Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

Today, this gentlemen offers us in a reply to Patrick (further down the board) a bit more information, he tells us she didn't take him for anything of much value, a dinner perhaps, but an "extremely reliable source" was taken for thousands.  Does he reveal the sources name, NO, but says "although I can speak for myself, I am not at liberty to reveal someone elses name".   (Possible Translation: I'll trash the girls name but my gullable friend's name is off limits.) Does anyone else see the contradiction and irony of these words?  

To date, the gentleman has not provided any details of her accused crimes.  In fact, he believes details are of little value as illustrated by his remarks here:

"I also think it was of value to specifically point out the picture of this one Lady instead of describing her modus operandi because she is so unusual it is not that much value to describe what she does. She just has to be identified by her picture so men can avoid her."

I'm sorry but I have a real problem with this gentleman's reasoning and I'm hoping others here do also.  It's as if he's saying the ends justify the means and things like fair play and burden of proof are of no import when he is identifying someone he believes to be a scammer.  Note that while her photo is displayed for all to see, he hides behind the anonymity of Digital1942 with no real name, no email address, and no explanation of his relationship to the accused.

For me this is not about whether this particular young lady is a scammer, maybe she is, maybe she isn't.  For me this about honor, fair play and about how we will be identifying others in the future. I believe it is possible to identify scammers here but at a minimum it only seems right that we first identify ourself, our relationship to the accused and all details of the story. Hearsay should be held to even a higher standard, as it's not first hand knowledge.  It seems only fair that if we are not willing to give these details than we should quite simply not make the accusation.  This my fellow board members is how honorable people act!!

El Diablo

Ralph,

You are reading this post with the knowledge of the information that he only revealed later.  At the time of this thread he had not given any of the details of his encounter with her yet he had posted her name and a URL to her photo.  If I follow your logic, we should have just accepted his claim and left it that, no details no nothing.  You only know the information about his date with her and the boyfriend interpreter because a few people applied pressure and he finally provided it.  Even then, he only really provided details of his encounter.  The big accusation he made was that she took a gringo for thousands, we've yet to hear these details.

I don't want to beat this to death. It looks like the board is divided on this issue but I'm personally going to always ask for details when someone is accused of being a scammer.  If a person speaks in general about a scamming incident that's one thing but when they are singled out by name and photo that's another.  

El Diablo

Most horror stories most likely start off with similar behavior. I wouldn't want to wait till a guy was soaked for a few grand to hear about a woman pulling the stunts this one does. I do not think a single guy here would want to meet her.

I didn't think my two stories necessarily backed yours up.  I admitted I didn't like her and that her and her sister got a free meal and a tank load of gas when a group of five of us went out to dinner.  I have my own opinion of her based on first hand experiences, not hearsay.  While I'm not planning on looking her up when I return to Cali I'm not prepared to call her a scammer either.  I haven't heard any credible evidence to date that would lead me to believe she is.  Any opinion I might have at this point would be based soley on speculation.

Maybe she is a scammer, maybe she isn't.  If it's the slam dunk case of the century that you say it is, give us some details so we can make some informed opinions ourselves.  Why should the unsubstantiated accusations of an anonymious person be given any credibility.

Come on Digital, tell us the story, give us some real facts.

El Diablo

Maybe this lady is a scammer.  If so, why not tell us how she scammed this guy?  I don't care about names, but I do care about details.  Provide them, or leave please.

   I didn't give you further details because of the remote possibility of going back (which I doubt).  And my story was backed up by several subsequent posters who identified her technique and that she had been kicked out of other agencies.  This seems sufficient.  I would like you to consider the possibility that Colombia is a dangerous place and by requiring men to identify themselves with excessive details you may be putting their lives at risk.  If this is the price, then its not worth pointing out a scammer.  I have no doubt that this Lady and/or her boyfriend have access to the Internet and are laughing now when they see the victim attacked and subjected to high standard of proof and they are given ever benefit of a doubt.   They are further emboldened.  Obviously, its not worth it and the board will be left to the goody-two shoe optimists possessing little sense who lead men to a false sense of security.  Perhaps, you can think of some intermediate form of disclosure which rings true but doesn't require a detailed diary chronology.

   As for the men defending these people, I hope they are happy at what they are defending (God knows why).  They will have to live with it.

Digital, I wasn't defending her at all but rather a principle.  The principle is that if you accuse someone of a serious accusation in a public arena, at least give some details so tht people can form their own opinion.  This isn't some abstract notion of fair play, it's just common sense.

By the way, is this the "smoking gun" we've been waiting for?

