mp46
New Member
I can't believe what I am reading from you.
You've essentially argued that customers should support @TitaniumGear (TGI)'s physical violence against a former member who threatened to report him to the police because... WAIT FOR IT...
The physical violence would be in the interest of protecting his customers?!
The fact that he was vulnerable to such threats in the first place really says all you need to know about his concern for his customers.
I said the customers info was possibly a byproduct of it, not the sole reason that TGI would have made that move. TGI made that move I’d guess because his freedom and livelihood was threatened.
I nor anyone else “defending” the source has made claim he’s vulnerable, but it’s a possibility. And any increased looking into the source by LE is obviously unwanted.
The point is joe blow behind a keyboard threatens a drug dealer and then gives drug dealer their personal info? Then every keyboard warrior gets up in arms when the drug dealer takes action. Again, you don’t threaten anyone without being prepared for them to snap back.
You can think your opsec is airtight, but is that a risk you’re willing to take? Laugh it off and let the guy make up and epic story to LE. Morefyah may not have had anything concrete or personally identifying but still, more attention is still bad.
You and @puckhog just don't get it. One of the guiding principles for MESO is to give members a platform where they feel free to air their grievances and criticisms of sources. MESO never censors or bans anyone for anything they say about sources.
This policy does not confer credibility to the member allegations. It merely gives members a platform to share and provide evidence to substantiate their allegations. The rest is up to them.
The use of secondary usernames has always been encouraged as a mechanism to protect members from retaliation from the source and/or other who wish to protect the source.
If this is still not clear, review the following post in which I explain the very specific and limited circumstances in which @Ej911 was permitted to use a secondary account:
Here is another post explaining why you are not permitted to create a secondary account merely to attack your critics or anyone else with which you disagree:
There is a huge distinction between creating a secondary account to air grievances against a source and creating a secondary account merely to attack other members and/or self-promote.
If you still don't see it, let me know and I will elaborate even further.
I said it in another post, I completely agree members should be allowed to make another account to air grievances, but what as ej911 actually provided? He’s provided no prof of anything, hell I can’t even remember a post where he laid out the actual accusation(s) its all been inflammatory comments along he lines of “I’ve got dirty” “you’re a shady person” etc. then a bunch of name called and attacking members, again, without a single laid out accusation I remember.
So it would seem that ej911 didn’t create an account to air grievance, they created another account to simply attack members, which is against the rules. Now if en911 were to actually say what these members have done and provide the proof he claims he has then by all means, keep the account and chug along.