[arcticbull]

> His statements were not false and not about a company or stock. It is debatable if they were even positive.

Correct, it's not about a company or a stock, which is something I led with in my initial reply ("In any other asset class this would be..." -- which I have since learned applies unevenly to security types although for the record I was talking about stock). I haven't said he committed a crime, and I do not believe he has committed a crime.

I think it's pretty distasteful however to take advantage of the crypto community he claims to champion. Your claim he's not actively working them into a froth is certainly at best a generous take. [1]

> ...not about a company or stock. > There is no "exception" here.

This I do not believe to be entirely true. Some of the rules I linked, specifically the Securities Exchange Act, are written to apply to securities, not stock (which are of course a sub-type of security). I believe, and IANAL so this should be taken with a grain of salt, that security tokens should be covered by at least that law.

How about cryptos that represent stock, like the Tesla-stock backed coin Binance launched? That might just be a job for a judge to sort out.

> This is a hallucination. I didn't accuse anyone of anything.

I was making reference to past times you've specifically accused me of not understanding crypto. With that in mind, I read "nothing here would be significant if the other side of the equation wasn't people soaking up the slightest drip of nonsense and turning it into a frenzy of something they don't understand" as referring to me. If it did not, I apologize for misreading.

However, your characterization is once again neither charitable, nor particularly civil.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronshevlin/2021/02/21/how-elon-...

[CyberDildonics]

> I think it's pretty distasteful however to take advantage of the crypto community he claims to champion.

That's not what I replied to. You said it was a pump and dump and blatant illegal market manipulation.

> Your claim he's not actively working them into a froth is certainly at best a generous take. [1]

This is a lie and another hallucination since I never said anything even remotely close to this. You said it was 'blatant illegal market manipulation' and I showed you that what you linked contradicts that explicitly.

> However, your characterization is once again neither charitable, nor particularly civil.

lol, you literally lied and invented something I never said.

[arcticbull]

> That's not what I replied to. You said it was a pump and dump and blatant illegal market manipulation.

I literally quoted my self when I said it would be illegal in a different asset. And yeah, of course he’s manipulating the price, I even showed a study where they evaluated such. And yes in my opinion he’s pumping the price so he can exit higher.

> This is a lie and another hallucination since I never said anything even remotely close to this.

> lol, you literally lied and invented something I never said.

Pretty sure this isn’t within the spirit of site rules.

You’re welcome to disagree with me but you’ll have to be civil if you’d like me to engage. There are other venues for leveling baseless personal attacks.

I suspect at this point your only goal is to win an argument at all costs, and it’s not a good look, so I’ll leave you to it. Enjoy your day!

[CyberDildonics]

> Pretty sure this isn’t within the spirit of site rules.

Then don't do it.

I guess this is the 'attack how you say it stage'.

You said "Your claim he's not actively working them into a froth is certainly at best a generous take. "

Show me where I said that.

You said a tweet saying they would accept bitcoin is 'blatant illegal market manipulation' and a 'pump and dump'. All I did was quote your own source to show that there are no laws being broken. Someone saying they accept a currency is not illegal no matter what happens to the price or how much it upsets you.

Quoting your own words and pointing out that you are for some reason fabricating arguments is the opposite of being uncivil. Don't make false hyperbolic statements out of frustration if you don't like having to back them up.

[arcticbull]

> I guess this is the 'attack how you say it stage'.

Like I said, I'm happy to engage with you once you decide to abide by site rules :) I'm not interested in engaging in a conversation with someone accusing me historically (and apparently, presently) of not knowing what I'm talking about and hallucinating. If you wish people to engage with you, do so civilly.

Your personal attacks are neither acceptable nor welcome, and your goal is clearly to engage in pedantry for the purposes of winning an argument rather than exploring an idea. That's not what this site is for.

Have a great day! :)

[CyberDildonics]

What would you call you saying I said something that I didn't say?