El Diablo

I guess the highly trusted friend's life would be put in danger by posting how she got the money from him, so I'll lay off.  Her boyfriend and his mafia cohorts are reading this board and could infer his identity apparently if any details were posted.  We wouldn't want to get someone killed afterall even if might help others avoid a similar scam.  We've got to be careful, they're watching us and the death squads are waiting!

I think your paranoia is getting the best of you.

Hoda...

Great point, in the end what really were the facts that Digital provided us, as best we know them;

1. gringo goes out for date with girl
2. girl brings young colombian guy along to interpret.
3. colombian guy works at an agency and can speak english.  
4. girl has dated young colombian guy in past, possibly dating him now?  
5. girl does not divulge past romantic history with young colombian guy
6. girl asks to look at photos of gringo's life back in states, house, car, etc.
7. gringo pays for dinner for all three. (possibly more but "night out on town" is not given any detail.)
8. girl or young colombian provide the transportation
9. girl asks gringo to pay for the gas as payment for interpreters services
10. gringo knows another person, we'll call him gringo-dos.
11. gringo-dos tells gringo that he was scammed by girl and she took him for thousands.
12. gringo does not ask gringo-dos for any details of this scam that took gringo-dos for thousands.
13. gringo believes gringo-dos to be an extremely reliable source

I sense that Digital is truly sincere but from my perspective this isn't the slam dunk scam story of the century.  While the story does strike me as odd, I'm not sure it's even a scam.  A meal and some gas hardly seem worthy of such an effort.  Maybe she's just a scammer in training, starting out small and later moving up to big things like free trips to the zoo. lol  Anyway, I think this isn't a slam but more like a rim shot and I can't for the life of me understand why he just didn't tell the whole story from the upstart.  I think you and Patrick may be right in that the fear of the Colombian boogie man runs deep.

El Diablo

You're right I would have been pissed too although I would have probably laughed it off a day later and chalked it up as another Cali adventure.  I must admit it was particularly odd bringing a guy that she either dated in the past or was currently dating.  Nevertheless it's not too high on my scam radar, this story pales to others that I know of.  But whether it pales or not it was legitimate to bring forward.  But in bringing it forward I think there NEEDED to be details.  I think the impression that was given without details was really quite different then the impression with.  

No hidden agenda or motive.  I don't know the gal that well but when I have seen her around my impression wasn't favorable.  The young Colombian is Bud's brother in-law, he worked at the Palace when I lived in Cali.  He also worked for Norm earlier this year.  He came to my birthday party in April with the rest of the Mis Gringuitos staff and gringos who were staying there.  He's not like a buddy or anything but I've always liked him.  I used to go visit my friend Veronica at LL a lot when I lived in Cali.  He was nice to me despite me being somewhat of a nuisance.  Anyway, I'm not at all afraid to tell of my associations with people around Cali or on this board.  

El Diablo

BTW, you lost me with the anonymous anarchist quip...   (-:

Why did he not register and provide an email? What are the details of his experiences with the girl in question? Maybe he is hurting from being taken by her, but he needs to provide some level of explaination if he is going to make accusations like this.

Just my take on the issue.....

Yep the tell us who is a scammer.  She is and he told us.

Like the majority of Colombian women who marry men twice their age.  Women who marry men who can't even speak spanish above the level of a child.

Look around the boards you will find fools and scammers and a few who do it right.  Very few

No proof....NO RESPECT!!!

Maybe she's a scammer, maybe she's not.  To date he has given absolutely no credible information that she is.  The only thing he has said is that a reliable source, who he refuses to name, was taken for thousands.  A few other people commented about her, including myself, but we offered no scamming evidence but only that we didn't like her.  There's a big distinction between being a pushy chick and being a scammer.  Why do you  accept his conclusion without any real evidence?

El Diablo

Peace...Hoda

p.s. Vet, you know I ain't mad at-cha. Just calling it as I see it!

That Digital guy didn't provide enough information in his original post, just trying to slam a person.

But, after patricks request, he followed up with more detail.

Personally, I'm glad he did because I meet this girl he was talking about during my last trip. She seemed like a nice person, but it is always better to know some background from others as long as their accounts are credible.

Now, I know when I return again, I'll avoid this girl. But, I'm not going to be the time to spread this rumor about her. That's not my place.  

Aaron

Hi Aaron,

Read his reply to Patrick again.  He really offers VERY little in the way of further information.  The only additional information is that he says the ''mucho dinero'' was thousands and that this information comes from a reliable source who he isn't at liberty to name.  This isn't exactly compelling information and the fact that he is for some reason unwilling to tell us any real details or identify himself ought to raise some ''red flags''.  

