... >end quote**************** > >Be truthful, "Viking", you haven't seen diddely from OmniPay about this >farce of "justice". Please, if I'm wrong, tell me the date and time on >the last post from OmniPay (to this list or ANY other) where OmniPay >states THEIR side of this story, along with the legal justification for >holding onto 1.1 MILLION of someone ELSEs egold ..... Reid Jackson's post (look the date/time up yourself, it'll build character) explained everything for you, but -- much like user-agreements of all sorts, apparently -- you refuse to read it. This makes your arguments pretty weak, as others have repeatedly shown. ... >quote: >>From what I have seen, Costa Gold quickly underwent a transformation from >a "offshore investment opportunity" to a "offshore game" when questioned. >They went from promising very high yield returns to saying it was a game >and to not count on receiving anything. >end quote**************** Exactly, Viking. >"Viking", why even bring this into the conversation? Is it just a juvenile >effort to try and sling some mud? No, it speaks to the character (or lack of same) of the owners (whoever they are this week) of "Costagold" when they change the wording on their site to "game" from "investment." You may not LIKE it, but it's a good point anyway. >.. From what I've seen the REAL issue is >OWNERSHIP of the funds .. NOT whether e-god(r)etal APPROVES of the >BUSINESS that Costa REALLY is ... or, is it? > Please, lamer, just call a Ponzi a Ponzi. This "BUSINESS" bs is wearing a bit thin. >Perhaps you are giving us some insight on what e-god/OmniPay is REALLY >doing ? Is e-god/OmniPay REALLY making a statement that IT DISapproves of >the type of business some foreign "Ltd" is running ? Should we now EXPECT >that the e-god/OmniPay will pass judgement on our CHOICE of business on >the internet ? > Read Reid Jackson's message. http://www.free-market.net/forums/e-gold0008/messages/573449902.html >Will we now start seeing additions, to the Holy Agreement, listing >APPROVED types of ventures in which e-gold may be used ? Perhaps they >SHOULD do this so that we come to KNOW where they all REALLY stand in this >issue .. I think that, perhaps, we are getting to the REAL heart of the >issue here ...... thanks, for getting me started, "Viking". > Nobody gives a crap about what this Ponzi Scheme does, their concern is over which thief (the authorized thief, presumably) gets to run off with all the suckers' (your) money. Since there's evidently more than one thief giving more than one set of instructions about a LOT of $$$, along with a claim (from Costa themselves!!!!!) of being hacked, I don't blame Omnipay for going slow. Now, do e-gold Ltd. and OmniPay have NEARLY as much of a problem with offshore entities that aren't scams? I doubt it from the messages I've seen here. >quote: > and thus providing negative publicity, that e-gold is a only >a tool for scammers >end quote************* > >"Viking", you are rambling again ... keep to the issue ... you keep trying >to SWITCH the issue over to something else. > The issue is scammers, like it or not, when it comes to "Costagold." You can try to make their (late) "game" claim for the "investment" they offered to suckers, but don't EVER expect that to fly here. >quote: >Why? Why should e-gold thank the entities who bring in users who aren't >willing to learn what e-gold is really about? Once the marks realize >they've been had, many of them scream to high heaven that it is e-gold's >fault. Few are willing to learn what e-gold is really about. >end quote**************** > >What IS e-gold REALLY about if NOT using it to get goods and services ? What are Ponzi schemes, a good or a service? (I'm guessing "service," but only in the barn-yard sense of the word.) ... >The REAL issue is about ownership .. Costa owns it, wants it back, and >OmniPay/Escrow/E-Gold/Brothers/Sisters/Whoever .. WON'T give it up ... and >it does NOT appear that the Holy Agreement SUPPORTS that move on their >part. > See http://www.free-market.net/forums/e-gold0008/messages/573449902.html >All of us "USERS" are now wondering how safe ANY of our funds are in the >"gold" system .. If you keep on clicking your "egold" to scammers like "Costa Gold," I'd say "not very safe at all..." ... >If OmniPay is the ONLY culprit here then I, respectfully, submit that ALL >"service providers" help to clear up this STIGMA on "providers". > >If Costa is the culprit here then I, respectfully, subit that ALL the >"service providers" help COSTA clear up this stigma on "providers". (and >let Costa retain its foreign RIGHT TO PRIVACY) > Costa's "foreign RIGHT TO PRIVACY" isn't (and shouldn't be) their biggest concern, IMO. They have a user agreement (which Costa apparently tried to circumvent) and their user agreement says nothing about taking the fall for scammers. Viking made the best suggestion, forget the gold for ten years and then go back and claim the loot when the law's not sniffing about. One thing's for sure -- if the crook(s) had gotten away with that $1.1M Outexchange and made off with the loot, you'd be 100% guaranteed shit-outta- luck. As it is, you should be thanking your lucky stars for both of the user agreements that you so dislike reading, since they're all that's giving you even a snowflake's chance in hell of getting your gold back. >If the government of the U.S. is involved in e-gold/OmniPay business, in >order to make a statement against "Costa"-types of business on the >internet, then there is NO hope for ANY of this. The TRUTH WILL prevail, >eventually. > Omnipay says it follows US laws, but I see no evidence (apart from your ravings, that is) for them being the feds. That evidence seems weak, but the evidence that Costa Gold is made up of (somewhat incompetent) crook(s) is pretty powerful. You trusted a crooked scammer, and your money's now effectively gone, only instead of being gone the usual way (stolen) it's still visible in the publicly-viewable escrow account, and nobody gets to use it. That must be frustrating, but you might want to consider this loss a "costa" doing 'business' with these types of Ponzi schmes. (I kinda hope the Gold Casino or some legitimate game site makes a fun/funny bet out of "will the Costagold people ever get their gold back, and if so when?") >The OmniPay folks AND their escrow folks should NOT trample on the rights >to privacy of "foreign individuals" .. this issue impacts the privacy >rights of ALL of us ... you too, "Viking". ... If by "privacy rights" you mean "the right to reinterpret the e-gold & OmniPay user agreements to include terms they already explicitly EXclude," you're going to be griping without success for a while. e-gold gives you OK privacy, but not anonymity. OmniPay uses US banks to pay customers, which means you must look to those banks for privacy (good luck). None of this is/was a big secret when you got an e-gold account. If you want to use anonymous cash to pay scammers, find something else like green paper or digigold or even physical pieces of gold and have at it! You even suggested that internet dollar system, which might be a better choice for a typical scammers' marks^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers because it's not grams of metal. It is odd that you attack the pseudonymity of Viking Coder (easier than arguing with him on your facts, so I guess I can't blame you..) yet at the same time, you seem to be an absolutist regarding "foreign individuals" and privacy of any sort. I detect a bit of a double-standard. jammer99 >. IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you are not using HushMail, this message could have been read easily by the many people who have access to your open personal email messages. Get your FREE, totally secure email address at http://www.hushmail.com.
--- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
