Practical business ethics: when is it appropriate to disclose one's vested interests?

Given he has also discussed the risks and how people can lose everything... For example:

How well do you think his sales pitch is going?

Nothing he has posted on this site would be subject to such a query.

And if he did have a vested interest, he would declare it, as most organisations would have a set of procedures and ethical conduct requirements that employees have to abide by.

Or perhaps he is refusing to tell you about what investments he may, etc, have because it is a very personal question and you are just some dude on the internet. How would you feel if someone asked you where you worked?

Do you ask people who spruik whatever political ideology or party they belong to if they have a vested interest or are members of that party? How about in the various vaccine threads that have existed on this site where people have encouraged others to get vaccines? Have you demanded if they have a vested interest in the pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines? How about the religious posters who keep referring to the bible? Asked them if they have a vested interest in the sites or companies that publish bibles? I could go on, but you get my drift..

Or perhaps, you are reading way too much into what they are posting and you have created wild hypotheticals and expect them to answer for it, and it has become personal for all concerned.

Okay...?

I think that's kind of going both ways at the moment. You enjoy butting heads with him as he enjoys butting heads with you. You kind of sought this out. They don't have to agree with your assessment of their ethical standards and vice-versa. At the end of the day, their investments, employment, personal details is kind of their business. I have seen nothing whatsoever in any of the threads this has been concerned with (and believe me, this hasn't been enjoyable reading) that would suggest a vested interest. A mild obsession? Sure. But a vested interest? No.

Please do!

This is not moving on!

I'll be blunt. He is under absolutely no expectation to disclose anything personal about himself. Pressuring him to and coming up with hypotheticals about why he isn't answering such personal questions is what exactly?

You have spent quite a few pages guessing about what he does..

And why should he convince you about something so personal? Do you want him to send you a screenshot of his investment portfolio so you can be convinced that he does not have a vested interest? You are literally asking him to disclose something very personal, James. He's told you that he does not believe that he should answer that and you keep asking him to. Boundaries, dude. Boundaries! Whether he owns Bitcoins or shares or whatever, has absolutely no bearing on this discussion or his posts about Bitcoins or any cryptocurrency. Having a personal interest in a subject does not always mean having a vested interest and if he owns Bitcoins, then good for him and good luck to him and let's hope it doesn't crash. That should be the end of it. If you do not like Bitcoins or do not see a value in it, then that is your opinion and you are free to it, just as his opinion is different to yours and he is free to that opinion as well. That does not mean he has a vested interest in it and it does not give you or anyone else the right to question him repeatedly about what his vested interests may be and what his investments may or may not be.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bells:

You and I don't know what he stands to gain by promoting Bitcoin, here or anywhere else.

Yes, he did talk about some of the risks. My assessment at the time was that his focus was more on the positives of Bitcoin than the negatives. At once stage he was making excuses for Bitcoin's high energy usage.

You and I don't know who he might be trying to make money from.

You and I don't know whether he benefits or not. He refuses to declare whether he has a vested interest and, if so, what the potential is for conflict of interest.

Who knows? We don't know whether he is employed to promote or sell Bitcoin.

You and I don't know.

Right now? Nothing. He seems to have stopped talking up Bitcoin for now. He could come clean, however, on whatever it is he has been trying to hide.

Promoting an asset he is employed to sell, or which he has invested in, means that he potentially stands to gain if other people invest as a consequence of what he says.

I think I covered this one, previously, in some depth. I don't intend to repeat myself yet again, on this.

If, hypothetically, Sarkus is paid to promote Bitcoin, and he is promoting it here as if he is an unbiased commentator, then I, for one, do really care what he does for a living. This would be a clear case of a perceived conflict of interest, which ought to be declared.

If you'd personally prefer not to know what's in it for the salesman who is trying to get you to buy his product, that's up to you, of course.

Or, we could just ask him whether he has any vested interest at all in crypto, and he could tell us yes or no. We wouldn't have to presume things.

Why? The perception of potential for conflict of interest. That's why.

No. He's plugging Bitcoin. At least, that was my perception of what he wrote.

If you have invested in an Nvidia GPU in preference to an AMD one because you think that Nvidia is superior, and you're advising other people to buy Nvidia, then I think it would be helpful for you to inform your readers that you're not exactly unbiased.

