Scammers - Hall of Shame

Admins are contacted.

Stay tuned.

FF

I was barred from a thread for asking a trading question?
I trade the market movers way, ie with them.

I was also told to apologise or else?
this sounds like a bully of a husband ill treating his wife, DO AS I SAY. blah blah bleat bleat.
what ever next

https://www.forexfactory.com/showthr...9#post11126439

"I was barred from a thread for asking a trading question?"

Not at all.

As you are very well aware, you made the following statements here:

"He is full of sh*t though,"

etc.

"The real scammers must be laughing at the guys here watching them bickering among st each other."

Probably.

FF

To say something or some one is sh*t or full of sh*t is standard English to disapprove of something.

I saw a thread where they glorified the Bollinger band ,,<<<<< sh*t

Mr Putin said something not truthfull,,,, full of sh*t. ( most politicians are like that)
I see lots of colours and lines on charts hiding candles, sh*t.
My ex wife, full of sh*t, do you get it...

I tell everyone, when i trade and how. i do not keep them in the dark...

erm thats it,,, i shouldn't have to write sh*t posts .
next post i will tell a story

billytt,

out of the three, you did the least wrong, in all fairness.

but what redoktober did now here, was a big mistake.

steps are on the way.

As you, as it appears have finally realized, my content is for real. I exposed the smart money market manipulation in detail.

I have nothing to sell.

FF

sit back and relax.
in the 20s & 30s share holders who knew good news was going to happen to a company would sell their shares, all the other shareholders would panic and dump theirs too, AND THEN the first lot bought them all back at a fraction and BOOM ,after a news release they made a lot of money.

Look what happened in the 80s, 90s and not too long ago .
It wasn't too dissimilar, we had massive sell offs and then the buyers came in and bought cheap.

Then we have forex, wink wink nudge nudge...

I thank you for the apology.
I was looking in the thread and you have one contributor who has his head so far up his ass he will never get it out again.
It is true the market is manipulated, IT IS A BUSINESS.
i worked this out myself, people speak of stops being hit, false break etc IT HAPPENS...IT IS BUSINESS...
Once we know how the market movers work we can trade with them.
BUT I KEEP IT VERY SIMPLE and for a small %%% return.

Trade well all....

"I thank you for the apology."

What apology?

Yours?

FF

Steps on the way. Stay tuned.

FF

PS:

"I wrote that FractalFreak had inserted me (together with the members Pooh and Billytt) on a proscription list , as the nazis did in 1939.
I quoted a historical fact. Instead , it's unacceptable that 3 FF members are discriminated against in this way."

You are wrong and you make your situation worse.
As you are well aware, I have NOTHING to sell and never did. You even admitted that there is no evidence for that.
But then you mentioned me and my thread in your "scammers" thread, easy for everyone to see, that you had no basis.
When my community turned against you, you got angry, realizing that you made a big mistake.

It is my VERY right to exclude people from the thread (see FF rules), and you had the chance to apologize for your wrong doing, including for your infamous "Nazi jokes" (ppl with any decency would have at least done that). However, you chose not to. It was clearly written on page one that only the "hard cases" like YOU, where ppl did sth. wrong, but then do NOT have the guts to correct it will end up on the life-time ban list. Your insults, unfounded accusations and racist jokes were just the cherry on the top.
Also, it is obvious that you have NOT looked at any content whatsoever, which makes it worse.
It is obvious that you now realized that you REALLY messed up here.

I can only assure you one thing; YES, I am a hedge fund manager, and if you do NOT remove my private details as soon as possible, this will legally escalate and in a big way. You can imagine what damage you are currently causing by posting private details about me here. You have been WARNED.
If you think that the "anonymity of the internet" is any protection for you, then you are VERY wrong. You already have been identified with a high likelihood. However, I will not do the mistake YOU did, and post your details here. I suggest that if you do not remove your posts as described, you quickly go to a GOOD lawyer. You have been warned. FF

"but it is exactly the way veefx said: you should apologize on behalf of all germans. your post was just disgusting, there´s nothing you can write to justify that kind of hate speach. will you call the next nigerian scammer a nigger?"

