why do you idiots repeatedly try and run this guy when he provides real value here
of course his financial claims were full of shit, who cares, as are 99.99% of any insecure weirdo who feels emotionally compelled to brag about money on an anonymous backwater dead football team website
fuck off
No one’s trying to run anybody. It’s just good old fashioned mockery which in this instance is perfectly called for.
I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!..."
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
@jhfstyle24 ' theory is inductive. He just saying it smells fishy.
Anonymous rando on the internet claims to be worth $8 million from Bitcoin and makes $500K donations to a college football program, and we need a research thesis to deduce it's unlikely? I guess what I'm getting at is my belief that Sonics is full of shit actually decreased after reading that research. It sounded impossible to me until I read that.
Like I said last time Bitcoin/alt pins didn’t go up enough for him to 1000x if he just got into it in 2017 as claimed. Then he said he also had ZCL but Zcl
I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!..."
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
@jhfstyle24 ' theory is inductive. He just saying it smells fishy.
Anonymous rando on the internet claims to be worth $8 million from Bitcoin and makes $500K donations to a college football program, and we need a research thesis to deduce it's unlikely? I guess what I'm getting at is my belief that Sonics is full of shit actually decreased after reading that research. It sounded impossible to me until I read that.
Don't forget he got his seed money (what was it, $50k?) from selling weed. Lol.
Also when I first pointed out that Bitcoin and ethereum didn't go up nearly enough for him to 100x+ if he only got into it in 2017 he then said he took all his proifts and went all in on ZCL...but ZCL basically followed the same graph as ethereum at the same time.
I asked for a screenshot of a single transaction or trade involving large amounts of bitcoin or ZCL...and he ghosted the message board for months.
It also wouldn't be a one time $500k transaction...if he is supposedly a huge whale donor then this $500k would be one in a series. I sure hope he was paying taxes on his shitcoins!
The other timeline makes way more sense...his connection started working for UW in early 2018.
I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!..."
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
@jhfstyle24 ' theory is inductive. He just saying it smells fishy.
Anonymous rando on the internet claims to be worth $8 million from Bitcoin and makes $500K donations to a college football program, and we need a research thesis to deduce it's unlikely? I guess what I'm getting at is my belief that Sonics is full of shit actually decreased after reading that research. It sounded impossible to me until I read that.
I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!..."
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
First of all, didn't say that. Reading is hard.
The only thing that I said absolutely cannot be true is that he got rich in early 2017, because that doesn't match the timeline he provided. I simply laid out the rest of the roadmap and the two possible scenarios - either Sonics' unlikely timeline did in fact occur as stated, or he is in fact full of shit.
I did not say that his entire story cannot be true, merely that it was rather suspicious due to the fact that his stuff about his trades didn't match up.
It's not impossible that he did the trades to absolute perfection and sold at the peak, it's just pretty unlikely.
It's not unlikely that a newly rich 24 year old would donate a big chunk to their alma mater.
It's not impossible that in a 5 month window he went from UW nobody to UW megadonor who regularly consulted the staff about recruiting tidbits.
The point was that yes, it could have happened, but the timeline he himself laid out was pretty fishy. That was all I said.
I think you're taking my 5 minutes of internet research unnecessarily personally.
I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!..."
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
First of all, didn't say that. Reading is hard.
The only thing that I said absolutely cannot be true is that he got rich in early 2017, because that doesn't match the timeline he provided. I simply laid out the rest of the roadmap and the two possible scenarios - either Sonics' unlikely timeline did in fact occur as stated, or he is in fact full of shit.
I did not say that his entire story cannot be true, merely that it was rather suspicious due to the fact that his stuff about his trades didn't match up.
It's not impossible that he did the trades to absolute perfection and sold at the peak, it's just pretty unlikely.
It's not unlikely that a newly rich 24 year old would donate a big chunk to their alma mater.
It's not impossible that in a 5 month window he went from UW nobody to UW megadonor who regularly consulted the staff about recruiting tidbits.
The point was that yes, it could have happened, but the timeline he himself laid out was pretty fishy. That was all I said.
I think you're taking my 5 minutes of internet research unnecessarily personally.