IMO this is actually a step below rumor.  With rumor, we might actually learn some of the facts of what happened. Here we haven't.  This is for lack of a better word, unsubstantiated hearsay. I never take unsubstantiated hearsay seriously, why are so many guys willing to do so here...

El Diablo

A few years ago I got some nasty e-mails from a guy on a message board telling me what scum I was, etc. etc.  It wasn't from the man who had a complaint, it was from a man who read the guy's complaint on a message board.  After several rounds of e-mail, I still didn't know who was complaining, but I bought my way into the message board to finally read the accusations.  Turns out a guy was saying that we would not remove a woman from our correspondence agency site and that we even told her that she should dump the guy because he was chasing other women.  Supposedly it was to keep her on the site to continue selling her address.  When I finally got to the bottom if it, it turns out that the lady was indeed complaining about this, but it was another agency, one located in Cali, that she was complaining about.  The guy didn't speak Spanish and she didn't speak English so the language barrier caused them many mis-understandings.  At no point did he contact us, he simply slammed us on a message board because he was angry.

This is just one example of many I could give where someone turned something innocent into a scam.  It happens all the time in this business.  The same thing happens often to the ladies.  Richard Woolderink comes to mind as one good example.

I don't mind accusations being made against someone, but accusations without detail strikes me as being an attempt at revenge by an angry man.  Angry men often embellish things to support their side of the story.  When someone makes a post intended to help others avoid a problem with someone, they give details.  I saw no details from Digital.  I see only anger.  That doesn't help anyone, it only hurts someone's reputation.  Someone who may, or may not, deserve the label of scammer.

I totally agree with what you posted here.

Feliz Navidad,
Aaron

On the other hand, I think freedom comes with some minimum responsibilities and among them is fair play. If you read some of the writers of the constitution you'll find that there view of freedom is not that it is a licence to say or do anything that a person pleases. This view of freedom is the view of the anarchist.  The framers see freedom differently.  In their view freedom is never seperated from the responsibility that comes with it.  As an example, that's why we have limits in speech.  You can't yell fire in a theater for instance.  (You can but there will be serious consequences to your actions.)

The idea of thought policemen is really silly, Digital is free to think as he pleases.  However in the same sense that there are consequences to yelling fire, there are consequences to making unsubstantiated accusations.  Nothing to drastic, a post from me or HODA is all.  (-:

In western culture there's a long history and tradition that if you accuse someone of something, you come forth and identify yourself.    An annonymous accusation with no details has always been under great suspicion and I think most reasonable people can see this.

Just so you are clear, I'm not claiming a higher level of legitimacy.  I'm only suggesting that people should be skeptical of first time posters, who go off on other people, yet provide no real evidence.  I'm not claiming the high moral ground in the sense that you've portrayed it either.  It's not about me claiming something for myself over Digital.  What I am stating is that I believe the principle of fair play, identifying yourself and providing details to be superior to providing no details and hiding behind anonymity.  This view is one that I would hold if someone accused you of something, yet gave no details.

El Diablo

Thanks again EL-D........Hoda

Thanks HODA.    I agree it might get interesting around here if some of the Calenas joined in and told some of their experiences. I think there very well might be a double standard on certain behavior and bringing it out in the open might be interesting to say the least.  (-;

El Diablo  

Just imagine for a nano-second....

- Photo's of Ho-Strollers!
- Ladies talking about being propositioned for sex!
- Photos of guys getting drunk at parties!
- Ladies speaking about being stood-up on dates!
- Ladies speaking about being stood-up for weddings!
- Ladies speaking out on rude & classless behavior of some
  of the men....

You dayyum right, there's a double standard. Unfortunately, the "bad" news makes all the headlines & is remembered longer.... One day soon, I'll be part of the "good" news, that is so easily forgotten....

Peace...Hoda

If a guy wants to identify a scammer, great maybe it will help some others out.  However there ought to be some minimum requirements when making such allegations;

1. identify yourself
2. complete disclosure of story
3. your relationship to the parties involved

This isn't a whole lot to ask for and I had no problem providing it myself when I wrote about some of my unfavorable encounters with her.  If you had made the accusation Pack, I would have responded somewhat differently although the same principle of fairness should apply.  You have a history here and people know who Pack is when travelling to Cali.  On the other hand, who is Digital, his first post was an accusation and as far as I know, no one knows him.  If people do know him on the board, then he's keeping his anonymity for a reason.  I think we'd be wise to hold new members of the board to a bit higher standard.

El Diablo

I seem to remember Randy G posting about spending 5 months in Mexico to learn Spanish and he was immediately criticized for being a "playa", that wanted to "date" women.
The bashing was relentless, but was by board veterans, so it was allowed.