However, the specific vested interest I have been most concerned with in this thread is a financial interest. If you don't work for Nvidia and don't stand to benefit financially from promoting it, then it's probably safe to assume you're giving your opinion as an ordinary consumer and therefore that you have no vested interest beyond that of the run-of-the-mill consumer of computer graphics hardware. Nevertheless, if it doubt, it wouldn't be wrong to ask you whether were employed by Nvidia to promote its product, or similar. It's not hard to say "No."

I asked Sarkus specifically whether he is employed to promote crypto, or to sell it, or to trade in it. More generally, I asked if he had any relevant vested interest he wanted to declare. His interest in the topic/subject matter is obvious. Any vested financial interest he might have is not.

For the benefit of readers, who might otherwise be under the impression that he has no conflict of interest. It's not hard to say "I have no vested interest", if that's the case. It's hardly giving away a great secret about yourself. On the other hand, if one does have a relevant vested interest, one really ought to declare it when promoting a product or service or investment.

His promotion of the virtues of Bitcoin might lead people to invest in Bitcoin, thus driving the price up and leading to a financial benefit to him, in that case. Also, he wouldn't be giving an unbiased opinion, considering both the good and bad sides of Bitcoin investment. In such circumstances, it would be ethical to disclose his interest.

Or, you could just ask, rather than having to make assumptions that might be wrong.

You and I don't know that, in Sarkus's case. We have no way of assessing whether he is gaining financially or not. Remember, he refuses to tell us anything at all.

It would depend on the "something", of course. Certainly, if I had a relevant conflict of interest of some kind, I would probably disclose it before being asked.

It would depend on whether the question was relevant to my promotion of those investments, I suppose.

So you're saying that asking the question "Are you paid to promote Bitcoin?" is off limits, under all circumstances, on sciforums, in your opinion?

We should just guess and assume, instead?

You and I don't know whether or not he is doing anything more than that. We don't know, because he refuses to say anything at all on the matter.

What you're telling me is that you're willing to put your trust in him and therefore you don't need him to disclose any conflict of interest he might have. You're just going to assume - on the basis of nothing in particular - that he is well intentioned, with no vested interests that are relevant.

That's your decision. If that's what works for you, fine. I think it's a little naive, and I'm not obliged to make the same assumptions you want to make.

There is a potential conflict of interest that remains unresolved.

My advice to readers is: be very careful about taking advice from Sarkus regarding Bitcoin. He might have a vested interest he is not telling us about. If that's the case, self-interest might cloud whatever advice he gives.

 

You're assuming he would act ethically. You ought to be aware that you're making an assumption, there. After all, he has refused point blank to declare that he has no vested interest, which seems very strange indeed. It suggests there are relevant things he probably should be telling us, but isn't.

There is a particular circumstance we are discussing here. You keep asking general questions, as if the asking where I worked was a question out of the blue or something. I have been very specific in discussing the appropriateness of asking the question in the particular circumstance where there is a perception of a possible conflict of interest.

I might well ask somebody spruiking for a political party or cause whether they were a member of that party, or employed by the cause, or whatever.

There's a reason why, by law, political advertisements usually require identification of the party paying for the ad (at least in Australia). It's so that people don't get a false impression that the political message comes from an unbiased source or (maybe worse) that it comes from a different political source than the one they might otherwise think it comes from.

This is type of declaration of a vested interest.

I don't demand such things. However, I might well ask, if I was worried about a possible conflict of interest.

In general, when it comes to vaccine advice - for example during the Covid-19 pandemic (which isn't over yet) - it has usually been reasonably clear to me which organisations people have been representing, if any, when giving vaccination advice. So, I haven't really needed to ask. Also, I have noticed that many people giving such advice declare their affiliations up front, as they should.

The bible is out of copyright. There are many editions. Sure, there are companies that sell bibles. But there are lots of places to get bibles - including for free online.

If somebody were to come here spruiking a particular version of the bible, naming the publisher and giving a sales pitch, then I would probably (if they weren't an obvious spammer) ask them if they had a relevant vested interest.

Certainly I plead guilty to asking the question of Sarkus and Seattle, initially. It seemed to me that they were saying lots of very positive things about Bitcoin, to the extent where their posts almost read like a sales pitch to me. So, I asked the question. Guilty as charged. I sought this out.

