They are the one's accusing me, they should be the one's to offer proof. Since they can not.......then they are trying in vain to scam the community for their own agenda.
I'm a little baffled. The defense can't be "because they called me a scammer," and because these two made this claim they need to prove that they are not themselves involved in a "scam." Holy cow. It just doesn't work like this. You need to offer proof of involvement in a "scam" for each.
But in no way can proof of such an accusation be as you have stated. Paraphrased, "They called me a scammer, so I'm calling them a scammer, and my proof is that they can't prove that they are not." I could get a more honest and cogent argument out of a child. Basically - "I told him I didn't like his toy car and he hit me." Cause and effect.
This is a little different than inserting such an allegation into some random discussion. You started a new thread calling two people "scammers." It's in the title.
If you accuse me of getting your gf, drinking too much, or being too blunt in my opinions....I'm guilty as charged. But when you accuse me of stealing from someone and of being a scammer, you dam well better offer proof. They haven't nor can they.
I'm not sure about the use of the second person here. I'd just like to note that I've never accused you of anything. I do understand you're being general here.
And I agree, if someone does make an allegation about "you" (as in Xardas), this individual should be required to offer proof.