EXPOSED: Children Running Mulltiple Assets Asking For 10's of Thousands of dollars and caught Gambling on The casino - A cause for concern!

MisterBurst wrote:

You fail to see the #1 reason, it is to make damn sure anyone that invested into this child and anyone who would be even considering investing in him after this is clearly aware of how he behaves even worse than an average child his age. Hiding this dangerous and unstable behievor from the people that I care about in the BURST COMMUNITY would not settle well with me. Do you disagree with me further making posts that are to make the innocent people aware of how the person they may be thinking of investing in is not only a child, but one that has very concerning mood swings and threatens sites that they can not ban him because he will keep coming back to break more rules?

Please let everyone here know where you stand on this again.... since I am here to look out for the best interests of this community, if you do not agree with me doing that, then please voice that clearly here so everyone reading (THATS A LOT OF PPL) know how you feel.

Thanks.

Yeah I feel like you should not be looking out for the best interest of the burst community! Damn straight!

No of-course not. I haven't said that, and please don't twist my words that way.

I'm saying that the way people behave in private is not need to be made public, and doesn't influence the way someone manages an asset. If you decide to dance the Hokey Pokey while wearing a pink dress and shouting at the neighbor in your free time, that's up to you, completely fine and shouldn't be made public as it has nothing to do with how you manage your asset. But it does change people's perception of you and probably make them less likely to invest. It's called the 'devil effect' or 'reversed halo effect'.

It's effective to do so for sure, but you have to be aware of the possible consequences it has for the guy.

I know I always seem to be taking the role as 'devils advocate' , but I also feel kind of bad for the guy. Minorities should get defense as well, instead of being completely slammed.

keyd0s wrote:

Yeah I feel like you should not be looking out for the best interest of the burst community! Damn straight!

No of-course not. I haven't said that, and please don't twist my words that way.

I'm saying that the way people behave in private is not need to be made public, and doesn't influence the way someone manages an asset. If you decide to dance the Hokey Pokey while wearing a pink dress and shouting at the neighbor in your free time, that's up to you, completely fine and shouldn't be made public as it has nothing to do with how you manage your asset. But it does change people's perception of you and probably make them less likely to invest. It's called the 'devil effect' or 'reversed halo effect'.

It's effective to do so for sure, but you have to be aware of the possible consequences it has for the guy.

I know I always seem to be taking the role as 'devils advocate' , but I also feel kind of bad for the guy. Minorities should get defense as well, instead of being completely slammed.

umm...thanks for not taking issue with my pink dress

cellis245 wrote:

I am not comfortable with people seeing the stupid videos I previously made, they are inappropriate and should not have been shared with the the Burst community.

I agree that my age is a concern, but for goodness sake I'm sick of you trying to tell everyone I have mental health problems when you don't have any real proof of this.

I also don't appreciate when you say it's a scam. Especially when you have NO REAL PROOF.

It's not a scam. I'm not looking for any more sales, I'm looking for the understanding of the burst community.

Actions now, not words.

The longer you argue here, the longer it'll take for you to prove that you have a place here.

People feel betrayed, they have that right.

Go do your thing.

We'll be watching, trust me.

keyd0s wrote:

Yeah I feel like you should not be looking out for the best interest of the burst community! Damn straight!

No of-course not. I haven't said that, and please don't twist my words that way.

I'm saying that the way people behave in private is not need to be made public, and doesn't influence the way someone manages an asset. If you decide to dance the Hokey Pokey while wearing a pink dress and shouting at the neighbor in your free time, that's up to you, completely fine and shouldn't be made public as it has nothing to do with how you manage your asset. But it does change people's perception of you and probably make them less likely to invest. It's called the 'devil effect' or 'reversed halo effect'.

It's effective to do so for sure, but you have to be aware of the possible consequences it has for the guy.

I know I always seem to be taking the role as 'devils advocate' , but I also feel kind of bad for the guy. Minorities should get defense as well, instead of being completely slammed.

If he would have apologized and left 2 or 3 hours ago, we would have all moved on by now. What he is doing now in public is exactly what he did in these messages, so it is appropriate in this case.

keyd0s you speak of not revealing private messages, and I follow your line of thinking. Maybe you should ask the admins over there not to do the same thing....

In this case though, he did post the private message from adam first.

whateveryousayman wrote:

If he would have apologized and left 2 or 3 hours ago, we would have all moved on by now. What he is doing now in public is exactly what he did in these messages, so it is appropriate in this case.

I don't really see how that would prove to be appropriate ? Private messages are for private instances, public messages are for public instances. I really feel like the presence of the latter doesn't give a green light for the distribution of the first

Focus wrote:

keyd0s you speak of not revealing private messages, and I follow your line of thinking. Maybe you should ask the admins over there not to do the same thing....

In this case though, he did post the private message from adam first.

Not quite sure of which instance on the other forum you speak of, but it private messages are being distributed there as well I will adress it too.

Yes I know he did, that's what I posted as well. but I believe he did so cause you asked him for proof of one of Adam's statement, and I quote:

'So, I ask this of you right now. Prove where he threatened to destroy your asset, or go back to the other side and make a public apology saying that once again you have lied to the community and that you have fabricated stuff up.'

keyd0s wrote:

I don't really see how that would prove to be appropriate ? Private messages are for private instances, public messages are for public instances. I really feel like the presence of the latter doesn't give a green light for the distribution of the first

Look at it this way...just for a sec, humor me...

Some guy tells me he'd love to kill the girl who lives next door to him... in private.

Two days later, that guy is caught standing over her with a knife in his hand, proclaiming his innocence.

Does the severity of the situation decide what stays private and what should immediately be made public, because hiding the private information is likely to harm the community?

whateveryousayman wrote:

Look at it this way...just for a sec, humor me...

Some guy tells me he'd love to kill the girl who lives next door to him... in private.

Two days later, that guy is caught standing over her with a knife in his hand, proclaiming his innocence.

Does the severity of the situation decide what stays private and what should immediately be made public, because hiding the private information is likely to harm the community?

Display More

Love the metaphor, though I feel it lacked some pink dresses xD

But no. what you describe is the intent of murder. Not sure where you're from, but where Im from im even legally obligated to report such statements to the authorities.

The private info that has been distributed here are not in line with that kind of reasoning. It shows no malicious intent, or necessary practical information . it just shows some sides of his personality. So to answer your final question: Yes, the severity of the situation does decide what should remain private. the name of your first pet isn't as severe as your intent to kill your next-door neigh-boor. It's mostly unwritten rules though, and you can draw that line any way you want. I just felt like this particular example crossed MY line.