As for the butting heads thing, I am willing to answer arrogance with arrogance, to some extent. I don't think it hurts for people to occasionally get a taste of what it's like to be on the receiving end of their usual behaviours, for a change. We could argue the toss as to who started what. What is clear is that somebody doesn't know when to stop. Maybe that's me, in this case. But if I stop now, who will argue my side of this ethical issue against the horde? I'm willing to hang in there a bit longer and to fight the good fight, for now.

I have seen several things that made me wonder whether there might be a relevant vested interest in play. Hence, I asked the question. Given the angry response, I think I might have hit a nerve by asking it. It's not hard to say "no, I don't have a vested interest", after all - when you don't have one.

Speculation. It's what we're left with when somebody refuses to answer a reasonable question. We wonder why they are refusing. We wonder if they have something to hide.

I'm not really concerned for myself, in this instance. I am more concerned about readers who might otherwise consider him to be an unbiased commentator, if he really isn't.

I know I'll be taking anything he says about Bitcoin and bearing in mind that he could have an undeclared vested interest in its promotion. As an investment advisor, he doesn't seem like the sort of person I could trust, based on his performance here.

I would have been content to settle for a simple "No, I don't have a vested interest" or a "Well, I own some Bitcoin, but I'm not a paid promoter of it", or something. I would probably have taken his word for it. That was then. Now, the best practical course of action would seem to be simply to ignore whatever he writes about Bitcoin, or to read it and be appropriately skeptical and careful.

It is true that a vested interest can be very personal. That doesn't absolve somebody of the duty to disclose that interest, if circumstances demand appropriate disclosure.

If Sarkus actually is employed to sell Bitcoin, for instance, then his telling us all that might be a very personal disclosure for him. But, if he was worried about disclosing that, probably he shouldn't have been trying to promote Bitcoin on sciforums. If he did want to promote it, he should have been happy to declare the relevant vested interest up front. Start with "I work for a company that sells Bitcoin. Here's why I think it is a great investment...", maybe.

It's the hiding the relevant vested interest while simultaneously trying to accrue a benefit to oneself or one's employer that is the unethical thing to do.

I have stopped asking him to. He has been very clear that he will not answer.

That does not change his ethical duty.

I disagree.

A financial interest in Bitcoin is a little more than an interest in a subject or other intangible idea.

I'm talking about an actual financial interest here, not some vague intellectual curiosity in something. Don't confuse the two.

Okay, but our good luck wishes are not relevant to this discussion.

He is free to whatever opinions he wants to have, about whatever. Here, I am concerned about his actions and a potential conflict of interest regarding financial matters, as I have explained many times.

 

exchemist:

I think Sarkus has got this out of proportion.

There are a few others who keep kicking the can down the road.

I respect your opinions in most things, exchemist.

On this particular matter, we apparently differ on what is reasonable.

It does take two (or one against seven, or whatever it currently is) to tango. It seems to me that, among those who are arguing against my position, there is some misunderstanding, some conflation of different issues and some bad blood. In other words, there is more going on here than a simple difference of opinion about the ethics of the matter. A few people have separate agendas they want to prosecute, using this as the latest excuse.

I do have some sympathy with your view, reading between the lines, that it can become "unreasonable" to continue to argue one's position after a certain point in a discussion - e.g. where it seems clear that there is little hope of changing anybody's mind. Or maybe that's more a matter of just wasting time and effort.

I will also be the first to admit that people get very touchy when their personal ethics are brought into question. Since there are often "only" opinions in matters of ethics, there's only so far one can push ethical arguments. Arguably, arguing about something where there is admittedly no "absolute" right or wrong could be construed as "unreasonable". Everybody tends to believe his or her own version of ethics is superior to (or at least as good as) everyone else's. Hence, people who hold different ethical opinions can be thought of as "unreasonable".

Rather than coming to a conclusion, this seems to be ballooning out, dragging more and more contributors in. Again, maybe it's the ethics topic. Everybody has an opinion.

 

Baldeee:

Initially, I just asked him a question. After he refused, point blank, to answer it, I pushed a little, I admit. After all, if there was no relevant vested interest, it shouldn't be hard to say so.

I didn't ask out of the blue, obviously. I was prompted to ask based on what he had written previously.

Okay. You may be right. Maybe I didn't start with the assumption that he would act ethically, in general. I did, however, initially think that he might act ethically in regards to this matter.

On this matter, of appropriate disclosure of vested financial issues, I have no ongoing concerns about Seattle.

