 seconds, ALL had to do with internet fraud. Perhaps there was more to it as well, but that doesn't mean that the internet fraud portion was completely discarded. Obviously, the authorities used that info to help make an arrest. Isn't that the goal? To arrest the bad guys? Clearly, you are a master of picking and choosing the portions of cases/claims/stories/etc that back up your argument while discarding the rest and hoping that a bunch of insults (much like those that one would likely hear during 4th grade recess) will mask your oversights."

Pretty sure I didn't even marginally claim that the cases were based solely on the internet fraud portion. But CLEARLY, the internet fraud portion was of enough consequence to authorities that they arrested or indicted them as a result. Why does it matter that a case is prosecuted SOLELY on the internet fraud charge? Isn't partially good enough? Isn't the result the same...bad guy in jail? Who cares that it was one of many charges (although in at least a one of the links I provided it doesn't seem that there were other charges at all)? Oh that's right, Bricktop cares because it would totally discredit nearly everything he's been ranting about for the past couple weeks (or perhaps longer as I've only recently had the pleasure of stumbling upon your worthless diatribes).

So, NO, YOU CANNOT PROVIDE A SINGLE CASE IN WHICH A PERSON WAS ARRESTED SOLELY FOR AN INTERNET TRANSACTION.

And, yeah, it kind of does make a difference. If it wasn't for the other crimes these in which these individuals were involved, they wouldn't have been arrested or prosecuted for a f*cking thing. Period.

I'm still waiting for your bitch-ass to explain the relevance of the Australian case.

The relevance is that I copied the first four links of a google search. If you'd like to ignore it you're welcome to do so.

Without digging, it looks like these people (in the first link I posted) were arrested solely for internet transactions.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-250310.html

And NO, it doesn't make a difference. If the internet fraud only helped make an arrest and they ended up in jail, well, that's the same result. Kind of like how they arrest mobsters on tax evasion charges.

blah blah blah, [bleep]*cker, dumbsh&t, I'm really smart, f-ing dumbf%ck, show me a case, find me the detective, [bleep].

There Bricktop, now you don't even have to respond. I already did it for you.

Uh, yeah, it kind of does make a difference, little man. It shows a distinct pattern of not prosecuting anyone for any internet transaction unless there are some kind of ulterior motives. Period. Every f*cking thing you've cited as your "proof" of these "successful" prosecutions has had an ulterior motive as a common denominator. You're too damned stupid to clue in on that.

I still want to know how an Australian court case has any bearing whatsoever.

How socially inept are you that you feel the need to inform me of that? Huh? Has anyone ever quantified that for you? F*cking candyass.

Trying to figure out how to put someone on the ignore list. How do you do it?

Maybe I'm missing something. Please tell me what you are getting from the cnet link I posted. What exactly were they arrested for if not internet fraud?

That's actually funny.

Your second day here, and you use your fifth post to announce that you're putting somebody on Ignore already.

You better grow a thicker skin if you expect to make it a week here.

Don't worry, my skin is plenty tough. I asked a question and an educated answer is what I expected. The last time I checked, this was still a free country. If I choose to ignore someone, that's what I shall do.