Agree. But, if the end result of dunking on him is he doesn't share what info he has, I'd rather assume the pose of IDGAF if he's claiming to be the ghost of Dong James.
I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by this whole thread right now. To me, it reads like this:
@jhfstyle24: "Sonics claims x. But x can't be true, because if it were true, [long explanation of exactly how it could have happened] would have had to have happened."
Everyone else: "Ooooooooh, damn! You got him!"
@jhfstyle24: "And the timing would be such that you'd have had to start trading mega-donations for program access almost immediately after getting rich. And nobody has EVER done something stupid and pointless with their money immediately after becoming suddenly wealthy!..."
Everyone else: "Hello Pulitzer! This is hard-hitting shit!"
To summarize, I'm struggling to understand how all of this gotcha research did anything but provide a roadmap for how @sonics1993 could actually be telling the truth about his wealth and donations. This is the internet, so odds are still that it's bullshit, but how did anything in this thread help prove that?
@jhfstyle24 ' theory is inductive. He just saying it smells fishy.
Anonymous rando on the internet claims to be worth $8 million from Bitcoin and makes $500K donations to a college football program, and we need a research thesis to deduce it's unlikely? I guess what I'm getting at is my belief that Sonics is full of shit actually decreased after reading that research. It sounded impossible to me until I read that.
I would hope he understands that if you brag on this site you're going to get challenged. Post your BS then accept your fate but don't post and get run
I think you're taking my 5 minutes of internet research unnecessarily personally.
Your post had nothing to do with me, so "taking it personally" probably wasn't the wording you were looking for. "Taking it too seriously"? I'd buy that. Think of my post as more of a critique of your technically gifted writing. The tone of your post was the opposite of the effect it had on me, and I was just pointing that out. I found it interesting, that's all.
ATBSJBSS, I agree with the sentiment above that it's probably worth looking past a weird baseless internet flex in order to keep around somebody who does seem to occasionally have legitimate insider info.
why do you idiots repeatedly try and run this guy when he provides real value here
of course his financial claims were full of shit, who cares, as are 99.99% of any insecure weirdo who feels emotionally compelled to brag about money on an anonymous backwater dead football team website
fuck off
Calling out massive dipshittery is the bread and butter of this place. No amount of juicy insider info is going to buy you immunity from that. And fuck you for even suggesting we sully this place by handling "VIPs" with kids' gloves. Leave that to doogman.
Comments
@GaryMSumersDawg true?!??
Also when I first pointed out that Bitcoin and ethereum didn't go up nearly enough for him to 100x+ if he only got into it in 2017 he then said he took all his proifts and went all in on ZCL...but ZCL basically followed the same graph as ethereum at the same time.
I asked for a screenshot of a single transaction or trade involving large amounts of bitcoin or ZCL...and he ghosted the message board for months.
It also wouldn't be a one time $500k transaction...if he is supposedly a huge whale donor then this $500k would be one in a series. I sure hope he was paying taxes on his shitcoins!
The other timeline makes way more sense...his connection started working for UW in early 2018.
I don't even think he'd brag about the size of his donations.
The only thing that I said absolutely cannot be true is that he got rich in early 2017, because that doesn't match the timeline he provided. I simply laid out the rest of the roadmap and the two possible scenarios - either Sonics' unlikely timeline did in fact occur as stated, or he is in fact full of shit.
I did not say that his entire story cannot be true, merely that it was rather suspicious due to the fact that his stuff about his trades didn't match up.
It's not impossible that he did the trades to absolute perfection and sold at the peak, it's just pretty unlikely.
It's not unlikely that a newly rich 24 year old would donate a big chunk to their alma mater.
It's not impossible that in a 5 month window he went from UW nobody to UW megadonor who regularly consulted the staff about recruiting tidbits.
The point was that yes, it could have happened, but the timeline he himself laid out was pretty fishy. That was all I said.
I think you're taking my 5 minutes of internet research unnecessarily personally.
All the bullshit about selling 5 million dime bags or whatever was just a bad cover. The 1993 Sonics handle finally makes sense.
ATBSJBSS, I agree with the sentiment above that it's probably worth looking past a weird baseless internet flex in order to keep around somebody who does seem to occasionally have legitimate insider info.