At this point in this discussion, Sarkus's choices are the centre of the ongoing debate. Essentially, he has made an example of himself, providing a specific case to which we can apply the more general principles.

Give it time. Let's see what happens.

In general, yes, of course. (Not quite true regarding certain posts made in my capacity as an administrator, but this isn't relevant here.)

It confirms it for you, apparently.

I think you're giving Sarkus a free pass on his behaviour here, because you're biased.

Sarkus will do what Sarkus does. I do not expect him to abide by my moral standards.

You appear to be correct in that nobody much is lining up to back my point of view on this. That, however, does not automatically mean I'm wrong. Maybe we can all talk it out, until somebody is convinced to change their mind.

I assure you, I really believe that one has a moral duty to disclose one's vested financial interests, in circumstances where a reasonable person would reasonably suspect the potential for conflict of interest.

I also really believe that in the circumstance where one is asked whether one has a vested interest one should declare, it is easy for one to reply "No, I don't", in the circumstance in which one actually lacks any relevant vested interest.

I should just shut up, then, and leave you all to it? Is that what you're saying? You'd rather I didn't post my views here, because I'm somehow forcing you to read this thread, even though you'd rather not? I'm holding your head to a grindstone here?

If you don't want my opinion on this pushed onto you, there's a simple solution, Baldeee. Try not reading what I write. You don't have to read this thread, you know - or anything else I write.

It's a fair cop. I concede that I have, previously, "continually" asked Sarkus to disclose any relevant vested interest he might have in crypto".

I undertake that I will not ask him again, unless he starts promoting cryptocurrencies again.

Refusing to say anything at all on the matter is bad form - rude and unnecessary. Taken by itself, that behaviour might be considered "unethical" for different reasons than the ones under discussion here.

On the particular matter of the duty to disclose vested financial interests, the most any of us can currently say is that we can't tell that Sarkus is acting ethically here, regarding Bitcoin. That leaves open the possibility that he is acting unethically. It is entirely his choice to leave that question open.

Please be specific. What are your specific criticisms of my position on the ethics of financial disclosure? Feel free to refer to what I have written in this post about what I believe on that topic.

I don't know why you concluded that I am "not discussing the issue at all". That seems an obvious falsehood.

Tell me why you think my "standard" is unreasonable. Be specific. Make an argument.

I have explained to four or five people in at least four or five different ways. I have given examples. I have referred to the facts at hand. People have replied to me; I have replied back to them. If this isn't a discussion, I'm not sure what you would consider to be a discussion.

It isn't supposed to be about that.

Which of his arguments have I ignored? Be specific.

I brushed aside that silly question of yours about whether I want to live in a police state and interrogate people. The answers are: no and no, for the record. I was hoping you weren't serious.

In post #74, Sarkus lost his shit. He described my position as "nonsense"; clearly it is not. He called me stupid; clearly I am not. He called me paranoid; I am not (well, not any more than is warranted). He called me dishonest; I am not. And so on and so forth - lots of character assassination, not much rationality, no civility.

And you think the "most objectionable thing" about this is my response. Sure you do.

I think this says something about you, and your relationship to Sarkus.

You have an absolute right to reply to this post, if you wish.

 

billvon:

No. I mean a reasonable perception of a potential conflict of interest. Think man on the Clapham omnibus, or the "pub test".

Okay. Good to know, I suppose, but hardly necessary disclosure.

Have you been promoting any of these things on sciforums? If not, there's no moral duty to disclose - at least, not any of the kind I have been describing here.

I think I could help you to reduce it to something manageable, if you see yourself as likely to be promoting or selling any of these things on sciforums in future.

 

Baldeee:

Has Sarkus appointed you as his proxy now? Strange that he disappears and suddenly you're here fighting his battle. Coincidence, I hope.

I'm not sure whether you're better than Sarkus at knowing when to stop badgering. I have been tossing up as to whether to bother responding to your latest posts, because there doesn't seem to be a lot of stuff there I haven't already responded to more than once in one form or other. But, in the end, I have decided to respond again.

There's no way to know. No disclosure has occurred. You could ask him, I guess.

I'll leave others to decide how they want to behave on this site, as long as it does not breach our posting guidelines. People will watch how other people behave. They will make their own judgments about the person based on the behaviour they observe.

I expected Sarkus would either settle down or continue to lose his shit. It appears he opted for the latter course.