Another poor guy posted an approach he used to meet women at the Mall, and he was trashed beyond belief because he wasn't looking for "nice girls". Nice girls don't hang out at the mall.

Complete disclosure of the story would require actually being there, would it not? How many men here have been accused of being "ho strollers". Were the accusers there during the stroll? If not how do they "know"?

A poster was recently accused of going on breast and beer trips. Where is the proof?  The smoking gun? Ooops, it's Ok becuase Hoda said it and we all like him.

I think if anything newbies should be shown more patience. How the heck do they know the unwritten "code of Cali"?
Maybe a polite post asking for more details rather than jumping down their throats would result in more newbies becoming veterans?

The double standards here are pretty funny. Maybe Malandro will pop in and remind us how the mighty troll fighter, informed us that "Mexicans were the worst", with no proof, or details other than "my girlfriend told me".

C'mon Ralph, me part of an old boy's network........NEVA!!!
LOL bro, if anything I've encourage the newbies. Don't start the Cali cartel thing with me! How many times do I have to post for guys to go ANYWHERE DOWN SOUTH THEIR HEARTS TAKE THEM!!!! JUST GO!!! You can check if you want, but you've never ever seen me post ANYTHING NEGATIVE about women from ANY country south of the border (now, north of the border is a different story...lol). I've never said anything about Randy G's stay in Mexico. Dayyum, I wish, I could have stayed in Cali for 5 months to learn spanish.

Ralph you're not a stroller, you have a wonderful wife, that has complimented what is good about you. There is a wonderful wife down south for men who exhibit & prepare themselves for the quest. Stollers aren't that hard to spot. If "outting" a stroller makes me one of the "Old Boys Network" here... then I'll pull up my rocking chair with my stroller shotgun until the day Stivalis is here with me in NYC. Then it'll be up to others to blast the strollers.

Got nuthin but love for a bro....Hoda

P.S. EVERYBODY LIKES ME HERE??? OH HELL NO, ROTFLMAO!

I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular when I mentioned the old boys network etc. I do remember people dissing Randy. I know you didn't, but you also didn't jump down their throats because they were not "newbies".
The people dissing Randy and others had less "evidence" and smoking guns, but were allowed to relentlessly bash.
El D didn't come to his aid, because the bashers were regulars.
I just don't agree with the hold newbies to higher standards than regulars approach. It creates a rather closed group.

Just my humble 2 cents. YMMV

I can't believe you said that, I did come to the aid of Randy and I was one of the few who did.  I got angry with his comments which I called incredible.  This started off a little back and forth war between me and HD and he quieted down for a while after the exchanges. I always took HD on when I felt he was out of line and I did it often.  The difference with myself and others is that I refuse to call people names.  If you don't believe me,  the whole Randy G business occurred around XMAS of last year.  Go back in the archives, refresh your memory because it's there.

El Diablo

When I say I got angry with his comments, I meant I got angry with HD not Randy G.  Anyway please read the archives, it onlky takes 5 minutes!!!  

Your recent memory lapse although understandable, it was a year ago, is one of the reasons I believe people need to give more details about events that put an identified person in a bad light.  People have a natural tendency to remember events in such a way that it supports their view of the world, you're proof of it in this case about Randy G. (-:

It's not a lie but they tend to reveal only the information that supports there view or perhaps they exaggerate the story in a favorable light.  I've seen it a hundred times and that's why I'm sceptical of stories until I've heard all the details and heard it from other people.  The agency scene in Cali is terrible when it comes to rumor and stories.  I lived there for almost half a year and I was amazed at all the crazy stories that get out of hand.  

El Diablo

http://www.planet-love.com/wwwboard/latin/archive00032/

Hey Ralph,

I understand what you are saying about double standards.  I'm undoubtedly guilty of it at times but I wasn't when it came to Randy G and the ruckus we had last XMAS.  If you've forgotten, HD and I went back and forth for at least a few days and I never once got down in the gutter which is where those debates usually ended.

In this particular case, I challenged the new member because he made a serious accusation, identified the girl by name and photo but offered absolutely no details.  You need to follow the time line to see how events unfolded.  

Your HODA analogy doesn't work for me.  HODA called an anonymous person this name while arguing with him in a back and forth debate here on the board.  The person was here to defend himself but even if he wasn't I can't associate the accustation to anyone real because the accused is anonymous.  This isn't the case here, it was the anonymous person who made the accusation and the accused was identified by her real name and by a photo of her.  She's not here to defend herself.  And we weren't able to form an intelligent opinion because the accuser was reluctant to give any details.

In the end, can we at least agree that any serious accusation where a person is identified by real name should be accompanied by details.  I'll back off the full disclosure statement and the need to identify yourself.

El Diablo

Hoda...