You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: People Flagging me for no reason!! Whales help me
And I have the screenshot of you verifying it is the REAL YOU from the same conversation:
You are stuck, man. Just tell the truth and I will stop.
And I have the screenshot of you verifying it is the REAL YOU from the same conversation:
You are stuck, man. Just tell the truth and I will stop.
I'm confused why you keep using a screenshot from chat which could just be another impersonated account, just like someone impersonated you? Is that really evidence? If someone created a chat account using my publicly available profile image and said "Yes, I'm @lukestokes" would that be evidence?
What if you're being doubly trolled? It may be possible this Steemit user is innocent and "admitting" whatever just to make the flags stop (clearly their English isn't the best). I've read your other post about the textual similarities, and it's certainly possible it is the same person. It's also possible it's an amazingly intricate troll, even down to replicating someone's writing style to trick someone else into flagging them.
@lukestokes, please read my blog. He has already directly admitted this. And if you understood the screenshots presented correctly you would understand that it is no longer speculation whatsoever.
I've had enough for today. This guy has also directly threatened me in my personal life. Read up before commenting, please man.
"He" admitted it on the blockchain or you're assuming the person you talked to in chat is the same person on the blockchain because... they said so? So... you're trusting the liar as your evidence?
You may very well be right, I just don't see hard evidence other than a screenshot from chat which you yourself know firsthand can be easily manipulated to pretend to be someone else.
I understand your reasoning. The blockchain account also admitted it was the same guy that was in the chat. At this point, I already had enough evidence to rule out the possibility of a fear-induced false confession. I am sorry I just don't feel the need to go through all the details right now. He has admitted it on all he chat acccounts and his blockchain account now. He has also threatened me, and posted things on the blockchain account he could only be wise to had he been in the chatrooms which he said he NEVER WAS on the blockchain account.
Thank you. Based on these two screencaps, and a total ignorance of context, your analysis is dead on. The thing is, I wasn't trying to construct a scientific proof at this point as I already had other evidence.
It is all out in the open now anyway, so no more speculation is needed.
I have all the evidence tying all the accounts together (chat and blockchain) in my phone. The knowledge garnered by these accounts, as I said, would not be available to someone not in the chatrooms, as the BLOCKCHAIN ACCOUNT maintained.
Your confirmation bias for people having crippling confirmation biases is becoming tiresome.
Here's a connection to the blockchain, this I see as evidence connecting the chat personality directly with the blockchain personality because the person in chat said they would do this:
The actions of the person in the chat correspond with the actions on the blockchain. That, to me, is close to solid evidence connecting the two identities. That's all I was looking for, but this only happened 9 minutes ago.
I'm sorry it's tiring, but I just wanted clarification on the evidence.
Did you read my comment? I conceded your point about THIS THREAD but reminded you there was information you were not privy to.
I'm sorry if I'm not being helpful. You asked people to come to your aid and flag an abuser and the information you used at the time as evidence didn't give me enough to go on (because that too could have been easily manipulated).
I know you are passionate about your causes and you want to bring more people in to help with them. That's fantastic! I was trying to point out how, in this case, the evidence presented wasn't enough for me to take action. I'm glad you had more information to justify your conviction, but as you say, others were not privy to that information based on how it was presented. I think you and I agree that it's best to have verified evidence instead of just saying "well, this person said so" and taking action on that alone.
I don't know what you mean by see past my own nose, but I was trying to be helpful and get clarification, and it seems I didn't do that well. I'm sorry.
I was not going on that evidence alone, had you read my post carefully, but I concede your point, and respect your evidence. In the end, I was correct, and the guy that was threatening me now has a rep of 0.
What I am saying is that, in many previous conversations, you have rejected my submissions out of hand after, and I quote "Googling around" for criticisms, without reading the material presented. This is highly suspect to me.
The likelihood of over three different accounts, one on the blockchain, all having identical writing styles, claiming to be persecuted in the same way (both in chat and on the chain), and sharing certain knowledge seems quite slim to my thinking. What would the motive be, and how likely that four or five chat accounts would be seamlessly moving along with the same plot, complaining about the blockchain profile being sabotaged? I suppose I may not have presented that info clearly enough. If that is the case, forgive my careless remarks. I'm sorry.
Furthermore, as per the screen cap of our private chat conversation I shared in the original post, the user is reticent to disclose information about the culprit, but claims to have said information. These actions do not seem congruent with someone who wishes to destroy a profile. These actions are congruent with someone who wishes to preserve themselves. Someone completely innocent, is not going to (in most normal circumstances) be reticent to defend said innocence.
My EQ was correct this time. I appreciate your challenging me. I should have been more careful on establishing the connection between blockchain and chat profile.My lack of rigor there makes me cringe a bit. In the end, I was correct. I will, of course, continue to hone my methods.
Someone has then a very cunning plan to ruin bilalhaiders account, as there was a flagging wave from chat users after bilalhaider (or someone pretending to be him) was very disrespectful to women using chat, leaving woman hating comments and using their pictures to make insulting images.
Then he came back later, after being flagged, spamming the chat "You ruined my account so I'll ruin your chat"-message, along many other messages.
This was a cunning plan in total, though, as the chat user "bilalhaider" was chatting at least 2-4 days before starting to insult women based on the conversations (in which he was being cocky asshole, insulting users when not appreciating his amount of followers he had gained by his bot, which he was bragging about).
He even shared some photos which he hasn't used on Steemit, so he must have got them from Facebook or some other site.
A very cunning plan.. or bilalhaider being an ass and trying to avoid the blame.
I think at this point it's clear they are the same, troubled person. This comment includes some blockchain evidence connecting to the actions of the person in chat. Sadly, this person seems to be quite unstable. I hope they get some help or at least find a different hobby than tormenting others.
Ah, thank you :)
This grew up into a rather complex conversation so it seems I missed that one message.
I have the same wish as you, nobody wins in this current situation.
you won't understand . i don't have any chat account.
someone is ruining me. but no problem.
i did this message. and whatever you are saying its right. now please take all the flags. and stop ruining my account.
yes i did everything ok. happy now ? stop flagging me.
I told you man... I told you...