Do my assumptions or guesses before the fact really matter at this point? The facts we now have before us are: Sarkus hasn't acted ethically, in numerous ways. The proof is in the pudding.

That's a bizarre thing for you to say. Whatever made you conclude that?

No. Initially, I asked a question. Initially, Seattle, like Sarkus, refused to answer it. Later, Seattle reconsidered. Sarkus, meanwhile, glued himself to the floor.

I have suggested circumstances where a moral duty would arise to declare one's vested interest, several times. Why are you asking for this again?

I take it, then, that you agree with me that Sarkus ought to disclose whether he has a relevant vested interest and - if he does - that he ought to disclose it?

I thought this was your point of disagreement?

What do you want to discuss, then?

Hardly. This is just the "pile on James" issue of the moment. Clearly, Sarkus has managed to convince you that this is about his "principles". I don't for a second think that his "principles" are what are driving him to keep flogging this dead horse.

People are complex. Few things in life are black and white. People can do good or evil. People can be inconsistent. People can have double standards. People can act one way towards one person and another way towards another person.

Maybe this vested interest thing is just a moral blind spot Sarkus has. If he also gives to charity, say, that makes him bad in one way, good in another. Both things can be simultaneously true.

After his foaming-the-mouth post, I'll wait for him to go first.

???

 

(continued...)

My deductions about Sarkus's morality, or lack thereof, in the matter of the duty to declare a vested interest, follows directly from what he has refused to say. My observations of his behaviours in other respects lead me to draw other conclusions about him.

I thought you were urging me to change my mind on this, and come around to your point of view. If not, why are you still posting about it to me?

If you're content for you and I to agree to disagree on this, we can stop the discussion any time you like. In fact, I previously suggested that. Remember?

It would be hypocritical of me to do anything less.

Why? This is a new standard you're proposing. Please explain. Also, while you're at it, tell me why Sarkus is exempt from this new standard of yours.

Great! Then my work here is done.

They are wrong, for reasons I have explained at some length. Reasonable people can be wrong, from time to time.

Not necessarily. There are other possibilities. For instance, maybe they just haven't understood the argument I put to them, yet.

Another bizarre comment. What do you mean by "lower"? And why do you think this?

Now you're accusing me of telling lies, essentially. What makes you think I don't really believe what I've written? Why wouldn't I actually hold the moral views I espouse?

What's in it for me to lie to you, on this?

I have explained at some length why one "should have to". The moral duty means that one should have to. That's how moral duties work.

If one makes a point of not disclosing, on faulty grounds, that's a problem.

I don't know what more I can say to you, if you really can't see the relevance of Sarkus's interests in Bitcoin, when he appears to be promoting Bitcoin. Seems like you're got some Sarkus-shaped blinkers on.

No. In fact, I try not to. That's why I ask so many questions - t0 try my best to understand the other person's actual position. Apart from anything else, arguing against a straw man is a waste of everybody's time.

Whatever made you think I would really like to misrepresent somebody? Why?

I understand that difference.

Did I not say, in my previous reply to you, that I will not ask Sarkus again unless he makes it an issue again by promoting Bitcoin? Do you not believe I will do what I told you I will do?

Am I forcing anybody here to accept my opinion on this? Am I holding a gun to somebody's head or - less dramatically - threatening to get out my moderator's baton and thwack them over the head if they don't abide by my moral standards on this? You know the answers.

Okay. I'm confused. Do you consider any expression of my opinion as me pushing it onto other people?

What would you have me do? Just shut up and keep my opinions to myself? Will you do the same with yours? Will Sarkus do the same with his? Or are we all going to push onto one another?

What is a discussion forum for?

I would put it somewhat differently. I would hope that my expressing my moral view might give Sarkus a gentle prod, which might prompt him to reconsider whether his behaviour is appropriately ethical.

Nobody likes being called out for their unethical behaviour. I understand. One can react by doubling down and losing one's shit, or one can take the feedback on board and try to do better in future. Best case scenario: one can take responsibility for one's poor behaviour and pledge to try to do better in future; if appropriate, one can try to make amends with any wronged parties.

It's a pity that so many people have been unable to connect the dots, so far. Surprising, in fact.

It's rude. If you're asked a simple and relevant "yes/no" question and your response is, essentially, "How dare you ask that! I refuse to answer you, you scoundrel!", that's rude.

