Market Discussions

try again.

for someone so "thorough" and mess up major details, only leads to one thing.

You thought OP had BPO's & were ready to check them in the future, when his OP says he is buying researched prints.

drivel? if want to read that, please read your candlestick thread.

We had a discussion about his lack of BPOs and how ideally these IPOs are done by locking BPOs at a 3rd party.
The OP can confirm this point.

The rest - of course - you throw statements without having been there but that's not unexpected off yours.




I have to decide whether to consider CCP Quant's positive comment on that thread or yours.
Let me see: a person who worked in banks and now is in CCP economy team or a one-new-troll-alt-a-year warm breather?

Lol that was an EXAMPLE and was completely unrelated with this IPO

I have NO idea if the OP can factually manufacture even a Rifter.

I did not tell any lie nor rush anything.
What the investees tell me is their only choice to make it publicly detailed or not. Nor I am going to detail how / if / when they had / have / will have BPOs unless they allow me to, all those informations can be used against them by competitors.

Moreover had I been to perform an audit on him, I'd be held to publish all the investment relevant information, but I am not, therefore what I talked with him about is going to stay strictly private unless he decides differently.

well, your post, mislead more than just me (i didn;t call you out on it originally, did I), when read in conjunction with the OP there is an obvious mistake. He didn't have a pos/BPO/characters, nor any idea how to manufacture , from the read of the OP & the subsequent responses, regardless of how confident & detailed your conversation was.

Your post implies he does, thus putting you in the precarious position, that you are in now, defending accusations of being in leagues with OP.

you posted without reading the offer.

we don't need to check for BPO's

its in his OP, his business plan is to buy BPO's, not be checked for them, no-where in the OP he mentions an existing production line. which is again, what only you (not OP) are inplying.

I LIED!
I can't skip this thread :(

While Jerry is being a fail alt of Syds who tends to lose badly fit Ravens while being a null-sec pet running around pointing fingers at anyone possessing better ideas and income than his own I declare invalidity of his points further on.

I shall seal this statement with RECTANGULAR *hint-hint* ribbon on his foreheads shall I meet him in person, which I doubt will ever happen, therefore you'll have to take my "reputable" word for that.


/thread? :-)

..My small ammount of time in nulsec on this pilot doesn't mean much to this topic of conversation.

But I will tell you what means much: you taking time out of your day to find tidbits about me. I'm assuming you we're looking for scams or scam attempts. Hell, I bet you would have been happy to find serious accusation thrown at me. But alas, all of your snooping only yielded a few silly Raven fits I lost in nulsec. Sorry Claire.

And another thing that matters. Saveritrader has publicly stated that any future production IPO's will be fully secured.

Chalk one up for the good guys! Lets look at the scoreboard, shall we?

Watchdogs - 1
Shills - 0

VV, Pepridge is doing what he has set out to do: make ridiculous statements and then spend all effort required to defend those ridiculous statements.....by saying more ridiculous statements.

VV, I think you and a majority of MD know what you are and what you stand for.

Not sure why this post has been deleted from the forums but I try reposting it:



How does it relate with "we have argued before about this exact thing, like when you audited a few scams (enabling them) a few years back."
I only read that a guy (who used to be hugely trusted more than me newbie at the time) decided to breach the TOS and post his full API key on his own initiative.

Edit:

Also, for what I know there's no way for an audit to prevent a scam. It's entirely possible that a guy makes himself "formally OK" by training the required skills and creating API activity records by doing what he claims. All I (or anyone else) can do is to read the records and see if they match the claims, if he fabricated his legitimacy it's not something anyone can know. Until CCP starts delivering mind reading APIs at least. But since you seem to keep sand in your vag for so long to recall and misrepresent years old threads, then you should also be able to recall the dozens of threads where this trite dead horse (audits = information and deterrant, audits <> security).

In Sav's OP he states there will be no security. He makes the same statement a few posts later.

So eh though you told him "before he even created this thread," it wasn't until I, and other posters, opened our mouths that he changed his mind.

Me - 1
Shill - 0