I agree, there is nothing to add. SHAME on you, 'redoktober'!

You got yourself in REAL trouble here.

DO the RIGHT thing and CORRECT what you did.

Otherwise, face the respectvie legal consequences.

This is the REAL world, keyboard warrior.

FF

"hahahaha - blablabla - that´s your answer when you are proven wrong by facts and your own posts? poor statement. Hauptschüler? "

Das waer ja noch das Wenigste.

Der Junge hat sich hier in eine ernste Situation gebracht.

Das ist scheinbar auch nicht das erste Mal.

Die Community hier ist gegen ihn, und damit hat er ein grosses Problem.

FF

Not the first time:

"
Court Cases

The majority of case law has shown that libel poses no problem in terms of definition and fault when it comes to a plaintiff pursuing legal action against the primary publisher of said libel; however, in the case of liability of secondary parties, correct assessment of liability has not fully been determined.

We point to three major court cases in "cyberlibel" liability as keys to understanding the current climate of the courts: Cubby v. CompuServe (1991), Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (1995), and Zeran v. America Online (1996). These three cases, along with several other attempts at litigation, have driven the courts' opinions on internet libel cases. Let us begin with Cubby v. CompuServe:


Cubby, Inc. vs. CompuServe Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135(S.D.N.Y. 1991)

In this very first major published case on Internet libel, the plaintiff, Cubby, Inc. claimed damages due to one of CompuServe's hundreds of independent, self operated forums. The journalistic forum called, "Rumorville" had an eletronic gossip magazine called "Skuttlebut" on which was posted a defamatory comment about Cubby, Inc. Because CompuServe does not review the contents of publications prior to postings, the court found that CompuServe held a position analagous to a distributor -- for example, an electronic bookstore or library, thereby relieving CompuServe from the liability that a publisher would face. This finding is based on the court case Smith v. California, in which the United States Supreme Court held that a distributor must have demonstrable knowledge of the erroneous (and defamatory) content of a publication prior to dissemination in order to be held liable for releasing that content. Prior landmark cases involving plaintiffs pressing libel charges against a carrier, including N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and Western Union Telegraph v. Lesesne, have found that carriers, or distributors of published works, do not hold responsiblity for libel unless they had reasonable knowledge beforehand of the libelous material they had distributed.


Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy (1995)

After having relieved much of the responsiblity of a network service provider in regards to liability, one might have expected a similar judgment to have been passed in the case of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Again, an instance of libelous remarks over a public on-line forum triggered a company to sue a network service provider. On a widely read financial matters forum called "Money Talk," a Prodigy user had posted about Daniel Porush, the president of Stratton Oakmont, a investement securities firm, and his employees. Porush, the poster claimed, was "soon to proven criminal," and further, Stratton Oakmont, Inc., was a "cult of brokers who either lie for a living or get fired." After reading this posting on Prodigy, Porush filed suit against the network service claiming Prodigy liable for this poster's libelous claims. Prodigy, on its legal behalf, claimed the status of a distributor (as in the case of Cubby vs. CompuServe). However, Stratton Oakmont argued that due to Prodigy's editorial control over content, Prodigy should be more correctly classified as a publisher. In essence, this is because Prodigy made clear to all users that it retained the right to edit, remove, and filter messages in its system in order to ensure a "family" atmosphere on-line. Because of these claims, the court classified Prodigy as a publisher and awarded damages to Stratton Oakmont.