You make too many assumptions in that question. Try rephrasing it in a neutral way; try not to beg the question.

You keep giving him a free pass. It's obvious where your loyalties lie. I'm sure he will approve of you when he reads your posts, as you clearly wish. Don't worry. You've done your bit - gone above and beyond to defend your mate; he surely can't be disappointed in you.

Might as well shut down the forum now. Baldeee has spoken!

You're really going out on a limb for him with this kind of tortured rationalisation.

I don't know whether beliefs are a choice; personally, I doubt they are something we choose. But that's another discussion.

How many repeats is that, now? Look, you've made your opinion on this clear, I think, and I've made mine clear. What are we gaining by continuing this?

You've polled everyone now, have you? Come on. This is getting ridiculous.

I have my opinions about Sarkus. He has his about me. I have my opinions about you. You have yours about me. Call them all "biases" or "baggage" if you like; they are unavoidable. Human beings judge each other based on past interactions and behaviours, inevitably. You're not ever going to change that.

I believe I have addressed several "criticisms" on that. More importantly, I explained why I think Sarkus ought to answer the simple question I asked him.

The shrill reply "How dare you ask me that?!!" isn't very believable, in this instance. It has become less so over the course of this thread.

That's not any standard I have put forward. You're strawmanning. Bad form, Baldeee!

 

(continued...)

You keep flip-flopping between agreeing with me and saying that there's something you don't agree with. Which is it?

Please be clear. What is the "basic principle" and what is the "actual standard"? What are you talking about? What are these two things and how are they different from one another?

I read Sarkus's excuses, and the accompanying bile and insults. There was nothing there that deserved or required any substantive response from me.

What's to discuss? His uncouth personal insults? No thanks.

On the contrary, I posted a few excerpts from the posts that led me to ask my question.

No. You keep saying this, but it's not a position I have taken in this thread. Maybe go back and find out what my actual position is. I was quite clear in at least one post: look for the statements starting with the words "I really believe..."

"Disclosure is ethical if you have a vested interest."
What follows from this?
If somebody asks you "Do you have a vested interest?" and you do have a vested interest, what does the general principle suggest would be the ethical course of action? Answer: disclose your vested interest.

If somebody asks you "Do you have a vested interest?" and you do not have a vested interest, what does the general principle suggest would be the ethical course of action? Answer: say "No, I do not have a vested interest I need to disclose."

Simple, in principle. However, how this actually went with Sarkus was like this (I'm paraphrasing):
"Do you have a vested interest?"
"I refuse to say! I won't ever tell you, you scoundrel! How dare you even ask the question! It's nonsense. It's not fair. You're crazy. You're an idiot!"

There are three consequences of this "third way" response:

1. The interlocutor does not know whether Sarkus has a vested interest or not.
2. The interlocutor is left wondering whether Sarkus would disclose any vested interest he had.
3. More generally, the interlocutor is invited to speculate more broadly on Sarkus's trustworthiness in matters of morality.
4. The interlocutor is left with the impression that Sarkus is a rude, defensive and belligerent man.

I wonder, Baldeee, how you will respond, if anybody ever puts this kind of question to you. Will you follow Sarkus down his "third way" path? Or will you leave your interlocutor with (a) information about whether or not you have a vested interest, (b) the confidence that you will likely be honest about any vested interest you have, (c) the take-away impression that you are open and trustworthy, and (d) the positive impression that you're polite, open and friendly?

He is angry, clearly; or, at least, was. It's been a while now; maybe he has simmered down and will be more rational the next time he posts.

As for my take-aways from this particular exchange with him, see points 1 to 4, above. You reap what you sow.

The implication of what I wrote about the duty to disclose a vested interest leads you to the conclusion that I want to live in a police state and interrogate people. I'm finding that very hard to believe. Want to walk me through the faulty reasoning that led you to those faulty conclusions?

Are you going to double down on the obviously stupid, on this? Or what?

"Nonsense" typically means something makes literally "no sense", or has no meaning. Grab a dictionary.

You're still giving your emotional, angry friend a free pass. I hope it's worth it for you; you're on public display, after all. You're putting your own reputation on the line, now.

The incivility from Sarkys started long before any of that, even if I were to concede the existence of the "harassment" of which you speak (which I do not).

I have no desire to engage with Sarkus any more on this matter.

I'm rapidly approaching my limits for engaging with you any more on it, too.

How so? Examples?

That's the first thing I looked at.

What are you talking about? Be specific.

I believe I have been forthright in addressing criticisms. I have continually asked questions, as usual, to try to avoid misunderstandings. I am still talking about this with you, despite an almost total lack of interest in repeating my position for the umpteenth time.

I'll keep coming to sciforums and participating in discussions until it's no longer fun for me to do that.

This conversation isn't fun. But this isn't the be all and end all. While this might be your focus of attention here right now, it's just one more thing for me.

I don't need to prove anything to anybody in this thread. I have said my piece. My position and reasoning is all there for anybody who wants to read through it all with an open mind. I have a clear conscience.

 

Seattle:

This thread is not about the merits or otherwise of Bitcoin. I'm really not interested in rehashing that discussion, anyway.

I have nowhere said that discussing Bitcoin is promoting it. Nor have I claimed that the price would go up if people on this forum discuss it. These are strawmen.

Having the price of Bitcoin move is just one example of a potential vested interest.

Bear in mind that we don't know anything about what Sarkus's vested interests in Bitcoin are. None of them.

Are you sure you can't think of any way that somebody could have a conflict of interest when promoting Bitcoin on a discussion forum?

I don't think I said anything about its usage by criminals. But yes, it's bad for the environment, unless it uses entirely renewable forms of energy. As far as I am aware, it does not.

You're suggesting that people might have vested interests that they aren't declaring. That would be a bad thing, wouldn't it? It would be unethical of them not to declare their vested interests, in speaking against Bitcoin. Right? Now apply that argument to the people who are arguing for Bitcoin. See how this works?

Not at all. Clearly, since they own Bitcoin, they regard it as a good investment. If they did not have a favorable view of it, they would not have spent their money on it. If they already have a favorable view of it, they are biased, by definition. Not having a neutral point of view is what being biased means.

I have nowhere claimed that is odd.

Those two things aren't related to one another. I can be concerned about bias, whichever way it goes. If it only concerns you on one side, that suggests to me that you're biased. But we've already established that anyway.

You mean "here" to mean in this post I'm responding to? Or "here" on sciforums? Or what?

I have nowhere claimed that what you have said about Bitcoin has no merit, or that it should be "dismissed".

You have told me that you are not a paid promoter of Bitcoin. For now, I am happy to take you at your word on that.

 

Baldeee:

Nothing is really new in your latest post. You've essentially just repeated the same points again, while ignoring my detailed response to you.

It's fine. I think this conversation has more than run its course, anyway. I'm confident you're not going to change your mind, or come up with any valid criticism. You're just going to continue to act as Sarkus's mouthpiece. (Did he put you up to this?)

In response to what you wrote:

I exaggerated slightly for effect, but I got the gist of his response completely right: the emotional tone, the stubborn refusal, the foaming at the mouth, the rude insults, etc. I invite any reader who isn't asleep by now to review Sarkus's actual posts and decide for themselves, of course.

Clearly, I understand. In fact, I directly addressed this in my most recent reply to you (see post #96, for instance).

Bizarre. What on earth are you talking about?

You're just making stuff up now.

I addressed these concerns of yours in depth in my previous reply to you. It's not my fault if you didn't read or understand what I wrote, or if you simply decided to ignore it all, only to repeat your false claims again.

You ought to stop talking about what I do and don't understand. Either you have no idea and you're just wrong, or else you're deliberately trying to insult me by saying things you know are not true. Either way, it reflect poorly on you, so just stop it, please.

Don't join Sarkus in his ad hominem attacks. You've always been better than that in the past. Why sink to his level now?

I'm sure it's both. He has your ear. No doubt he's badgered you behind the scenes. Now you're completely onside with him. I'm not at all surprised about that. The only thing that somewhat surprises me is that he is using you as a shield, apparently, and you're fine with that.

I can do both. Even multitask it. It's a skill I have.

Don't tell lies now! I have discussed this at length - far longer than it ever warranted.

I expected it would be. Your reply to my reply is, similarly, a waste of time.

Want to stop now? Or are you going to keep going?

Please save yourself the time and effort. Save all of us the chore of having to wade through more of this bullshit.

I have certainly learned some things about you. You can be sure that I will keep them in mind in future interactions with you.

I understood from the start.

Nice try with "everyone", again. Subtle misdirection.

Word from the wise!