Zeran vs. America Online (1996)

Finally, we come to the case of Zeran vs. America Online, in which a user was victim of a malicious hoax. The plaintiff, Kenneth Zeran, had his address and phone number posted in connection with advertisements for souvenirs (T-shirts, mugs, etc.) glorifying the Oklahoma City Bombing. An unknown AOL (America Online) user had obtain Zeran's personal information and posted these ads throughout AOL. Zeran received many disturbing threats due to this hoax, and was continually harassed via telephone and post. He sued AOL claiming negligence on AOL's behalf in allowing such notices to be posted, despite the complaints and postings he had registered with AOL upon first learning of the impersonation. Using the CDA (Communications Decency Act of 1996) as its defense, AOL claimed immunity through the protection that the CDA provides Internet providers. The courts ruled in favor of America Online, upholding that interactive computer service providers may not be held liable for posting defamatory statements posted by 3rd parties via the ISP. Effectively, this decision reversed the findings of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. vs. Prodigy."


https://cs.stanford.edu/people/erobe...mages/next.gif

you need to stop mate.youre spamming this thread.and i will suspend you to make you just have a break if you dont stop.
cheers

The way people here are allowed to behave is very shameful for this Thread, for the OP and for ForexFactory. The purpose of this thread was usually good, but it turned out to be a place for witch hunting.
redoktober is blindly accusing people of being scammers without any proof. This Thread cant be taken serious anymore. Not to mention him as a member.
This Thread should be renamed in "who do you think might be a scammer in the future - no proof needed, just guess". That being said, all the work of the members here who are truly trying to warn people of scammers, is being undermined.

btw the Nazi Joke redoktober did is in fact wrong and he would've faced serious legal trouble if he would be in Germany. @redoktober, if you would have integrity you would man up and apologize, but unfortunately your ego doesnt let you. Not to mention suddenly playing the victim role in a hypocritcial manner.
Furthermore calling someone a scammer and sharlatan(especially in combination with his real name) without any evidence is very weak and a crime. Just because its the internet you are not allowed to spread lies. Finding the truth isnt always easy and sometimes you have to work hard to find it. What you do is the opposite in a superficial way and therefore you cant be considered a member with serious intentions to protect this community of scammers, but just to satisfy your ego.

Feel free to insult me like you do with other members, I dont care. You already showed your weak character, that speaks for itself.

One can just thank god that redoktober will never work as a Judge, otherwise alot innocent people would've been put behind bars.

Is someone being scammed by Fractalfreak? No.
Is there any proof he is a scammer? No.
Did his members decide he is a scammer? No.
Did he took anybodys money? No.

It seems that members with a high post count doesnt have to follow rules here and can just throw in names they randomly choose.
How the Admins and Mods allow the people here behaving like its the wild-west is beyond me. Obviously Forexfactory Admins dont care, otherwise they would ve reacted long time ago. Here are clearly double standards welcomed, therefore this thread is a joke.

I'm on no ones side, but dont pretend to find scammers when you treat members improperly in the first place.

Ok guys please relax all of you cause I will have to suspend some members

Now yes we need to have solid information and members that have been scammed
before one is called a scammer, let's look through the evidence and see
it is simple
Also, no double usernames allowed, so do not create other usernames to support
yourself(you know who you are)

Thank you
4x

i remember here in the UK years ago,
A thief could walk down the street carrying a hammer,chisel and crow bar and even a mask and if stopped he could get away with, oh i am going to fix my grannies door???etc.
Nowadays it is slightly different as he could be done for intent.
Just saying...

Hi FFreak.

You have shared some very interesting court cases there.

If I understand correctly, you don't plan to take legal actions against RedOktober directly.

It's roughly implied that you could sue the Forex Factory for hosting his posts against you.

The way I see it, that's a threat to their business.

That's why I assume, ForexFactory may consider prudent:

First: Deleting the posts where RedOktober mentions your real name.

Second: Deleting any content related to you, starting with your username here.

Just like what they did with Jacko:

Because in the future, not only RedOktober, but anytime any member dare to post something negative about you.

You would then have an excuse to threaten with sueing ForexFactory again.

P.S:

- Apparently someone suspended FFreak, it was not me since I don't have 1 year "seniority".

- These are merely my assumptions, I do not work for ForexFactory.